Sitting of 4 June 1942

Preamble
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]
NEW WRIT.
For the County of Essex (Maldon Division), in the room of Colonel Sir Edward Archibald Ruggles-Brise, Bt., M.C., deceased.—[Mr. James Stuart.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  NATIONAL WAR EFFORT.

    ORDNANCE FACTORIES (MINERS).
    Mr. Culverwellasked the Minister of Labour how many miners, who are fit for work in mines, are now employed in Royal Ordnance factories; and how many it is proposed to release?
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Kevin): I cannot give figures, but I can say that arrangements are in hand for transferring to coal-mining all ex-face mine workers employed at Royal Ordnance factories who are fit for underground work, except those employed on supervisory duties.
    Mr. Culverwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are a great number of coal face getters still employed in Royal Ordnance factories, and is it not extraordinary that, while the coal situation has been obviously getting worse for many months, he is only just now taking action to take those men away?
    Mr. Bevin: I am afraid that my hon. Friend is not aware of the facts. In the last six months I have transferred, at a great loss of wages to themselves, over 36,000 men from munition factories to the mines.
    Mr. Culverwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are still a great many potential coal getters still employed, and even redundant, in Government Ordnance factories?
    Mr. Bevin: I do not accept that they are redundant, but my hon. Friend must remember that this is a total war, and all phases of production have to be carried on.
    Mr. Culverwell: I wish my right hon. Friend would remember that.
    Mr. Stephens: Will the right hon. Gentleman make arrangements for the hon. Gentleman who put the Question to work at the coal face?

    WOMEN.
    Mr. Craven-Ellisasked the Minister of Labour whether it is part of Government policy to continue the conscription of women in industry after the war?
    Mr. Bevin: No proposal of this kind is at present in contemplation.
    Mr. Craven-Ellis: Does the right hon. Gentleman in any way associate himself with the report in the "Sunday Express" last Sunday?
    Mr. Bevin: I never read the "Sunday Express," and I do not know what was in it.

    JOINT WORKS COMMITTEES.
    Sir Patrick Hannonasked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a statement on the progress which has been so far accomplished in the organisation of elected works committees in munition factories; and whether the experience gained so far indicates that these committees are functioning satisfactorily and in friendly relationship with the managements?
    Mr. Bevin: I am advised that good progress has been made in the establishment of joint committees following upon the recent agreements concluded between the Ministry of Supply and the Unions concerned, and between the Engineering and Allied Employers' National Federation and the Unions. I am advised also that these committees are already performing a useful service and are contributing to the development of a closer relationship between management and workers.
    Sir P. Hannon: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the operation of these committees will tend to increase production in munitions factories?
    Mr. Bevin: I think so, yes.
    Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider granting powers to local education committees to inquire of young persons when registering at 16 years of age whether they are employed for long hours in violation of the Factory Acts, so that such information may be conveyed to the factory inspectorate?
    Mr. Bevin: Arrangements have already been made for local education committees to send particulars to factory inspectors of cases coming to their notice in the course of the follow-up of registration where boys or girls under 18 are working for hours which are excessive and proving too tiring. It would not be possible for the education committees to investigate the question whether the hours are in violation of the Factory Acts.
    Mr. Davies: May I take it, therefore, that the procedure is that where a boy or girl volunteers this evidence to the education committee information is sent to the factory inspectorate, but that where there is no volunteering of the evidence nothing is done?
    Mr. Bevin: No, it works two ways. It is the duty of the inspector himself to inspect, but with the magnitude of operations at the present time the inspectorate may not be able to cover everything. I therefore took the precaution of asking my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education to supplement the work of the factory inspectorate. Where his officers come across any cases, in addition to the factory inspectorate's own discoveries, they send information along so that we can follow it up.
    Mr. Davies: Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that the weakness of the position is that no complaint is sent to the factory inspectorate at all unless the evidence is volunteered, and is it not a little unfair that some education committees are put in a position in which they cannot do it?
    Mr. Bevin: I have tried to explain that I regard the work of the local education committees as being helpful and supplementary, but I cannot pass over to them my duty or responsibility for inspection. That would be quite improper.
    Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: While agreeing with my right hon. Friend that education
    788
    committees have supplied this information, is he not aware that some 20 education authorities have now found fairly large numbers of boys between 16 and 18 working excessively long hours, and will he keep a very close watch on this?
    Mr. Bevin: I am keeping a close watch on it. I have reduced hours in all sorts of directions where my attention has been called to cases, and I have the matter constantly under review.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    CALLING-UP NOTICES.
    Mr. Bellengerasked the Minister of Labour whether calling-up notices are sent per registered post to individuals ordered to report for service with the Armed Forces?
    Mr. Bevin: The notices are sent by ordinary post.
    Mr. Bellenger: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in some cases, when evidence has had to be given of the service of a notice on a man, it has been very difficult for his own officer to say that service has been properly effected, and as this is a very important piece of evidence when a man is charged with desertion or with non-compliance with a calling-up notice, will he consider some more effective method of making certain that a man receives the notice?
    Mr. Bevin: The present practice is that laid down in the Act, under which it is my duty to send a notice to any person, for the purposes of any provision of the Act, by post to the person's last known address. I have looked into the matter very closely, and I cannot think it is practicable, in view of the thousands of notices which have to be sent out under the various parts of the National Service Acts—not only concerning military service—to do the whole business by registered post.

    PRE-ENTRY TRAINING.
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Minister of Labour whether he has now a statement to make as to any agreement with the President of the Board of Education relative to the opportunity for education and training at Government training centres of pre-entry recruits for the Services?
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. McCorquodale): The vast majority of boys are engaged full-time in work of national importance up to the time when they are required to join the Armed Forces, and it would not be in the national interest to take them off such work and give them full-time training. I understand that my right hon. Friends, the Secretary of State for War and the President of the Board of Education, are considering a scheme for provision of evening courses of technical instruction-for members of the Cadet Force. There are still a few boys unemployed in certain parts of the country; if they are over 16 and satisfy certain conditions, they are eligible for admission to Government training centres, where 1,136 boys are now receiving courses of instruction.
    Mr. Adams: Can the Minister inform us when we are likely to have the report on this matter which was promised some time ago?
    Mr. McCorquodale: I think my right hon. Friend would welcome a discussion with my hon. Friend on the subject.

  CIVIL DEFENCE.

    SHELTERS (ANTI-GAS MEASURES).
    Mr. Graham Whiteasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will inform the House what instructions have been given to shelter-wardens for their conduct in case of gas attack; and whether all public air-raid shelters with a scheduled accommodation for over 50 persons have been gas-proofed?
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Instructions have been given that the shelter wardens should receive basic wardens' training, or a simplified form of such training, both of which include training in anti-gas measures. In addition, directions have been issued that instruction should be given to wardens in charge of shelters on arrangements for the safety, comfort and convenience of the public. As regards the second part of the Question, I am sending my hon. Friend copies of circulars which were addressed to local authorities concerning the gas proofing of shelters. The matter is being kept under
    790
    constant review in the light of the relevant factors obtaining.
    Mr. White: May I ask whether any refresher has been sent out, in view of the war situation?
    Mr. Morrison: I do not think so, speaking from memory. I doubt whether it is necessary, but I will consider that point.

    DETAINEES.
    Sir Irving Alberyasked the Home Secretary what period usually elapses after receiving the findings of the Committee considering the cases of persons detained under Regulation 18B before his decision is announced to the detained person?
    Mr. H. Morrison: For the reasons which I explained in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Touche) on nth November last, these cases differ in character, and to specify any particular period as normal would be misleading. Every effort is made to avoid delay, but the time taken to reach a decision necessarily varies according to the circumstances.
    Sir I. Alberyasked the Home Secretary whether any money allowance is made to persons, without any personal means, who are detained under Regulation 18B?
    Mr. Morrison: The general principle in this matter is to provide work by means of which interned or detained persons who are without means can earn some money. If work is not available or the person is unfit for work, a small grant of pocket money would be made from the Camp Welfare Fund, which is derived mainly from canteen profits. In the case of the women detained under Regulation 18B in the women's camp or the married camp, a grant of pocket money from public funds has been made in a very small number of cases as the welfare fund of these camps, where there are no canteens, are insufficient for this purpose.
    Sir I. Albery: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any information as to the kind of work which men detainees do in prison?
    Mr. Morrison: No, Sir, not without notice.
    Sir I. Albery: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to let me have that information?
    Mr. Morrison: I will do my best.
    Mr. Edmund Harvey: Have any arrangements been made regarding the rates of pay for prison work undertaken by detainees?
    Sir Herbert Williamsasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that a detenue under Regulation 18B at Holloway Prison wrote a letter on 3rd May to the hon. Member for Croydon, South; that this letter was not passed by the censor at the prison until 13th May and was not posted until 22nd May; and whether he will take steps to ensure that letters written by detenues are posted more promptly in future?
    Mr. Morrison: The letter to which my hon. Friend refers was one of a collection of over 200 identical communications sent out by some of the women in Holloway Prison for the purpose of making representations against their continued detention under Defence Regulation 18B, and purporting to give their collective views on that Regulation and its administration: and the Prison Authorities felt that they ought to submit for my decision the general question whether the facilities given for letters to M.P.s were intended to cover circular communications of this kind. As the despatch of the letters did not appear to be a matter of immediate urgency, posting was held up pending my decision. In the ordinary course letters are posted without any delay.
    Sir H. Williams: Am I really to understand that a person in prison who writes to her Member of Parliament can have the letter examined by the Censor on the 13th and then have that letter sat on until the 22nd before it is posted?
    Mr. Morrison: In the ordinary way, no, Sir, but this started a new process in which circulars on a large scale and on general issues were involved. The Prison Commissioners took the view that a point of principle arose on which a decision was necessary. That was the reason for the delay. I did sanction the posting of the letters.
    Sir I. Alberyasked the Home Secretary how many of the 62 persons detained under Regulation 18B, against the advice of the Advisory Committee, are British subjects not of hostile origin;
    792
    and whether he now proposes to give such persons any opportunity to justify the recommendation of the Advisory Committee?
    Mr. Morrison: Twenty of the 62 persons referred to are British subjects not of hostile origin, and at the present time I am not satisfied that their release can properly be authorised having regard to the interests of national security.
    Sir I. Albery: Does my right hon. Friend propose to adopt any measure by which these persons can, at some time, at any rate, remove the stigma which their internment places upon them?
    Mr. Morrison: It has always been open to persons detained under this Regulation to apply to be reheard by the Advisory Committee. These applications are always given the most careful consideration.
    Sir I. Albery: But these persons have already been heard by the Advisory Committee, and the right hon. Gentleman refuses to accept the decision.
    Mr. Morrison: I assume that they have already been heard by the Advisory Committee, but Parliament holds me responsible for the security of the State, and I cannot be responsible to Parliament unless I use my own judgment in this matter.
    Mr. McGovern: Has the case of Cahir Healy been considered?

    TRAVEL PERMITS (NORTHERN IRELAND).
    Dr. Littleasked the Home Secretary whether he will review the whole position regarding the granting of travel permits to Northern Ireland people in Britain to visit their friends at regular intervals, with a view to the removal of vexatious restrictions which are causing inconvenience to many people?
    Mr. H. Morrison: The whole question is reviewed periodically, but I regret that I cannot at the present time add anything to what I said in reply to my hon. Friend's Question on 14th May last.
    Dr. Little: If I put before my right hon. Friend some of these very vexatious restrictions, will he give them his careful consideration with a view to their removal? They are intolerable at the moment in some cases.
    Mr. Morrison: I will certainly give consideration to any representations which my hon. Friend may make to me.

    "DAILY WORKER."
    Mr. William Brownasked the Home Secretary whether he will now repeal the ban on the "Daily Worker" and withdraw the warnings issued to other papers?
    Mr. Fosterasked the Home Secretary whether he will reconsider the lifting of the ban on the "Daily Worker" in view of the widespread feeling in the country that the ban should be lifted?
    Mr. Dobbieasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the widespread desire manifested by resolutions from many parts of the country, he is now in a position to make a statement in regard to lifting the ban on the "Daily Worker"?
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the demand from all sections of the working-class and the people of the country in general, he will now lift the ban on the "Daily Worker"?
    Mr. J. J. Davidsonasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the decisions of strong industrial and political conferences recently, he intends to review the whole position of the freedom of the Press, including the repression of the "Daily Worker"?
    Mr. H. Morrison: To the Question whether in consequence of the opinions expressed in various quarters the Government are now prepared to cancel the Order prohibiting the "Daily Worker," the answer is in the negative. To the Question about the warning given to the "Daily Mirror," the suggestion of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Brown) would mean announcing that it is open to any newspaper systematically to publish matter calculated to foment opposition to the war effort, and that course could not properly be taken by a Government which exists to wage war to a victorious conclusion.
    Mr. Brown: Is the Home Secretary a ware of the very bad effect which this continued suppression is having in the industrial factories and the workshops, and if he will not remove the ban, will he advise me how I can proceed against him
    794
    for causing public alarm and despondency?
    Mr. Morrison: In answer to the first part of the question, I am not aware of that fact. In answer to the second part, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to advise the hon. Member how to proceed against me.
    Mr. Gallacher: If the Government are not prepared to give any consideration to the very widespread public feeling that has been expressed in this country and to reconsider this question, is the Minister prepared to make a statement that this ban is absolutely permanent and that no matter what opinions are expressed from any quarters or any sources he is not prepared to give any consideration to them?
    Mr. Morrison: In answer to the first part of the question, the Government always take into account public opinion, but this is a matter on which the Government must decide in the light of a wide variety of considerations. As to the hon. Member's last point, as to whether the ban is permanent, I have never made such an assertion, and I do not now.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend going to flout the decision of the Labour Party Conference last week?
    Mr. Morrison: I think that my hon. Friend is uttering a curious constitutional doctrine. I have always understood that a Minister of the Crown is responsible to Parliament. While as a politician it is my duty to take account of everybody's point of view, including that of my own party, I can only express my own hope that my hon. Friend will himself never be backward in taking account of the opinion of his colleagues.
    Mr. Shinwell: Does my right hon. Friend accept no responsibility at all to the Labour Party?
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Minister of Information whether his attention has been called to the attack on the "Daily Worker," made by a British Broadcasting Corporation spokesman, on Tuesday, 26th May; and will he instruct the British Broadcasting Corporation to provide a representative of the "Dairy Worker" with an opportunity to reply?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Mr. Thurtle): I have read the broadcast in question I

    795
    think that the speaker was attempting no more than to reply to a question sent in by a listener asking, "Why do we continue to enforce the ban on the 'Daily Worker'?" He explained in his answer that he could only give the Government's reasons for their action. I do not think that this calls for a counter-broadcast by a representative of the "Daily Worker."
    Mr. Gallacher: Are we to understand from the Parliamentary Secretary that the B.B.C. is to be used as a coward's castle where unprincipled attacks may be made on other people without there being an opportunity of reply? Further, is he aware that the Government's argument for the suppression of the "Daily Worker" is absolutely putrid?
    Mr. Thurtle: I have already said that the speaker gave only the Government's reasons for the banning and the continuance of the ban. The reason given for the ban was because for a long time the "Daily Worker" tried to stir up opposition to the war and take the heart out of our own war effort. The reason for the continuance of the ban was this: If these people could ridicule our war effort and jeer at our principles when we were in terrible danger, how do you suppose they would change their character just because circumstances have changed?
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that there is a very effective reply to all this insinuation, which is more lies than anything else? Would he not agree that a representative of the "Daily Worker" has a right to say something on the matter? It is scandalous.

    FIRE SERVICE.
    Mr. T. Henderson (for Mr. Dobbie)asked the Home Secretary what treatment fire-watchers are entitled to in cases where they have contracted a contagious disease while undertaking fire-watching duties; can they obtain treatment allowances and treatment from the Ministry of Pensions as suffering from War Service Injuries, or are they eligible for full wages or compensation when they are watching on the premises of their employers, or are they only entitled to Health Insurance benefit?
    Mr. H. Morrison: If my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions were satisfied that fire guards on business
    796
    premises to which the Order has been applied or who are members of the local authority's fire guard had contracted a contagious disease as the result of their duties, they would be entitled to a War Service Injury allowance and to a supplementary allowance in respect of loss of wages. They would also be eligible for the free treatment in hospital and by medical practitioners provided under the Emergency Medical Services Scheme for War Service Injuries.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    General Sir George Jeffreysasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that certain organisations of conscientious objectors have been attempting to bargain with local defence committees as to the class of work which they might be called upon to perform in case of invasion; and whether he will make it clear that conscientious objectors can, in such circumstances, be ordered to perform any kind of work which other civilians may be called upon to do?
    Mr. H. Morrison: I have no information in regard to the first part of the Question. As regards the second, I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service that under Regulation 84AA of the Defence (General) Regulations directions to civilians to perform work (other than combatant duties) needed in connection with operations for meeting enemy action on land will be given not by local defence committees, but by specially appointed officers acting on his behalf and that in the conditions contemplated by the Regulation it would be impracticable to discriminate between one civilian and another.

  ALIENS (GAMING OFFENCES, LONDON).
  Mr. Wootton-Daviesasked the Home Secretary how many aliens have been convicted for taking part in gambling in London within the last six months; and whether he is satisfied that penalties are in these cases sufficiently repressive?
  Mr. H. Morrison: Since the beginning of December last 92 aliens and 366 non-aliens have been convicted in the Metropolitan Police District for gaming offences. The

  797
  penalty to be imposed, within the maximum for which the law provides, is a matter for the court to decide, and I have no information to suggest that the courts tail to make appropriate use of their powers.

  POLICE WAR RESERVISTS AND SPECIAL CONSTABLES (APPEALS).
  Mr. Bowlesasked the Home Secretary whether, in order to give police war reservists and full-time special constables a right of appeal against dismissal, similar to that enjoyed by members of the National Fire Service, he will amend the Temporary Constables (Emergency) Rules, 1942, and the Special Constables Order, 1923.
  Mr. H. Morrison: So far as I know, no cases have arisen to suggest any need for an appeal procedure for Police War Reservists and full-time Special Constables If, however, my hon. Friend has any specific cases in mind, I should be glad to look into them.
  Mr. Bowles: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that answer, may I ask what is the basis of the anomalous position in which right of appeal against dismissal by chief constables or senior officers is granted so far as borough police and the members of the National Fire Service are concerned, but there is no right of appeal so far as county police are concerned and, in the City of London, police constables and special constables?
  Mr. Morrison: The fundamental difference is that, in the case of the National Fire Service, I am the employer of the whole of the personnel, whereas in the case of the police the employer is the local authority.

  DELAYED BURIAL.
  Mr. Bowlesasked the Home Secretary why the body of the lance-corporal in the Auxiliary Territorial Service, whose name and particulars have been supplied to him by the hon. Member for Nuneaton, was kept from 7th April, 1942, the day of death, until 27th May, 1942, before a burial order was issued; whether he has taken any steps and, if so, what steps, to ensure that there shall never be any recurrence of a case where the body of any member of the Services or of the public shall remain unburied for so long?
  Mr. H. Morrison: I have made inquiries and find that this death was reported to the Coroner on 10th April by the authorities of the hospital in which it occurred with a view to investigation of the question whether death might be due to some form of poisoning. The Coroner ordered a post-mortem examination by a pathologist, thinking that possibly such an examination might render an inquest unnecessary: and pending the receipt of the pathologist's report he took the view that he was not authorised to allow the body to be buried, as the question whether an inquest should be held was still undecided and there was a possibility that the pathologist might want to see the body again. The pathological investigation proved difficult and the pathologist's report was not received until 23rd May. The Coroner was, I think, wrong in this case in not opening an inquest, adjourning it pending the receipt of the pathologist's report and issuing the authority for burial. I have caused him to be so informed. The delay in burial is much regretted and I would wish to express my sympathy with the relatives of the deceased.
  Mr. Bowles: Is it really necessary for the body of any person, whether a member of the A.T.S. or of the general public, to remain unburied for 50 days? Will the right hon. Gentleman write a kindly letter to the near relatives? Finally, would he also here and now publicly request the Press, if any of them happen to know the name concerned, not to go seeking information in the locality?
  Mr. Morrison: I am sure that the Press would not wish to rake over this business, which is of such a personal character. On the other point, I will certainly give sympathetic consideration to the suggestion which my hon. Friend has made.

  EDUCATION.

    BUILDING INDUSTRY (TRAINING).
    Mr. Oldfieldasked the President of the Board of Education what lead his Department have given to the education authorities in furtherance of a scheme for the training of boys in our schools as future workers in the building industry; and whether it is the intention of his Department to give some guarantee to the parents of these boys that continuity of employment will be one of its main features?
    The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): A circular, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy, has at the request of the Minister of Works and Buildings been issued to local education authorities for higher education, urging the importance of greatly increased provision in junior technical schools for the training of recruits to the building industry. The hon. Member will see in the circular that special attention is being devoted to the problem of continuity of employment.
    Viscountess Astor: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the building trade do not do after this war what they did after the last war—keep the apprentices out?

    STUDENTS (VOLUNTARY WAR WORK).
    Mr. Edmund Harveyasked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the efforts made by students to organise voluntary work as a contribution to the national need during the long vacation, in addition to military and Civil Defence duties already being undertaken by them; and what steps he is taking to encourage these efforts?
    Mr. Butler: I know and welcome the general desire among students to do war work in the long vacation. I understand that whereas no difficulty is anticipated in the students making their own arrangements for securing agricultural work, guidance is desired as to the best means of securing temporary work in factories. I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service on the subject, and hope that it may soon be possible to give such guidance in general terms.

    ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS.
    Mr. Colegateasked the President of the Board of Education the approximate number of public elementary school teachers employed in England and Wales; and what number of such teachers hold university degrees?
    Mr. Butler: The number of teachers employed in public elementary schools in England and Wales in March, 1942, was 151,296. Owing to the necessity for reducing the collection of statistics to a minimum, I am unable to state what number of these teachers hold university degrees. In March, 1938, the corresponding number of teachers was 166,674, of which 11,685 held university degrees.

    GOVERNMENT POLICY.
    Mr. Sorensenasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is now in a position to announce when new education proposals are likely to be made; and whether, in connection with prospective proposals, his attention has been drawn to the resolution on education recently passed unanimously by the Labour Party Conference?
    Mr. Butler: I informed the hon. Member on 14th May that Government plans had not reached the stage of legislation, but that constructive ideas would be welcomed. It was in this spirit that I read with interest the resolution to which he refers.
    Mr. Sorensen: Can I take it that the resolution passed by that conference is helping the right hon. Gentleman considerably in preparing his plans for the future?
    Mr. Butler: Certainly.
    Sir H. Williams: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the school leaving age and the old age pensions age will not be made identical?
    Mr. Woodburn: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps also to improve the quality, the content, of the education given?
    Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.

    EVACUATED CHILDREN.
    Mr. Lindsayasked the President of the Board of Education, how many children previously dispersed from public elementary schools now remain in reception areas; how many evacuated secondary schools have preserved their identity in reception areas; and how many separate authorities have leased camp schools from the National Camps Corporation?
    Mr. Butler: The number of evacuated children on the registers of public elementary schools in reception areas in March, 1942, was 376,784. The large majority of evacuated secondary schools are maintaining a separate existence in reception areas, but I am unable to give the hon. Member the precise figures. The answer to the last part of the Question is that the number of local education authorities in England and Wales conducting national camp schools is 20.

  EX-SERVICE MEN.

    HOUSING.
    Mr. Keelingasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that men discharged from the Fighting Services for wounds or ill-health, are sometimes unable to get accommodation in their own districts, even if their old employers will re-employ them; and whether he will arrange that houses, kept empty by the local authority for persons who may hereafter be bombed out by the enemy, shall be available for such ex-service men until other accommodation can be found for them?
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): I have no reason to think that the difficulty described by my hon. Friend is a general one, although I shall be happy to investigate any particular cases if he will send me details. The amount of accommodation held in reserve is under constant review, but he will appreciate the necessity of ensuring that, should heavy raids recur, homeless persons can be rapidly re-housed.
    Mr. Keeling: Does my right hon. Friend realise that this grievance of the ex-service men, which is a very serious one, is bound to grow as further casualties occur; and will he himself ask local authorities to report on this matter?
    Mr. Brown: I do not think there is any need for that. The question of accommodation is one of the major matters which are before me every week.

    NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
    Mr. Manderasked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the advisability of amending the regulations governing the position of those discharged from His Majesty's Forces with pensions, laying it down that no National Health Insurance sickness benefit can be paid until 26 weeks after the man is discharged in view of the fact that those discharged fit can claim benefit immediately they become ill?
    Mr. E. Brown: The rates of contribution payable under the National Health Insurance Acts are based on the expectation of incapacity under normal conditions and do not cover the risk of incapacity due to war service. I regret, therefore, that I am unable to propose any amendment of the specific provision
    802
    of the Statute whereby a person discharged from the Forces in the circumstances referred to by my hon. Friend is for a period of 26 weeks disentitled to sickness or disablement benefit if his incapacity arises from the injury or disease in respect of which he has been awarded a disability pension or allowance.

  FARNBOROUGH HOSPITAL (MISS BROWNLOW).
  Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Minister of Health under what authority the gratuity of £500 is offered to Miss Brownlow, of Farnborough Hospital?
  Mr. E. Brown: After considering all the circumstances, I have informed the county council that I am prepared to approve the payment of a gratuity in this case. The sanction would be given under Section 228 (1) of the Local Government Act, 1933.
  Sir W. Smithers: In view of the fact that there is no complaint, or charge, whatever against the character or efficiency of this lady, how does my right hon. Friend justify her dismissal? Does not the fact that he has given a gratuity exonerate her completely? Will he have an inquiry made?
  Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend has sent me a letter, and I have sent him a long reply. Perhaps he will consider that reply.
  Sir W. Smithers: As the reply is most unsatisfactory, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

  SURGICAL APPLIANCES.
  Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that difficulties are being experienced by sufferers in securing surgical appliances, especially trusses in hernia cases, and surgical boots; and can he do anything to relieve the position?
  Mr. E. Brown: I have been in communication with the several Departments concerned, but I can find no evidence of general shortage in supply of surgical appliances or of surgical boots. I am having inquiries made into the particular case to which my hon. Friend has drawn my attention.
  Mr. Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that I have already sent him two cases of people who are unable to procure these instruments because the Ministry of Labour have conscripted the men who usually make them?

  CAMP SCHOOLS.
  Mr. Lindsayasked the Minister of Health whether the present billeting allow ance covers the cost of food at a camp school; and, if not, which Department or authority supplies the additional amount?
  Mr. E. Brown: Billeting allowances as such are not paid in respect of children accommodated at camps under the management of the National Camps Corporation. The cost to the corporation of the maintenance of these children is recovered by the corporation from the local education authorities concerned, and to the extent that the expenditure is not recovered from parents it is reimbursed by my Department as an evacuation expense.
  Mr. Lindsay: Would it be true to say that the local education authority themselves finance the boarding element in the schools?
  Mr. Brown: I would like to see that question in form.
  Mr. Lindsayasked the Minister of Health what are the total maintenance charges and the charge per head of ad ministering the camp schools now under the National Camps Corporation?
  Mr. Brown: I regret that the information asked for is not readily available. I am communicating with the National Camps Corporation, with a view to obtaining it, and will communicate the result to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.
  Mr. Lindsay: I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much. Would he also convey the information to the President of the Board of Education?
  Mr. Brown: I have no doubt that he will see it, but I will do so if necessary.

  ARMED FORCES AND CIVILIANS (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
  Mr. Parkerasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that East Ham and Barking War Pensions Committee
  804
  was constituted in 1922, when Barking's population was only 35,000; that Barking's estimated population in 1939 was 83,000, but that the borough still only has one representative; and whether he will give the borough more equitable representation when the present term of office of members ends in December?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions (Mr. Paling): The constitution of the East Ham and Barking War Pensions Committee provides that four members shall be local authority representatives. These are at present nominated as to three by feast Ham and as to one by Barking. The present period of membership of the committee terminates at the end of this year, when consideration will be given to the allocation of local authority membership on the committee.
  Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Minister of Pensions how many claims for pensions have been received and awarded, respectively, in neurosis cases, where there has been no physical injury, after treatment has failed in the recovery of the claimant?
  Mr. Paling: I regret that this information is not available.
  Mr. Davies: As this raises a very important issue, is it not essential that the hon. Gentleman should find out whether the Ministry have actually given any awards of any kind in these cases, apart from awards for physical injury?
  Mr. Paling: We have given some awards.
  Mr. Buchanan: Should we not know these facts, as many people have been refused?
  Mr. Paling: It would entail a complete alteration of our system of keeping statistics. At present it would be very difficult, even if it were worth while, to do so.
  Mr. Buchanan: Surely it is worth while to know how the Minister of Pensions is dealing with the rights of ex-Service men. Surely information should not be refused to the House of Commons on the question of granting or refusing such awards?
  Mr. Stephen: Would the Parliamentary Secretary consider the speeches of the hon. Member for his own Division on this matter, previous to his taking office?

  SINGAPORE.
  Mr. Stokesasked the Prime Minister whether the decision to accept battle in the island of Singapore was a military or political decision; and, if the former, whether General Wavell recommended it?
  The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): The decision was taken on military grounds and was the unanimous decision of His Majesty's Government, their military advisers, and the commanders on the spot.
  Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Sir Keith Murdoch reported that he had every sympathy with General Wavell, because he had reason to believe that the decision was a political, and not a military one; and is that true? Many people believe that General Wavell was overruled in this country.
  Mr. Attlee: I am not prepared to check up on statements made by individuals. I have been asked for the facts, and I have given them.
  Viscountess Astor: Would it not be a good thing to send the hon. Member to Singapore, to look into these matters?
  Mr. Shinwell: Would it not be possible to clear this matter up if we had a statement from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who was in Singapore?
  Sir H. Williams: Why are the Government so reluctant to give us any information on this subject?

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (PERSONNEL).
  Mr. Stokesasked the Prime Minister in what Department the services of Sir Charles Hambro, Lord Bearsted, Captain Lionel Montague, Mr. Brien Clarke, and Mr. H. Sporborg are now employed; and what is their correct military rank?
  Mr. Attlee: It would not be in the public interest to give the information asked for by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Stokes: But why—
  Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has said that it would not be in the public interest to give the information.
  Mr. Shinwell: On a point of Order. If a Minister says that it is not in the public interest, cannot that be questioned?
  Mr. Speaker: It is as well sometimes to give a Minister credit for knowing what is in the public interest.

  ATLANTIC CHARTER.
  Wing-Commander Jamesasked the Prime Minister whether the principles enunciated in the Atlantic Charter remain the basis of the Government's foreign policy in respect of war aims and intentions; and whether he will give an assurance that there will be no departure from these principles without the prior assent of Parliament?
  Mr. Attlee: Yes, Sir. The Atlantic Charter remains the basis of His Majesty's Government's policy. I feel bound to add, however, that it would not be possible for His Majesty's Government to depart from the established practice by binding themselves to seek prior Parliamentary sanction in all cases for their acts.
  Sir H. Williams: As every paragraph of the Atlantic Charter is susceptible to three separate interpretations, can we be told which of them is the policy of His Majesty's Government?

  WAGES AND PRICES.
  Wing-Commander Jamesasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to define the Government's wages and salaries policy; and which Minister is responsible for it?
  Mr. Attlee: The policy of the Government with regard to wage levels and prices remains as stated in the White Paper of July, 1941. Many Departments of State are concerned.
  Wing-Commander James: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we shall see any evidence of its application?
  Mr. Attlee: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants evidence, he had better look around for it.
  Mr. W. Brown: Does not the White Paper represent the complete abnegation of the Government in the matter of a wages policy since it washes its hands of responsibility and leaves wages to be settled within each industry?

  AGRICULTURE.

    FRUIT PICKING.
    Mr. De la Béreasked the Minister of Agriculture what provision the Government are making for the picking of the

    807
    plum crop in the Vale of Evesham and other fruit-growing districts; and what provision they have made for fruit-picking in general throughout the country, in view of the great importance of gathering in all possible fruit so as to avoid deterioration?
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. T. Williams): County war agricultural executive committees are organising supplies of supplementary labour from every available source for seasonal agricultural work, and in so far as growers are unable themselves to obtain the labour they will need for fruit picking, committees will do their best to assist if they are given sufficient notice of growers' requirements. In Worcester, the executive committee is arranging camps in the fruit growing districts for some 400 boys and girls from public and secondary schools to Supplement the local labour, and further labour will be available from this source if necessary. The plans being made by committees in Worcester and elsewhere should be adequate to enable the fruit crop to be gathered in good condition provided the circumstances are not too unfavourable.
    Mr. De la Bère: Will the Parliamentary Secretary see that this receives full publicity so as to assure the growers of fruit that everything possible is being done? It is very necessary to have publicity in this matter, as they do not know what is being done.
    Mr. Williams: I hope that this reply will be adequately publicised.

    ALLOTMENTS (DAMAGE BY ANIMALS).
    Mr. Parkerasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that not only dogs but cattle and horses frequently trespass upon and damage allotments; and whether he will see that adequate powers are given to local authorities to deal with this evil?
    Mr. T. Williams: Cases of damage from the cause mentioned have been brought to my right hon. Friend's notice, but he is not satisfied that the existing remedies under common law are inadequate. He is, however, considering whether anything further can and should be done.

  SIND (OUTBREAK OF VIOLENCE).
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for India whether he will make a statement respecting recent events in Sind; whether any accusations are directed against members of the Provincial Assembly; and whether this Provincial Government retains its previous authority and power?
  The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): The recent outbreak of violence in Sind has been caused by the Hurs, a fanatical sect with a long history of violent crime in the Province and in the neighbouring State of Khairpur—so much so that they are scheduled under the relevant law as a "criminal tribe." Their criminal propensities are said to be due to their traditional customs of giving their whole property to their hereditary Chieftain known as the Pir Pagaro, and thus having no other livelihood than robbery. Military measures were necessitated early in the century to round up Hur strongholds, and it has been necessary at various times to place the present Pir under restraint. Most recently he was arrested last October and is now under detention outside the Province because of grave suspicion that he was continuing to instigate murders and other serious crimes committed by his followers, notably upon the persons of all those who gave evidence against him when he was last convicted. It was impossible to bring him to trial for his responsibility for these crimes owing to terrorisation of possible witnesses. In the past few months a number of his followers, no doubt in revenge for the action taken against their leader, have engaged in a series of outrages of which the most serious occurred on the 16th May, when a party of them derailed the Karachi-Lahore mail train and murdered and looted a number of passengers. The son of the Home Minister of Sind was one of those killed. Military measures which, in the considered view of the Provincial and Central authorities, are once more necessary to deal with those implicated in the outrages, are now in progress and a large area of the Province east of the Indus has been placed under martial law.
  I am not aware of any accusation made against members of the Provincial Assembly in connection with these outrages. The attitude of the Sind Legislature to the situation is well indicated

  809
  by their action a couple of months ago in passing, in secret session and with very little debate, a Bill conferring wide powers on Government for dealing with the situation—the "Sind Suppression of Hur Outrages Act." The powers and authority of the Sind Government have not been affected except of course in the area placed under martial law.
  Mr. Sorensen: May I take it from the Secretary of State that in fact the Huns have nothing to do with the existing political situation in Sind, and can he say whether the Provincial Government were consulted in the matter before this rather drastic action was taken?
  Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir. The Provincial Government have acted with the Central Government throughout in this matter.
  Mr. Sorensen: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the first part of my question?
  Mr. Amery: No, Sir.
  Mr. Sorensen: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman cannot answer the first part of my supplementary question?
  Mr. Amery: This matter has nothing to do with the political situation in India.

  CIVIL SERVICE.

    ORGANISATION.
    Mr. William Brownasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he proposes to take to reorganise the Civil Service so as to make it a more efficient instrument for the discharge of public business?
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): The question of the efficiency of the Civil Service for the tasks which it is called upon to perform is kept constantly under review. Changes in organisation and procedure will continue to be made wherever they can properly and advantageously be introduced.
    Mr. Brown: Is the Chancellor aware that there are many thousands of civil servants whose services are not being fully utilised at the present time, that both they and their organisations are deeply ashamed of that situation, and that they have made strong representations to the Government about this matter; and does he propose to leave the existing situation where it now stands?
    Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. We keep the matters to which my hon. Friend refers constantly under review. My hon. Friend's statement in reply to Lord Perry, I think, generally took the line that the Civil Service as a whole was extremely efficient.
    Mr. Brown: When will the Chancellor of the Exchequer cease to keep this matter under review and do something about it?
    Sir K. Wood: We are always doing something.

    PENSIONERS.
    Mr. W. Brownasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that many Civil Service pensioners who retired on low pensions are suffering acute hardship as the result of the rise in the cost of living; and whether he now proposes to take any steps to deal with this matter?
    Sir K. Wood: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 15th April to my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Parker).
    Mr. Brown: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this section of recipients of State benefit are the only section of such people in the country who have had no relief whatever in respect of the rise in the cost of living, and does he not think that it is really time something was done about it?
    Sir K. Wood: I would like my hon. Friend to look at my reply, and I would also remind him of the many steps that have been taken in the policy of the Government in the stabilisation of the whole economic position.
    Mr. Brown: Is it not the fact that in spite of that policy there has been evidence—
    Mr. Speaker rose.

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    POST-WAR CREDITS.
    Mr. Parkerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider exempting men and women beyond 65 years of age from Section 7 of the Finance Act, 1941, in view of the uncertainty of the end of the war?
    Sir K. Wood: I regret that I cannot adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Mr. Parker: Is the Chancellor aware of the feeling of the old age pensioners in this matter?

    ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
    Professor Savoryasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give an estimate as to what sum would be derived by the Treasury if the tax of ½d. were doubled on the lowest-priced seats at cinemas, which it is proposed by the Finance Bill to exempt from the in creased taxation about to be imposed on all other seats?
    Sir K. Wood: I assume that my hon. Friend has in mind all seats which, under the Finance Bill proposals, do not become liable to additional Entertainments Duty. They include seats at cinemas and other full-duty entertainments bearing ½d. and ¾d. duty and seats at theatres and other reduced-duty entertainments bearing ½d. duty. The yield from all such seats at the pre-Budget rates of duty was estimated to be something like £750,000 a year, which would therefore be the measure of the gain to the Exchequer if the rates were doubled and the numbers of admissions remained of the same order as before the Budget.
    Professor Savory: Is there any reason why these pleasure-seekers should not contribute their fair share to the revenue of the country?

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that delegates representing over 2,500,000 citizens resolved recently to call for a substantial increase in the basic scale of old age pensions, the abolition of the present distinction between the new and old savings of old age pensioners, and the necessity of not taking into consideration superannuation benefits from trade union and other sources; and whether he pro poses to take any action in the matter?
    Sir K. Wood: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) on Tuesday, 3rd March.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a considerable volume of public opinion now exists that the whole question of old age pensions should be drastically reconsidered and revised in the direction of a more just scale being
    812
    granted to this section of the community? May I ask whether the Chancellor proposes to take any action about it?

    DIVIDENDS (LIMITATION).
    Mr. Manderasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that dividends are being paid by some companies in excess of those de clared pre-war, he will consider the advisability of taking steps to prevent this by the limitation of dividends to a pre war level?
    Sir K. Wood: Generally speaking, I think the request which I made two years ago for the limitation of dividends has been complied with, and I doubt whether any exceptions to the general rule have been sufficiently numerous or important to justify me in reviving proposals for legislation. I would, however, take this opportunity of stating that the objects of the limitation, where they are applicable, are even more important than in 1940. Those objects are to prevent increases in the purchasing power of shareholders and to enable the companies concerned to give their maximum support to our War Loans.
    Mr. Mander: Do I understand that the Government would not consider it in the public interest for dividends above the pre-war level to be paid in existing, circumstances?
    Sir K. Wood: I would like my reply to be taken as my own observations on that point.
    Sir H. Williams: Would it not be rather helpful if certain companies which were very prosperous before the war cut their dividends?

    MOTOR VEHICLE TAXATION.
    Sir G. Jeffreysasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the changed conditions and of the prospective abolition of basic rations of petrol, he will consider levying, in lieu of the horse-power tax, a tax on all fuels used for the propulsion of motor vehicles, thus giving an additional stimulus to fuel economy and relating tax payable to the amount of use made of the vehicle?
    Sir K. Wood: I am afraid that I cannot regard the present abnormal conditions as a suitable occasion for changing the general basis of motor vehicle taxation.

  EIRE AND NORTHERN IRELAND (LIQUOR SMUGGLING).
  Dr. Littleasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he has made arrangements to bring to a speedy end the smuggling of liquor across the open border from Eire into Northern Ireland?
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): My hon. Friend has been good enough to forward me certain statements, and I am having inquiry made into them.

  WEST INDIES (CHOCOLATE AND SWEET MANUFACTURE).
  Mr. David Adamsasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that in certain West Indian Islands there are abundant raw materials, coco beans, sugar, etc., for the manufacture of chocolate and sweets which are at present imported, encouragement is being given to the manufacture of these in the islands concerned?
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Harold Macmillan): West Indian Governments were long ago urged to take all possible steps to reduce the dependence of the West Indies on imported foodstuffs of all kinds; and this would include the stimulating of local production of confectionery in so far as facilities existed or could be created for this purpose.
  Mr. Adams: Is the Minister fully aware that the present situation is detrimental to local industries in the West Indies?

  ELECTRICAL DOMESTIC APPLIANCES.
  Mr. David Adamsasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is proposed to restrict the supply of electrical apparatus for installation in private houses for such purposes as immersion heaters, radiators, etc., when these may be used only intermittently in lieu of coal fires?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): The supply by manufacturers and wholesalers of electric space-heating appliances
  814
  of the kind used for domestic purposes has been restricted from 1st June under the Limitation of Supplies (Heating Apparatus and Polishes) Order, 1942. I am satisfied that there are sufficient appliances available for all necessary domestic uses.
  Mr. Adams: Where these are still available is it in order to purchase them?
  Captain Waterhouse: Yes, Sir.

  TRAFFIC LIGHTS, LONDON.
  Sir H. Williamsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he will consider restoring the traffic lights in London in the daytime to their pre-war brilliance and obscuring them at night in the same way as is done in many other parts of the country?
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): Yes, Sir. My Noble Friend is considering this proposal in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

  ROAD VEHICLES (PRODUCER-GAS).
  Mr. Thorneasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport how many vehicles there are on the road being driven by producer-gas; and whether he can make a statement as to the success or failure of producer-gas for road vehicles?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: In answer to the first part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on 19th May to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Renfrew (Major Lloyd). In answer to the second part, it would be unfair to judge the success or failure of producer-gas by the results so far achieved. Compared with engines driven by petrol or diesel oil, it has certain disadvantages; but the results have been sufficiently encouraging to enable the Government to decide that it is the best alternative to petrol for ordinary commercial transport, and that, in view of the need for stringent economy in imported fuel, its use shall be considerably extended.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    MODEL BUDGETS.
    Mr. Manderasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will consider the advisability of publishing alternative model budgets which would be fully adequate from the point of view of health and would require a minimum of imported articles with a view to saving shipping space?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Major Lloyd George): My Department endeavours to give housewives advice on food in war-time in the most useful form possible. I am, however, advised that the publication of model food budgets would not be desirable in view of the variations in the supply of particular commodities from time to time and in different localities. Moreover, the variations in food habits as between different parts of the country, and the varying needs of individual classes of consumers, would greatly reduce the value of any budgets which might be prepared.

    COMMUNAL JAM MAKING.
    Mr. Thorneasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he can give any information in connection with the Osgodby pioneer village in Lincolnshire communal jam making drive refusing to make any more jam this season; whether he is aware that the women's institute state that they have a large quantity of last year's jam on their hands; and what action he intends taking about the matter?
    Major Lloyd George: My Department has not been informed of the Osgodby Centre's refusal to take part in this year's preservation scheme nor of the fact that jam still remains unsold at the centre. On confirmation that jam is still outstanding from last season, arrangements will be made forthwith by my Department for its collection. It is for the National Federation of Women's Institutes to consider the refusal of Osgodby Centre to make jam this season.

    PROSECUTION, MARYLEBONE.
    Mr. Thorneasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he can give any information in connection with the £3,000 sale
    816
    of sardines, when Mr. S. K. Sequerra was charged at Marylebone on seven summonses relating to tinned sardines alleging sales above controlled price, selling wholesale without a licence and failing on two dates to make the return required from holder of more than 100 cases; and what action he took in the case?
    Major Lloyd George: As the answer is somewhat long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The person referred to was prosecuted at the instance of the Ministry of Food on 1st June at the Marylebone Police Court on the following summonses:

    (a) Two summonses for selling sardines by wholesale above the maximum price.

    (b) Sale of sardines in 5 kilo containers without a licence.

    (c) Two summonses for selling by wholesale without a licence.

    (d) Two summonses for failing to make a return of canned fish to the Ministry of Food.

    The two summonses mentioned in (a) were adjourned sine die: the defendant was convicted under (b) and fined £50 and ordered to pay £25 costs. The two summonses under (c) were dismissed and there was a conviction under the two summonses under (d), a fine of £5 being inflicted on each summons.

  CLOTHES RATIONING (COUPON DISTRIBUTION).
  Mr. Rileyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware of the inconvenience to which householders have been put in connection with the recent national distribution of clothing coupons; whether he is aware that in many towns applicants for the coupon book have spent as many as six and seven hours in queues; will he have inquiries made as to the reason for this public inconvenience and take steps to avoid its recurrence?
  Major Lloyd George: I am aware that in the early stages of the distribution queues formed in certain areas although many sub-offices were opened and wide publicity was given to the fact that these

  817
  facilities would be available for 14 days. I believe that generally the scheme worked smoothly, but reports on the arrangements will be carefully studied with a view to effecting any possible improvements on a future occasion.
  Mr. Riley: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that in some districts police were called in to prevent incipient riots breaking out, and will he take steps to prevent this sort of thing happening again?
  Major Lloyd George: I am aware that inconvenience was caused in some places, some of it being due to kindness. In one instance which came to my notice one gentleman at the head of the queue had a suit-case in which there were 300 cards, and this rather upset the office.
  Viscountess Astor: Is not the amazing patience of people in queues one of the most extraordinary things in England?

  HOUSE OF COMMONS CHAMBER (RE-BUILDING).
  Mr. Bossomasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings whether any action has yet been taken by the Government with the object of rebuilding the Chamber for the Commons; and what progress has been made?
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings (Mr. Hicks): As I informed the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish) on 3rd December last, preliminary information is being collected by the Ministry with a view to the preparation of plans and the starting of the work of reconstruction when hostilities are over. As the Prime Minister has already announced, it would be premature, at this stage, to consider any proposals for setting up a Select Committee of the House to examine plans for rebuilding the destroyed parts of the House of Commons.
  Mr. George Griffiths: On a point of Order. Why has Question 75 not been asked to-day? The hon. and gallant Member is present.
  Mr. Speaker: I was informed that it had been withdrawn by the questioner.
  Mr. Griffiths: Then he must have seen the red light.
  Wing-Commander James: The Question was not withdrawn by me; it has been postponed by request.
  Mr. Bossom: May I ask a Supplementary Question to my Question on the Order Paper? Would the hon. Gentleman consider getting a number of the Members who sat in the other Chamber for several years to give advice as to the defects which were there so that they will not be repeated in the new Chamber, whenever that is built?
  Mr. MacLaren: Those men were the defects.
  Mr. Hicks: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Members of the House of Commons will not be neglected in the consideration of this matter, but I am sure it would be improper to try and press me to give a more extended answer than I have given now.
  Mr. Buchanan: Will my hon. Friend give us a guarantee that Messrs. Wimpey will not build the new House of Commons?
  Mr. Hicks: I think it would be unfair to exclude any competent firms.
  Mr. Buchanan: Then will he give us a guarantee that if they do have the job they will not do it as badly as they have done almost every other job?

  FRENCH WARSHIPS (GERMAN SAILORS).
  Sir William Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the fact that Laval, on behalf of the Vichy Government, has given permission for German officers and men to train on French warships while at the same time French officers are being removed from their ships; and what action is being taken to prevent such ships, with their German ships' companies, from putting to sea notwithstanding the definite assurances given by Marshal Pétain that no warships would be handed over to Germany?
  The Under - Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Richard Law): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) on 3rd June, to which I have nothing to add.
  Sir W. Davison: Have the Government taken any steps to check the statement made in this Question, which is very widely believed to be accurate and is entirely in accordance with Laval's policy of helping the Germans without giving away Marshal Pétain's assurance?
  Mr. Law: Yes, Sir. The Government take such steps as are open to them to check all these things.

  SENTENCED YOUTH (DEATH IN HOSPITAL).
  Mr. T. Henderson (for Mr. Dobbie)asked the Home Secretary whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the cause of death of H. Mitchell, of Raw-marsh, Rotherham, aged 17, who was sentenced to three months' imprisonment under the Essential Work Order, was taken to Armley gaol after his sentence on 5th March, returned to the municipal hospital at Rotherham on 6th May, and died on 14th May, before his sentence was completed; and will he arrange that, in future, when boys are tried under this Order and sent to prison, investigations are made as to their physical condition and a medical examination made before they are sent to prison?
  Mr. H. Morrison: I have received full reports on this case. In accordance with the usual arrangements Mitchell was medically examined on his reception into prison on 5th March and he was then reported to be in good health. He first complained of not feeling well on 2nd May and was at once admitted to the prison hospital. His condition did not improve and on 5th May he was removed on the advice of the medical officer to Rotherham Hospital for examination. It was then found after laboratory investigation that the lad was suffering from an acute form of sleepy sickness, and though he was given expert treatment at the hospital he died on 14th May. I much regret that all the care devoted to this patient both at the prison and the hospital proved of no avail and I should like to express my sympathy with the lad's parents.
  Mr. Sbinwell: Does not this show how wrong it is to send boys of this age to prison under the Essential Work Order without at least conducting a medical examination?
  Mr. Morrison: That is not my responsibility—
  Mr. Shinwell: It is the Government's.
  Mr. Morrison: I am answering for the Home Office—but I have no reason to believe that the fact that this lad went to prison had a damaging effect on his health.

  MEDICAL TRAINING SCHOOOLS (WOMEN STUDENTS).
  Dr. Edith Summerskill (for Mr. Douglas)asked the Minister of Health whether he will, in connection with any reorganisation of the hospital system, give consideration to securing the admission of women students into all medical training schools on equal terms with men?
  Mr. E. Brown: I will bring my hon. Friend's suggestion to the notice of the Committee that I referred to in my reply on 26th March to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth, (Mr. Jewson) which is considering the organisation of medical schools.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. Greenwood: Will the Leader of the House state the forthcoming Business; and has his attention been called to a Motion on Old Age and Widows' Pensions which appears on the Order Paper in the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Petnick-Lawrence) and myself; and also is it the intention of the Government to find time for the discussion of the Motion on the Order Paper relating to Family Allowances?
The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Stafford Cripps): The forthcoming Business will be as follows:
First Sitting Day—Report stage of the Finance Bill, and it will no doubt be agreeable to the House to take the Third Reading immediately afterwards; the Committee and remaining stages of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve Bill [Lords]; and, if there is time, we hope to make progress with the Coal (Concurrent Leases) Bill [Lords], and the Marriage (Scotland) Bill [Lords].
Second and Third Sitting Days—A Debate will take place on a Government Motion to approve the coal proposals.

821
With regard to the other two matters which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned, I am aware that a Motion appears on the Order Paper in the name of himself and the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), and the Government hope it will be possible to give time for that at a very early date after the next series of Sittings. Similarly, they hope there will be an opportunity to discuss Family Allowances also at a fairly early date.
Mr. Shinwell: Is it necessary to make the coal question, which is to come before the House shortly, a matter of confidence in the Government? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that there is quite a considerable division of opinion about this matter, and does he realise also that if I should vote against the Government on this matter, I might find myself in the same unfortunate position as he is, of being expelled from the Labour party?
Sir S. Cripps: It is not appropriate to comment on the misfortunes which may befall the hon. Gentleman, but the Government have decided that in this matter it is better to have a Motion definitely approving the Government's scheme.
Mr. Buchanan: Is there on this occasion any guarantee that the Government are really in earnest about the coal proposals, or are we to be faced with a situation similar to that which occurred before, that the Government say the thing must be done and then afterwards throw it over? Is there any guarantee that on this occasion if a certain body meets, the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues will not run away at the first shout from that body?
Sir S. Cripps: I should have thought that the fact that the Government have put down a Motion would be a sufficient guarantee.
Mr. Buchanan: With the right hon. and learned Gentleman's agility of mind and well-known capacity for change from day to day, is there any guarantee in this matter that he will not do the same again? Is there any guarantee that if another body meets—not the workers, for there is never any change because of the workers—and is dissatisfied, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not change his mind?
Mr. Charles Williams: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think it is rather a pity that he did not broadcast on this matter a fortnight ago?
Mr. Shakespeare: In view of the fact that the post-war organisation of the coal industry must have such an intimate bearing on war-time production, would it be possible for the Debate to range over a wide field?
Mr. A. Bevan: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider the form of the Motion to be put before the House? There are two aspects of this matter, fuel rationing and the proposals for the reorganisation of the mining industry. Would it not be highly inconvenient to take the two things together, as they are not even remotely associated? Will there be a composite Motion or two Motions on the proposals?
Sir S. Cripps: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the Order Paper, he will see that there is a single Motion on it in this form:
"That this House approves the proposals of His Majesty's Government embodied in Cmd. Paper 6364 relating to coal."
Mr. Bevan: That is precisely why I raised the matter. As the White Paper includes a scheme for fuel rationing, then, if it is necessary to vote against it, we shall have to vote against the two proposals. Can a reasoned Amendment be put down, if necessary? Cannot we have two Motions? Will the Government reconsider the matter, and allow the House to deal separately with two separate issues?
Sir S. Cripps: Anyone can put down a reasoned Amendment in order to make whatever proposals he wishes.
Mr. Bevan: Would it not be much more convenient for the House to consider the proposals for the reorganisation of the mining industry and fuel rationing separately?
Sir S. Cripps: In the opinion of the Government all the proposals to deal with coal come under one single scheme. [Interruption.] That is so in the opinion of the Government; they consider it better to deal with the matter as a total scheme.
Mr. Bevan: This is very important. Are not the Government laying a silly trap for the House, because if we vote

823
against the Motion we shall appear to be voting against equitable rationing, when, in fact, we want to vote against the other part? Would it not be a much more honourable thing, and would it not be simpler and clearer, to have two Motions before the House for what are two separate issues?
Sir S. Cripps: The Government do not so regard it, and, if the hon. Member so regards it, he is at liberty to put down an Amendment.
Mr. Stephen: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that the 1922 Committee is meeting to-day?
Mr. Maxton: Will the Report of the Committee of Privileges on matters remitted to them some weeks ago which affect two Members of this House, be shortly available?
Sir S. Cripps: I understand that the Report is now in draft. I cannot say when it will be ready, although I presume it will be ready shortly.
Mr. Maxton: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that there is no provision in the Business which he has announced for dealing with the Report, and is it not against the usual practice to keep a matter of this sort hanging over, indefinitely?
Sir S. Cripps: I understand that it will not be ready for debate in the next series of Sittings.
Mr. Maxton: The Lord Privy Seal will remember that there was the most tremendous urgency about getting this matter to the Committee of Privileges, so much so that the ordinary steps to inform those affected were not taken, whereas now it seems that there is unlimited time to deal with the matter from the point of view of the Government.
Sir S. Cripps: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is not a matter for the Government but for the Committee of Privileges. As soon as the Committee make their Report, steps will be taken to enable the House of Commons to deal with the matter.
Mr. Clement Davies: Is it proposed to give early facilities for a Debate on shipping, especially in view of the White Paper which has been issued regarding the allocation of new shipping? Is it proposed to bring in that policy before the Debate or after?
Sir S. Cripps: That is a matter which, as has already been stated, can be debated on the Supply Vote for the Ministry of War Transport.
Sir H. Williams: Will the No. 2 Budget be introduced before or after the Recess?
Sir S. Cripps: So far as I know, there is no such thing.
Sir H. Williams: Will it not be needed if all the Resolutions of the Labour Party Conference are to be given effect to?

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Mr. J. J. Davidson (Glasgow, Maryhill): I desire first of all to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to make a statement to the House. At Question Time yesterday, when I was unavoidably absent from the House, a Member raised, by Private Notice, a question which implied that I had made a statement in a speech on Tuesday which was incorrect and false. I desire to say at the outset that I have no objection at all and no hard feelings toward the Member who raised this particular question, realising that he is a director of Sir Lindsay Parkinson and Company, Limited. I can quite realise his anxiety with regard to this particular subject. I desire, however, to substantiate my statement, and to lay before the House one or two facts so that hon. Members can consider the whole position.
The "Daily Sketch" on 21st February, 1941, stated:
"281 Summonses say cars misused 145,600 gallons."
The defendants were Sir Lindsay Parkinson and Company, Limited, Hugh Beaver and Brian Colquhoun. I wish to point out that in my speech I asked for an assurance that personnel and organisations who are involved and convicted with regard to petrol offences should not participate in the future planning of this country. In the "East Anglian Daily Times" it was stated on 22nd February, 1941:
"Mr. Brian Colquhoun was recently appointed Director-General of Aircraft Production factories."
On 19th March, 1941, the "East Anglian Daily Times" stated: "
£402 petrol case fines."

825
The fines imposed were:
"H. E. C. Beaver £12, C. B. H. Colqunoun £10."
All defendants gave notice of appeal. On 22nd April, 1941, the, "Daily Telegraph" stated:
"Mr. Hugh Beaver to be Director-General of Works and Buildings, Ministry of Works and Buildings."
On nth June, 1941, the "Daily Telegraph" stated:
"Petrol appeals dismissed. Appeals by Hugh Beaver and Brian Colquhoun against convictions and" penalties imposed at Newton-le-Willows for a breach of the petrol regulations were dismissed at Liverpool Quarter Sessions."
The "Daily Telegraph" then refers to another case of a petrol officer, Mr. Arthur Fox, which has been dismissed. The Secretary for Petroleum (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd) stated that the employment of the officer in question had now been terminated. The "Daily Telegraph" on 8th April, 1941, stated—
"Another Petrol Prosecution; 170 Summonses."
The defendants were—
"Sir Alexander Gibb and Partners, Hugh Beaver, at Liverpool."
On 9th April, the "Daily Telegraph" stated:
"Firm's Misuse of Petrol. One of the largest firms of building contractors in the country, George Wimpey and Company, Limited, were fined £600 and £63 costs … for misusing petrol."
I want to remind the House that this misuse of petrol was taking place when the Government were putting out posters appealing on behalf of the many sailors who were losing their lives in carrying petrol to this country. After Wimpey's had been fined, the Ministry of Works and Buildings appointed their Chairman, Mr. G. W. Mitchell, to be Controller of Building Materials in succession to Mr. H. Beaver, now Director-General of Works and Buildings. Mr. Mitchell resigned his directorship of George Wimpey and Company, Limited, in order to take up his appointment.
I want to be very brief. Here is the case in a nutshell. I referred to the organisations which are participating in the work of the Ministry of Works and Buildings, and I mentioned Sir Lindsay Parkinson and Company, Limited, who have been acting in an official capacity to the Ministry of Works and Buildings in various contracts, and George Wimpey,
826
and I mentioned personnel attached to those firms. It was stated on 8th April that the firm of Wimpey's were fined £600 and £63 costs, and, as I have already said," in July, 1941, the chairman of the company was appointed to the Ministry of Works and Buildings. Mr. Hugh Beaver was fined £12 and costs for the misuse of petrol when engaged on Government contracts. In July, 1941—this seems to be a lucky month for those who contravene the laws of this country—we find it announced that Mr. Hugh Beaver is to be Director-General of Works and Buildings and Mr. B. H. Colquhoun, fined for the same offences as Mr. Beaver in March, was later appointed to the Ministry of Works and Buildings. [Interruption.] He was appointed to the Ministry of Works and Buildings in July, 1941.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings (Mr. Hicks): Mr. Colquhoun was never appointed to the Ministry of Works and Buildings. It was the Ministry of Aircraft Production.
Mr. Davidson: Those statements are statements that cannot be disputed. For the sake of brevity and out of respect for the time of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, I have selected only some instances regarding this deplorable state of affairs, and I feel that I was fully justified in asking, during the proceedings on the Ministry of Works and Planning Bill, for assurances that such practices would not be continued with regard to the great task of rebuilding and planning for this nation. I do trust that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will agree that the task of planning this nation should be in the hands of men and women of proved integrity who will give to this House and to the nation that high standard of administrative impartiality, without being associated with any organisations at all, that we have always expected and generally receive from the great Civil Service of this country.
Major Braithwaite: I should first like to say that I am sorry that the hon. Member has not seen fit to withdraw his statements that the firm of Sir Lindsay Parkinson and Company have had representatives appointed to the Ministry of Works and Buildings. They never have had any there. There never were any there, and they have not done any work

827
for the Ministry of Works and Buildings since 1936, when they built Chorley Ordnance factory for the Office of Works, so there is no connection there at all. As far as any petrol offences were concerned, they were convicted of a technical offence as agents for the Ministry of Supply, and there was no implication of any irregularity in any shape at all. I feel sure that the hon. Member, if he is fair, will take these facts into consideration and withdraw the allegation about private firms, who find it very difficult to defend themselves.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP A).
  Leave given to the Committee on Group A of Private Bills to make a Special Report.
  Special Report relative to the Bilston Corporation Bill brought up and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Resolution reported from the Select Committee:
  That, in the case of the South Wales Electric Power, Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill.
  Resolution agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Ordered,
"That the Proceedings on the War Damage (Amendment) Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Sir S. Cripps.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  WAR DAMAGE (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 3rd June].
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

  WAR DAMAGE (AMENDMENT) BILL.

    FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Amendments relating to the principal Act generally.)
    Mr. Bellenger: I beg to move, in page 13, line 3, at the end, to insert:
    Proviso regarding grants to local authorities.
    following proviso shall be added to section eighty-two:
    'Provided that this section shall not affect the principles upon which any grant of payment from the Exchequer to any local authority depends.' "
    I desire to bring to the notice of the Committee and the Chancellor of the Exchequer something which is, I think, in the nature of an anomaly. The Committee will note that War Damage Contributions are to be treated as being in the nature of capital payments. This is quite clear in the case of private individuals or private trusts or property companies because they have some capital, but when we come to the case of Government Departments we find a somewhat confusing state of affairs. I understand that the Board of Education permits the debiting of these contributions to education accounts, but the Ministry of Health prohibits local authorities from debiting War

    837
    Damage Contribution, in the case of local authority housing schemes, to the housing account of the local authority concerned. The result is that the payment of War Damage Contribution which has to be met on housing estates belonging to local authorities has to be obtained out of the general rate and in some cases it is conceivable that, in order to pay these heavy amounts, a general rate may have to be increased. I submit that these payments ought to be debited to the housing account in each case and not thrown on the general rate. I hope the right hon. Gentleman has followed my explanation sufficiently to find himself in sympathy with that view.
    There is another implication. Where local authorities in heavily blitzed areas are not able to gather in sufficient rates to meet their own requirements and those of the precepting bodies, they come to the Ministry of Health for assistance. The Ministry of Health may, however, get out of the liability for any deficiency on the housing account if the war damage contributions are not debited to that account but are thrown on the general rate. In such circumstances, the housing account would not show the loss or the deficit which it might show if these contributions were debited to that account and if the amount of the contribution went on to the general rate, then, obviously, the ratepayers have to find the money. Therefore, the contention which has been put forward by the Chancellor that this contribution is in the nature of a capital payment, is not borne out in the case of local authorities who will be compelled to find it out of the general rate. The object of my Amendment is to rectify this anomaly. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate my point and even if he is not prepared to concede it to day will at any rate give it further consideration.
    Mr. Silkin: I support the plea which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger). This is really a question of local authority finance. When a local education authority pays a contribution in respect of educational buildings, it is allowed to charge that contribution to revenue and it gets the appropriate grant from the Board of Education. But when it comes to dealing with a housing revenue account the Ministry of Health do not
    838
    take the same view as the Board of Education and do not permit a local authority to charge War Damage Contribution to its housing revenue account. The result, according to the contention of the local authorities, is that their housing revenue accounts become unduly inflated. Under the Housing Act, 1936, at the end, I think, of every quinquennial period, the surpluses on these housing revenue accounts are taken by the Ministry of Health. At any rate the Ministry take a proportion of such surpluses. The point, therefore, is that by not permitting the War Damage Contribution to be charged to the housing revenue account there may arise an artificial surplus, which the Ministry of Health take away. It can only arise if, as the result of not permitting the War Damage Contribution to be charged to the housing revenue account, there is a surplus when otherwise there would be a deficiency. Housing authorities feel that the surplus should not be taken away from them when it is really an artificial surplus, and if the housing revenue account were dealt with in the same way as the educational account, there would be no surplus, and no part of the surplus could be taken away. It is a rather complicated point, but I hope I have made it clear.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): I am indebted to the two hon. Members who have put the matter forward. I cannot pretend that I can make a complete statement to-day. The Amendment obviously could not be incorporated in the Bill, and I take it that the object is really to bring the matter before the Committee in order that I might make a statement on it. The suggestion to enable local authorities to charge War Damage Contributions on municipal housing property to the housing revenue account is made, I think, under the mistaken impression that such a charge would result in increasing the subsidy payable by the Exchequer in certain cases. If that is so, it is not the case. That impression is mistaken. It is true that Section 82 of the War Damage Act provides that contributions should all be treated for all purposes as outgoings of a capital nature, and it is obvious that such outgoings cannot properly be charged to a revenue account. It may be suggested that if local authorities were to borrow, as they would be entitled to do, to finance these contributions, the loan

    839
    charges could then properly be charged to the Housing Revenue Account. But this might result in the raising of rents by local authorities which could not finance their contributions without borrowing, and that would produce an anomalous position in relation to private landlords, who are precluded by the Rent Restriction Act from passing on their contributions to their tenants. Municipal houses are excluded from rent restriction for reasons quite unconnected with the present question, and it would be unreasonable that this exclusion should place local authorities as landlords in a specially favourable position in comparison with private landlords, and their tenants in a specially unfavourable position in comparison with that of tenants of private landlords.
    The two hon. Members suggested that the Board of Education provided a precedent that they might quote in favour of their proposition. The Board of Education recognise for grants War Damage Contributions in respect of school buildings, and Section 41 of the Act enables grants to be made in respect of highway contributions, but those are both cases in which capital expenditure by a local authority normally attracts percentage grants and cannot therefore be regarded as analogous to housing grants. The matter is somewhat complicated and difficult to explain, but I have endeavoured to give a reply on what we could surmise of the intention of the Amendment. I should like to examine the hon. Members' statements carefully with a view to seeing whether there is more that I can profitably say; and I will communicate with both of them.
    Mr. Silkin: The right hon. Gentleman appreciates, firstly, that this is not designed to increase the subsidy and, secondly, that charging the contributions to revenue account would not have the effect of putting local authorities at an advantage as against the private landlord but at a disadvantage.
    Sir K. Wood: I will look into it again.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir Herbert Williams: I beg to move, in page 13, line 35, at the end, to insert:
    840
    "19. Certain fixtures and fittings to be deemed land and not goods for purposes of principal Act.
    Any fixtures or fittings which are situate in or upon or are attached to any contributory property and are treated as part of such contributory property for the purpose of the net assessment or net annual value (as the case may be) on which the contribution in respect of such contributory property is calculated in pursuance of the provisions of section nineteen of the principal Act shall be included in the definition of the expression 'land in section ninety-five.'"
    This is a rather curious matter. I was asked to put the Amendment down by friends who are interested in blocks of flats and offices. I understand that frequently in such premises there is a certain amount of furniture which is for the communal use of the people in the buildings, which is taken into account in settling the Schedule A assessment. Therefore, for the purpose of Income Tax, these chattels are deemed to be land, but for the purpose of the War Damage Act they are not. The War Damage Contribution is based on the Schedule A assessment, so that they pay on that, and they are brought in a second time under the business scheme and are called chattels. I am told that flats and offices are equipped with fixtures and fittings and furniture in entrance halls and on staircases, trade lifts for the delivery of goods, refrigerators, electric cooking stoves and fires. I mention those things by way of example. They are deemed to be in the Schedule A category for Income Tax and attract the 2s. in the £. They are also deemed to be chattels and attract another contribution under Part I. This is unfair, it seems to me. As they are already dealt with for Income Tax under Schedule A they ought to be included for the purpose of the Act under Part I.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): My hon. Friend is quite right. There are cases in which the use of furniture and fittings which are not-really part of the house may be reflected in the Schedule A valuation. The actual proposal would be impracticable. For one thing, there may be considerable doubt as to whether a particular article of furniture is included or not. It may be that it has been based on a rent which reflects that there will be certain fittings available, and it would be a difficult position if the Board of Trade always had to be quite certain that a fixture had not become land, and vice versa. What has

    841
    happened in certain cases, by inadvertence or for mutual convenience, is that instead of having a separate Schedule D assessment in respect of profits derived from the use of furniture, there has been one assessment. It is not as black as it may look, because the result of that is that the person gets a repairs allowance on the total figure, the allowance, of course, being directed to land. If there were a proper assessment under Schedule D, he would get no such allowance. So that to some extent what the man loses on the swings in having to make a War Damage Contribution in respect of movable furniture he gets back on the roundabouts because he gets a repairs allowance.
    I saw some figures which were worked out showing that in a case in which there was a definite sum which might reasonably be attributed to furniture the man would not have been better off in the end if he had had a separate Schedule D assessment. In a good many cases of blocks of flats and hotels the assessments in force in September are capable of being reopened and are being reopened, When a case is reopened under that procedure the Revenue are prepared to consider this point and get it put right. If in the case of blocks of flats or hotels it can be shown that the combined tax and contribution charges have been substantially increased by including net profit from letting fixtures and fittings in the Schedule A assessment, the Revenue will be prepared to look into it and see whether it can be put on a proper basis. I hope that my hon. Friend realises the impracticability of the methods he has suggested and will withdraw his Amendment.
    Sir H. Williams: I realise that administratively there are difficulties, but it is hard on the people paying twice. Although the Attorney-General has rightly told us that where Schedule A assessment is reopened this matter can be adjusted, the trouble is that the Chancellor will not permit an assessment to be reopened for the specific purpose of dealing with war damage matters. It is only if by chance an assessment is reopened for some other reason that this matter can be taken into account. The Attorney-General realises that there is a measure of injustice, and as it might be cleared up administratively if the
    842
    Chancellor would permit assessments to be reopened on this ground alone, the matter would be cleared up. I shall be glad to know whether the Attorney-General will consider this and let us know if he can solve the problem on those lines.
    The Attorney-General: I do not think that my hon. Friend quite followed what I said. Let me make a correction. I was wrong in using the word "hotels." We are dealing with blocks of flats and offices, and that is the only category in which we are prepared to consider this problem. The Inland Revenue will be prepared to revise any case of blocks of flats or offices in which it is shown that the combined tax and contribution charges have been substantially increased by including net profits from letting of furniture and fittings in Schedule A assessments.
    Sir H. Williams: In the light of that statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. I have no personal knowledge of this matter, but those who are interested will examine the Attorney-General's statement, and if necessary I will raise it on the Report stage.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, in page 14, line 19, to leave out "and any such order as to costs," and to insert:
    "and may tax or settle the amount of any costs to be paid under any such order or direct in what manner they are to be taxed, and any such order."
    The Second Schedule to the Act gives power to the referee to make orders as to cost on an appeal, but no provision has been made as to how the amount of costs ordered to be paid is to be determined. This Amendment rectifies the omission and gives the option to the referee either to tax costs item by item or award a lump sum for costs, or to direct the costs to be taxed by a taxing master.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

    SECOND SCHEDULE.— (Amendments as to Ultimate Incidence of Contributions under Part I of the Principal Act.)
    Mr. Bellenger: I beg to move in page 15, line 28, to leave out paragraphs 4, 5 and 6, and to insert:

    843
    "4. Section twenty-five of the principal Act shall apply to all contributory properties irrespective of value or use."
    Sir H. Williams: On a point of Order. May I ask whether it is proposed to take the general Debate on mortgagors and mortgagees on this Amendment?
    The Chairman: I do not understand what the hon. Gentleman means by "the general Debate." What we are debating are the various Amendments which are called from time to time.
    Sir H. Williams: Last night before Progress was reported I raised the question whether it might not be convenient to debate only one of these Amendments and, if it was desired to divide on any of them, to do so without further Debate.
    The Chairman: I shall be only too ready to agree, 3 the Committee wish, to take the Amendments without discussion. We must debate this Amendment and see what happens.
    Sir K. Wood: I support the suggestion for one Debate, otherwise we shall be repeating many of the arguments on the various Amendments. That would not prevent anyone, if he wishes, pressing his Amendment to a Division. From my point of view it would be convenient to make one reply on all the matters at issue on these Amendments.
    Mr. Silkin: I suggest that it would be to the general convenience of the Committee if we discussed these Amendments together. On the other hand, they raise separate points. The first Amendment, for instance, asks for 100 per cent., the next for 75 per cent. and another for 50 per cent. If we could discuss all these in one Debate, we could then have Divisions if necessary on any of the Amendments.
    Mr. Bellenger: Section 25, with which this Amendment deals, deals with the whole question of the passing-on of part of the War Damage Contribution, and the following Amendments also deal with the same subject.
    The Chairman: There is no need for hon. Members to go on debating this question of Order. This is the first Amendment relating to this matter, and it is obviously a broad one. It must be left
    844
    to the Chair to decide on the scope of the discussion. I have no desire to restrict the Debate unduly. The Chancellor has said that the arguments on this Amendment will apply to the other Amendments, and it may be that hon. Members will not want, and I hope they will not want, these arguments repeated.
    Mr. Bellenger: In moving this Amendment which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for North Battersea (Mr. Douglas) I desire to say that to a large extent, or to a certain extent, the case has been dealt with on the Second Reading of this Bill and on the principal Act when that was under discussion. I have no doubt that most hon. Members are familiar with the arguments which Members in all parts of the Committee wish to put to the Chancellor, and we hope that we shall receive a different reply to that which was given on previous occasions. This is the most vital controversial principle in this Bill, and we desire that it should receive substantial consideration and that we should be given some improvement. Section 25 of the principal Act has admitted that in certain cases direct contributors, who may be and often are mortgagors, can pass on to the mortgagee a proportion of their War Damage Contribution. These isolated cases are those in which the mortgagor has one property on the mortgage deed which he acquired by borrowing money from a mortgagee, or which he converted and the money which went to the cost of that conversion was obtained by mortgage. That very limited class can pass on part of the War Damage Contribution. We say, therefore, that the principle of apportioning War Damage Contribution between the mortgagee and the mortgagor has been admitted in the principal Act, and we are asking for this principle to be extended to other classes.
    The Committee may be aware, as the Chancellor certainly is, of an anomaly which arises under this Section 25 whereby the individual whom the Chancellor wished to protect, and has indeed protected, namely, the single householder who acquired his house by borrowing money, is prejudiced if he happens to have bought another property at the same time and more than one property was then included in the mortgage deed. Small properties are often put up in pairs as semi-detached houses. When the builder or his successor in title is asked to

    845
    sell one of the houses he often says, "You must take the two if you want to buy the one." We then get the position,—a case has happened in my own constituency, and I put it to the Chancellor—that a man who wishes to buy one house to live in has at the same time to buy the semi-detached house next door, which is occupied by somebody else. If he borrows the money for the acquisition of those two houses and they are both included on the one deed, he is prohibited from passing on to the mortgagee any proportion of his War Damage Contribution. That is an anomaly which ought to be put right, whatever the Chancellor is going to say about the Amendment.
    There is another anomaly to which I would draw attention before coming to the vital principle of the Amendment. Under this Section there is a limit even to the very small class of mortgagors who can pass on a proportion of their contribution. That limit arises upon the assessable value. In the case of any property over £150 assessable value even in that limited protected class the mortgagor cannot pass on a proportion of the War Damage Contribution, except in the case of agricultural property, where the figure is £500. I suggest that the Chancellor should remove the £150 limit altogether.
    Now we come to the vital principle with which the Amendment deals. The argument was developed on Second Reading, and the Attorney-General replied to the Debate. As far as I understood his arguments, they were mainly these: You must not interfere with a transaction which has taken place in normal circumstances; in other words, you must not affect the sanctity of contract principle. The Attorney-General did not admit that this abnormal circumstance, damage by enemy air-raid action, should affect the mortgagee who has lent a fixed amount of capital for a fixed rate of interest and who expects nothing more and nothing less. Shylock himself asked for his pound of flesh and for nothing more and for nothing less, but the judge told him that he could not get his pound of flesh if at the same time he took some blood with it. I am suggesting seriously that what we are doing is to enthrone moneylending, currency, over money's worth, which means human effort, human endeavour and production, and I say that is a wrong principle on which to proceed.
    846
    With his other arguments the Attorney-General gave as an illustration that when the premises are insured against fire the mortgagee is not asked to bear the cost of the fire insurance premium. The mortgagor is expected to pay the fire insurance, so that if the house is burned down, the mortgagee will be protected and will be able to recover his capital. But the fire insurance covenant is a part of the mortgage deed; it was envisaged at the time the bond was settled, whereas the War Damage Contribution was never foreseen by either mortgagee or mortgagor. The Prime Minister has assured us that in these abnormal times the burden is not to lie where it falls but is to be spread equitably over the whole of the community. The mortgagee is a part of the community, and I am saying, and I hope that other hon. Members will support me, that the mortgagee is one of those persons to whom the Prime Minister referred when he said that the serious burden caused by enemy air-raid action should be spread over all classes in the country and not left as a burden upon one particular class.
    I believe that in another place, the argument of the widow's mite was advanced; it was said that the widow who had only a small sum of money, which she had been advised to invest in a mortgage, would be heavily penalised. I am afraid that argument will not hold much water, because these widows who are so conveniently brought in to substantiate arguments against our case are relatively few in number and represent only a small amount of capital in relation to the capital value of mortgages in general; and, further, widows usually invest their money in the houses themselves and not in mortgages. We know that in this matter we are dealing with very powerful financial interests and that it is they that are behind the Chancellor in refusing our suggestion.
    I do not want to go over the whole of the ground which I and other hon. Members traversed on the Second Reading. I have no doubt that many hon. Members will have a point of view to put which, while coinciding mainly with the point of view which I am now putting, will perhaps differ in some of the concrete examples. I want to put a particular point to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Attorney-General. If the mortgagor

    847
    does not keep up his payments of interest, the mortgagee has the right to foreclose. Of course, he has to go to court for an order, but in certain circumstances he can foreclose and come into possession of the property, which had already been conveyed to him on a lease when the mortgage deed was entered into. The mortgagee then has to pay War Damage Contribution in order to protect his capital invested in the mortgage. In certain circumstances, the mortgagee will have to pay the War Damage Contribution or possibly lose his capital.
    The mortgagee relies not only on the real property security but on the personal bond of the mortgagor. What is this personal bond worth to-day, in many cases? What was the personal bond worth before the War Damage Act was passed last year? There was no compulsory insurance. There may have been many voluntary insurance schemes, and if the mortgagor did not wish to enter into such a scheme, he did not need to do so. Therefore, the mortgagee, whose only interest was the real property itself, stood to lose the whole of his capital, if the premises in question were blitzed and the mortgagor was unable to implement his personal bond. The War Damage Act has protected not only the holders of real property but the financial interests behind them. Even if we are not prepared to admit that finance is a partner with the holders of equities in property, it has a very substantial fiduciary interest in making sure that the property—which means the capital—is fully covered, and therefore, we say it should bear the proper share of the War Damage Contribution.
    Mortgagees held out inducements to mortgagors to borrow money in order that buildings should be put up for the very lowest rented class of tenants. The Housing Acts of 1933 and 1936 offered special inducements to local authorities which would persuade housing associations and housing trusts to put up hereditaments mainly for the working classes. Those associations, of which there are many in this country, did a good job of work by building houses at low rents. They are forbidden to increase those rents, in spite of the abnormal, circumstances, and are now being forced to bear a heavy contribution, running into many thousands of pounds and jeopardising
    848
    their own solvency. There are many Amendments on the Order Paper dealing with those cases. I cannot imagine it is good policy for the Government to induce builders in whatever form, to put up houses for the working classes at low rents and then to throw on them a burden which they are not able to meet and which will, perhaps, force many of them, if the war lasts long enough, to go into bankruptcy. I cannot believe that that was the intention of the Government, and I hope that this argument alone will induce my right hon. Friend to see our point of view.
    We are told that War Damage Contribution is a capital charge. That is all right in theory, but in practice many individuals, societies and companies are so mortgaged to-day that they cannot borrow any further capital. Indeed, if they wanted to, I am not at all sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would permit them to do so. I believe that he has given instructions to the banks to go very carefully in lending money for the acquisition of real estate. Money is now directed into the channels where the Chancellor wants it, namely, into war production. I know that building societies and banks have been prohibited from lending large sums of money for the acquisition of properties. Building has now almost ceased. War Damage Contribution has to be found out of income. It cannot be found out of capital. Rents have been controlled since the end of the last war, and rightly so. I am not advocating that rents should be put up in order to ease the burden of War Damage Contribution, but if rents are controlled, and then an unforeseen burden is thrown on those who receive them, there will be bankruptcy and insolvency far and wide. A very difficult position will be created. I do not know whether there is any way out of the position at the present moment, by the mortgagor passing on some of his burden, perhaps illegally. I do not think any have tried to do so yet, but facilities are given to the dishonest man to try and pass it on, even though he is prohibited from doing so by the Act.
    I have given a few additional examples to those which I gave when I spoke on the Second Reading. I feel that there is support in all quarters of the House for the contention advanced in this Amendment. The mortgagee and house property

    849
    business has now assumed such proportions, whether considered from the angle of the building societies, the property investment companies, housing trusts or banks, and there are millions of people who own some share of the home in which they live, even though it may be only a very small share. If you stop these people from being thrifty and from putting more of their savings into their homes, you attack the foundations of our present order and of the reconstructed order which we want to see after the war. I would reiterate something of what I said on the previous occasion. In the homes of the people is the soundest and solidest sheet anchor for good citizenship, and anything which attacks that solid principle of our national life will be dangerous for the State and for the community. Because I believe that, I have moved the Amendment.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Cuthbert Headlam: I do not propose to detain the Committee for more than a few minutes, but I should like to do my utmost to induce the Chancellor to reconsider his decision on this question of the liability of the mortgagee. I gather that his present decision is based on his desire to preserve the sanctity of contract, and probably to maintain the idea that investment in mortgages is a sound form of investment which should be encouraged. I do not think that I or any sane man could fail to sympathise with him in this desire, but in the case of war damage it seems to me that this question of upsetting a contract does not arise. A new and exceptional condition has been created by the war, and the decision of the Government was to meet this new condition by exceptional measures. This measure amounts to a levy on capital, and that falls, of course, at any rate at first, upon holders of property and then upon the whole community. It weighs heaviest on small property owners and upon those who have invested their money in the ordinary shares of a property company. I do not fancy that people who are not associated with property companies realise what tremendous damage they have had to face as a result of the war. It is not only the fact that their property has been destroyed, but that as a result of the blitzing of towns it has been extraordinarily difficult to let what remains. Consequently, their incomes are enormously reduced,
    850
    and this is the time when they are expected to pay—and naturally in their own interests it is right that they should have to pay—their contribution to the War Damage Fund.
    It seems to me that it is quite impossible to deny the fact that all persons who lend money on property for other than a short term have a direct interest in the property, and this fact indeed is recognised, partially at any rate, in the Act of 1941. It seems to me, therefore, both illogical and unreasonable to bring into the scheme some long-term lenders and not others. I notice that the Chancellor, in his Second Reading speech, besides saying that he saw little difference between a mortgage and an ordinary debt, said that another reason which made him determine to maintain his attitude was that it was impracticable to draw up any simple formula for the mortgagee's contribution which could reasonably be applied to the various types of commercial mortgage, including floating charges, debenture capital and so forth. I appreciate that there may be some such difficulty, although I do not believe that any administrative difficulties are so great that they cannot be surmounted with a little good will. At the same time, there is a distinction between a long-term mortgage and a short one, and I should have thought that it might have been possible without any great difficulty to differentiate between the two. A lender lends his money on the security of the property, and in practice if the property is lost by enemy action or otherwise the lender will lose his money. The War Damage Act protects him against such loss caused by enemy action, and it seems to me only fair and just that mortgagees should come into the picture and take their share of the liability which is imposed upon the mortgagor. I do not propose to go any further into the matter to-day, because I know there are many other hon. Members who wish to speak. I do, however, associate myself very strongly with the speech just made by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger), and I hope that the Chancellor will see his way to come to the assistance of the mortgagor in this particular case.
    Sir Frank Sanderson: I rise to oppose the principle which has been enunciated by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger). I did so on

    851
    the Second Reading of the Bill, and today I do not propose to advance again the arguments which I then put forward. I rise because I am most anxious to put what I regard as a new view, and if that view is accepted by my hon. Friend, I am sure he would then see his way to withdraw his opposition to-day. In the early part of his speech he said that the Prime Minister had stated that the loss should be borne by the community as a whole. May I take the words of the Prime Minister? He promised that the damage suffered by enemy action would not be allowed to remain where it fell but would be borne by the whole community. Surely that is provided for in the Bill, which provides that after the first £200,000,000 of damage has been sustained the Government will be responsible for the second £200,000,000. Afterwards on any damage in excess of the £400,000,000 the Treasury will pay half the additional over and above that figure. I think that that puts the position in rather a different light, in view of the Prime Minister's statement, which in fact has been borne out by this Bill and by every action that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken during the course of the Debate.
    There is another point that I might just mention in passing before I come to my main point. My hon. Friend stated that he knew that there were powerful financial interests behind this opposition. I am not here to say whether that be true or not, but I would like to say that, so far as I personally am concerned, I have no financial interest in it. I have never given a mortgage, nor have I ever taken one, and I have not been approached by any financial interest. I speak from a purely independent standpoint.
    The point I wish to raise, and which I now come to, is this: In practice, it would not be possible to do what my hon. Friend desires. Indeed the very Amendment which is on the Paper in itself condemns what my hon. Friend has in view. The Clause to which I refer states:
    "the expression 'mortgage' means any charge, lien, floating charge, debenture, debenture stock or like security on any property (including in that expression floating assets) for securing money or money's worth, other than a security, which can be discharged upon less than three months' notice".
    Take just one extract from the "Financial News," which I should say was supporting
    852
    my hon. Friend's Amendment. I can take their own words to oppose it. This extract says:
    "In the case of a property company, the contribution is in effect paid by the ordinary shareholder. The debenture holder goes free, although his interest in the property is real. Even if the Amendment were agreed to, he would still come off better than the ordinary shareholder."
    I maintain that you cannot really separate a mortgagee from a debenture holder. Therefore, for all practical purposes both come under the same category. A mortgagor is in the same position as an ordinary shareholder in a company. He owns the whole of the equity of the property or business. The mortgagee is in the same position as the debenture holder in a limited company. He holds a charge upon the whole of the properties of the company and usually also upon the floating assets. One might therefore argue—indeed, one should argue if my hon. Friend is right—that debenture holders in all limited liability companies should contribute towards the cost of war insurance in the same way.
    In other words, the point I wish to make is that for all practical purposes a mortgage, whether it be a single mortgage on a property or whether it be a mortgage company that issues debentures and ordinary shares, both of these cases are parallel with the ordinary great industrial concerns that issues debentures which are secured upon the properties of the company. Indeed, if they had not the properties on which to secure the debenture no company would be able to issue a debenture. What takes place? The debenture holder secures his fixed rate of interest, nothing more. The ordinary shareholder holds the equity of the business. If the business is successful the ordinary shareholder comes off well. That applies equally to a mortgagor. On the other hand, if the business is unsuccessful, the ordinary shareholder derives no benefit upon his investment. That is parallel with the case of a company which owns property, whether a company owns property only or whether it owns property, plus machinery, plus business. So I maintain that no argument has been advanced which could really substantiate the argument which has been put forward, and for those reasons I oppose the Amendment which is before the Committee.
    Captain Gammans: I do not know that I can add very much to the arguments which have been put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) and my hon. and gallant Friend the member for North Newcastle (Sir C. Headlam). But I make no apology for bringing forward this question, because my feeling is that it is the one serious criticism against a Bill which is otherwise a very brave and courageous measure to meet the abnormal circumstances in which we find ourselves. I hope that I can impress the Chancellor with the strength of feeling which I think exists throughout the country on this one point. I have read the remarks of the Chancellor and the Attorney-General upon the Second Reading, and I gather that they both feel that the relationship between a mortgagee and a mortgagor is only that of an ordinary borrower and lender. My view, and I believe it is the view of many people throughout the country, is that in these abnormal circumstances the only real criterion which can be applied is this: Has the mortgagee any interest whatsoever in what happens to the property on which he has lent his money? If he has any interest, it is only equitable that he should bear a part of this contribution. May I put it in this way? Suppose this Act were taken off the Statute Book to-morrow morning. I wonder who would be on the Chancellor's doorstep first to ask for it to be re-enacted, the mortgagees or the mortgagors?
    Supposing this Act were not on the Statute Book, would I be right in saying that in connection with the property which has been badly destroyed and upon which a mortgage exists at least 90 per cent. of the mortgagees would in fact lose every penny they have put into that property? In other words, I contend that the mortgagee is very definitely an interested party. I know that the argument has been used that he does not pay any of the fire insurance. That was dealt with very fully and, if I may say so, very ably, by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, and I do not propose to refer to it. We also have another argument put forward, that if the mortgagees were called upon to bear some share of this contribution, it would give such a shock, as it were, to their nervous systems that property-owning businesses after the war would
    854
    not be able to obtain money as they were able to do before the war.
    Sir F. Sanderson: Would my hon. and gallant Friend agree that a debenture holder in a public company would be in precisely the same position and that therefore if my right hon. Friend were to consent to my hon. Friend's suggestion he would also have to make it compulsory on debenture holders also to pay a contribution? If the mortgagee had to pay a contribution in regard to mortgages taken out in the future, the mortgagee would take this liability into consideration and ask an appropriate or equivalent increased rate of interest. In regard to existing mortgages, the mortgagee could, and in many instances would, call in the mortgage, or alternatively come to agreement with the mortgagor to increase the rate of interest to compensate him for the insurance to be paid.
    Captain Gammans: I think the position is exactly the same except that in one sense you may argue that the ordinary mortgagee may conceivably have some remedy in a personal covenant to recover his money, but a debenture holder has none. If the property is destroyed, he has no chance of recovering the money he has invested in that company. As I was remarking, we have had the argument that it would give this shock to the mortgagee interests, and therefore in the long run it would not be an advantage to property owners to pass on some part of this charge to the mortgagees. I fail to be impressed by that argument. It seems to me that it is an argument that you can use as a boomerang. In other words, if building and property owning generally is put at the grave disadvantage it appears to be at, you might find that people who would normally come forward after the war to put up houses will be just as disinclined to do so as we are told mortgagees will be to-day if they are called upon to bear some of this cost. In other words, my own opinion is, that taking the long view, the only sound thing, as well as the only equitable thing, to do is to spread the risk over as many people who are interested in the property as possible. May I deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson)? I understood that his point was that the proposers of this Amendment might be prepared to withdraw if the Treasury would provide the second £200,000,000.
    Sir F. Sanderson: That was not my point. The point I was endeavouring to make was that my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment thought that there was really no limit to the amount to which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor must be prepared to go to meet his case, if he was going to be equitable and just. Therefore, he may realise that he has no alternative but to withdraw his Amendment.
    Captain Gammans: I do not know whether the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) is impressed by that argument, but I confess that I am not impressed by it. If the contribution had been pound for pound from the beginning, I might be prepared to withdraw my Amendment; but I hope, at any rate, that we have not yet reached the first £200,000,000 worth of war damage from air raids. I was struck by the argument that this is an ordinary transaction between lender and borrower. If so, why make any exemption at all? Why make an exemption in respect of property of less value than £250 in cases where the money was specifically lent to build or to buy the house? Could anything be more unfair than an exemption granted on the question of purchase? I do not think it matters whether the money was lent to buy the house, to finance a business, or to spend at the races: the only question is, Has the mortgagee any interest in what has happened to it? I hope I have been able to impress the Chancellor with the strength of the feeling which exists throughout the country. He cannot have failed to notice that, both on the Second Reading and to-day, this point has been strongly urged from all parts of the House. I do not know whether there is any difficulty in collecting from the mortgagees. I cannot see that there is. It will simply be the case that the mortgage interest is subject to a deduction of 2s. in the £. I do not press the actual words of the Amendment in my name; if the Chancellor appreciates the principle upon which I and others feel so strongly, he may be able to meet this very important point.
    Mr. Hely-Hutchinson: I think we should try to draw a distinction in our minds between equity and soundness. We want, first, to consider whether the Amendment proposed is equitable or not, and, secondly, whether it is sound
    856
    or not. On the question of equity, it has been generally admitted, in spite of what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hornsey (Captain Gammans), that there is, in fact, a dividing line on grounds of equity between those who borrow for the purpose of building or buying homes to live in themselves, and those who do so for other purposes—for example, in order to make an income or a capital profit. It is possible to exaggerate the analogy a little further. Surely, there is a difference in equity between someone who mortgages a house in order to own and live in it, and someone who mortgages the house he owns for the purpose of buying a pearl necklace for his wife, or, it may be, for a lady who is not his wife. Surely, between those extreme examples there is a difference in equity. It is not possible to disregard the purpose of the borrower, when considering the question of equity. I think that public opinion has generally accepted the very rough attempt to draw the line just above the small owner, to the value of £150 a year. Above that value, roughly speaking, the transactions come into the category of what might be called commercial borrowing and commercial lending, transactions between people who are engaged in the business for profit.
    Once one gets above the level where equity governs, and into the field of commercial borrowing, it becomes a question of whether what is proposed by the Amendment is sound or not. Here I would join issue with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Newcastle (Sir C. Headlam) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hornsey on the question of soundness. Those of us who desire that things should be left as they are do not do so because of any abstract principle of the sanctity of contract. In point of fact—and I speak from practical experience of this, as a director both of an insurance company which lends a lot of money on mortgage and of a bank which has a certain amount of mortgage transactions, and in other capacities where I have to deal daily with mortgagors and mortgagees—one is continually having to amend a contract because of the borrower's circumstances. There is never any objection by a lender to amending a borrower's contract when the borrower is in difficulties. But what we seek to avoid is any possibility that the form of a contract which has been such a valuable

    857
    servant to many forms of industry for so long should be interfered with in order to relieve the present difficulties of some borrowers. Particular borrowers can always meet their lenders, and in 99 cases out of 100 get their contracts adjusted on equitable grounds of pure reason. But this business of borrowing and lending on mortgage has been a very valuable servant to the borrowing and lending community for over 200 years, and we do not want to see that form of contract upset. It is not a question of seeing that every contract made in that form is maintained, but of not upsetting the general form.
    Here I speak also from the point of view of a director of investing companies which have substantial investments in the equity of large property companies. From that point of view, although the ordinary shares of those property companies are suffering at the present time, and although their sufferings are partly due to the additional load placed upon them by the War Damage Contribution, we do not, as investors in the equity, wish to see destroyed a form of covenant which is the very basis of our prosperity in peace-time. I could give figures which would reinforce what the hon. and gallant Member for North Newcastle has said about the importance of this whole thing to the property companies, but I think those figures would probably lead the Committee to a conclusion different from that which Members were invited to draw by the hon. and gallant Member for North Newcastle. An ordinary structure for a large property company might be £9,000,000 book value of property, of which they would be borrowing £6,000,000, and the remaining £3,000,000 might be represented by the equity capital. As a general rule that £9,000,000 of property may be earning 6 per cent. net, and on £6,000,000 of borrowed money the property company has to pay only 3¾ or 4 per cent. It is simple mathematics to show that 6 per cent. on £9,000,000, which is £540,000, less 4 per cent. on £6,000,000, which is £240,000, leaves £300,000 for the £3,000,000 equity capital, which is 10 per cent. thereon. That form of borrowing cheap money on mortgage has been the basis of the property companies' success for quite a period of years. I know of a particular company—and all the companies are
    858
    comparable, though they differ in detail—which for years in peace-time was paying 11 per cent. on its ordinary shares owing to the fact that it was borrowing £6,000,000 at an average rate of 4 per cent. or 3¾ per cent. To-day that company is paying nothing on its ordinary shares, and, very roughly, what has brought that about is that there has been a fall in net rentals of £263,000 a year and an increased charge owing to the War Damage Act of £70,000 a year, a total of £333,000 a year, and the 11 per cent. dividend used to take £275,000.
    It is clear that the major reason why that company is not paying a dividend now is not on account of War Damage Contribution, which is merely a contributory cause, but because of the falling-off of rents. It would not be proper to say at this time whether the net rentals are improving again, because that might possibly be an indication to the enemy whether particular towns were filling up or not, but if it should be the case that a large part of that loss in net revenue which took place in 1940 has now been restored, does that alter the situation with regard to the equity of whether the mortgagee should make a contribution? It might be that, without any question of this War Damage Contribution, this company might get back to the position where it could pay 11 per cent. on its equity capital. Meanwhile still the mortgagees would go on getting only their 3¾ and 4 per cent. The company might own property in a town in which there had been considerable destruction of property and there might be a great shortage of housing, office and shop space in that town after the war, and a considerable increase in rentals. The company, with the improving rentals it would get after the war, might be in a position to pay 16 per cent. or 18 per cent. on its ordinary shares. Is it desired or proper to suggest that in those circumstances the amount of interest that it pays to the holders of mortgage debentures should be increased? I do not think that the Movers of this Amendment contemplate that that should be done by the equity holders, who are suffering very much from the present situation.
    I speak on this matter without any direct money interest of my own, but as touching it from many angles, as a Director and as a Trustee, from the point

    859
    of view of insurance companies, which lend money on mortgage and from the much less affected point of view of the short-term lenders, the banks and others, who do not have to make new contracts if they do not want to, and therefore would not accept real property as part of their security if it carried this proposed disadvantage; and also from the point of view of the investment trusts which invest moneys in the equity of property companies. "From all these viewpoints we invite my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to leave this question alone. It is a question of sound business policy. It is a question of what is the best business. From the point of view of the investor, and as representing investors in the equities of the property companies, we would very much prefer that the management of these property companies should occupy their minds with other activities than a political agitation which can only serve in the long run to destroy the very basis of the prosperity of the companies which they are managing.
    Mr. Shakespeare: I have not intervened in these Debates before because I was not able to do so, but I am very sorry that when I do so I should have to differ from one who was my old Chief when he was Minister of Health. My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Hely-Hutchinson) has justified the present position on the broad grounds that it would upset a form of service which has been of very great advantage in general housing development. That is true, but as far as I can see, no one wants to upset it, neither the hon. and gallant Member for Hornsey (Captain Gammans), the hon. Member for Basset-law (Mr. Bellenger) nor the hon. and gallant Member for North Newcastle-on-Tyne (Sir C. Headlam). All that they ask is that, in providing against an unknown risk which is something altogether different from the ordinary risks that may fall in peace-time, but a risk which falls upon rich and poor alike, there should be no form of property, investment or finance which should be put into a privileged position. That is the position without a shadow of doubt. It does not matter whether rich people invest in equities, debentures or mortgages, the fact remains that companies which carry on with borrowed money are having a bad time
    860
    now. The whole of the burden of providing for the security of the money advanced by the mortgagee falls on the equity and not on the mortgagor. It really does not comfort a particular company to know that at some unspecified date in the post-war period they will earn 18 per cent. The point is that here and now this burden has fallen upon them. These housing companies, particularly the Voluntary Housing Associations who use this form of mortgage, find it very difficult to keep up their contributions.
    I realise the difficulty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is difficult to distinguish between the different forms of lending in respect of the different propertie's. He has been rather ingenious in Section 25 of the Act in making a distinction there. The principle is admitted in that Clause that, in so far as building societies lend money in respect of certain classes of mortgage, they should pay a proportion of the contribution accofding to a sliding scale. All we ask is for an extension of that principle. We are putting a liability upon building and other societies, which is not shared by insurance companies. Why should we put one in a more favourable position than the other? I think the Committee will agree that there are certain institutions, like banks, which do not make a general principle of investing in property. If I want to borrow money from my bank, I may have to put down some security, some collateral, but it is not the business of a bank normally to invest in property. It is the business of a bank to accommodate clients in finance, and no one would wish to increase the liability of the banks. But there are agencies which normally and habitually advance money on the security of a mortgage or of debenture shares in a company, all of which is in the nature of an investment. It should be possible for the Chancellor to find some method whereby, if such advances do take the form of investment in property, then, at least the man who is mortgagor or the man who is lending the money should bear his share of the burden that falls on every one, rich or poor alike.
    I cannot understand the basis on which this Bill is drawn up. It does not matter whether a man puts his house against a loan and gives a pearl necklace to his wife. The point is that he

    861
    invests his money in a house. For what purpose he requires money seems to me to be immaterial. Under the Amendment the mortgagee, instead of getting 5 per cent., would get 4½ per cent. In other words, he would receive one-tenth less as his contribution for the general security of the property concerned. I think a holder in equity would be very lucky if, after the war, he thought he would get back nine-tenths of the value of what he had lost. I hope the Chancellor will realise that there is great feeling in the Committee and outside, and that he will be able to do something to meet it.
    Mr. Silverman: I hope the Chancellor has been impressed, not merely by the arguments which have been addressed to him now and in the Second Reading Debate, but by the fact that those arguments have been addressed to him from all quarters of the Committee by Members who, on other matters, do not act in common and who differ fundamentally very often upon their approach to social questions of this kind. I suggest to him that there has been virtual unanimity in this Debate. There have been two exceptions in this Debate, and, I think, only one in the Second Reading Debate.
    Sir K. Wood: Opinions have been about equal.
    Mr. Silverman: It was said last time that they were about equal, but when we counted up, it was found that they were far from being equal.
    Sir K. Wood: It does not matter.
    Mr. Silverman: No, perhaps it does not, but it is important that the Chancellor should bear in mind that this cannot be said to be a sectional appeal. It has come from all quarters and from varied interests. What is really at stake is a general principle. My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) and the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Hely-Hutchinson) both disclaimed any financial interest in this matter, and we accept what they say, but when they both said so I was forcibly reminded—I hope they will not mind—of an epigram by the late Humbert Wolfe. He once wrote:
    "You cannot hope to bribe or twist,
    Thank God, the British journalist,
    But seeing what the man will do,
    Unbribed, there's no occasion to."
    862
    I could not help thinking of that when they rose in order to give effect to a principle that really is indefensible. What is the purpose of the Act? It is to see that losses caused to property-owners by enemy action shall not be borne by the property on which the bomb falls but shall be equitably shared among all those people who have common interests and who should share that burden. That is the purpose of the Act. An hon. Member opposite said it was most important that you should not alter the mortgage contract but you cannot help altering it. It has been altered by the war, by this peril The question is not whether you shall or shall not write a new term into the mortgage deed. You must write a new term into the mortgage deed. You are writing it into the mortgage deed whether the Amendment is passed or rejected. The question is what the new term is to be. It is nonsense to say that you can leave the mortgage contract where it was. You could have done so if there had been no war, but here there enters into the substance of the contract something which neither the money-lender nor the borrower contemplated, something which they cannot control. The State has thought it right to legislate for that and legislate for it we must. It is for us to say that whatever new term we write into the mortgage, it shall be fair and equitable, ensuring a reasonably shared burden.
    In order to examine whether, without this Amendment, the burden is equitably shared, let us see what is the position of the two parties under the Act. The hon. Member opposite raised the question of who would complain most, if there were no Bill. Let us see who would complain most. What is the position of the mortgagees under the Act, whose positions would be effected by this Amendment? If the property upon the security of which he lends his money disappears as a result of enemy action, a money-lender loses, nothing whatever. He is entitled to the whole of the debt acknowledged to be due by the Commission so far as his mortgage claim extends. It is true that he has to wait for that money until after the war, but, in the meantime, the borrower is bound by law to pay every penny of the contractual interest even though the War Damage Commission only pays to the borrower 2½ per cent. The money-lender, therefore, is fully and completely secured both as to the return of his capital and as

    863
    to the payment in the meantime of every penny to which he is entitled under the letter of the mortgage deed. For that security what does he pay under the Act.
    The answer is that he pays nothing. How can anybody seriously argue that that is equitably sharing a burden? There is a situation in which, on the one side, a person is entirely secure and cannot lose in any circumstances, and pays for that complete security not one penny, whereas, on the other side, a man who pays the whole of the contribution gets a partial security long deferred and has to pay in the meantime every penny to the moneylender to whom he is bound by the original contract. It really does not bear examination. The Attorney-General, in replying to this kind of argument in the Second Reading Debate, said that the Bill would admit that principle wherever the money had been lent for the purpose of buying or building the property affected.
    The Attorney-General: I would point out that I went on to say words to this effect—in circumstances similar to a building society mortgage, where it could be said that there was an analogy with the-position of landlord and tenant.
    Mr. Silverman: I accept that. I was only attempting to state briefly the spirit of the argument to which the Attorney-General lent his support. That argument attempted to draw a distinction between money borrowed generally for the purposes of the building upon which it was borrowed, and money borrowed upon the security of a building for extraneous commercial purposes. I think the Attorney-General will agree that that is a fair statement of the argument. In order to illustrate the matter, the Attorney-General said that a man who lends his money upon the security of a building accepts a lower rate of interest than he might get if he had no security. He said it was fantastic to argue, in those circumstances, that the man ought to be called upon to bear a share of this contribution. The Attorney-General said that that argument is fantastic, and if he says so, perhaps it is, but all I can say is that what seems to him to be fantastic is to me the plainest of common sense, and indeed, since we are bandying words, I should have thought it was his argument
    864
    and not ours that was fantastic. Once it is admitted that the moneylender has himself so highly valued the security which he gets as to be willing to forfeit a share of the return in order to get that security, surely it is established that he has an interest in the property for which he is willing to pay good hard money and to accept a lower rate of interest in order to obtain the security based upon that property. How, then, can it be argued that he has no interest in the property? His interest in the property is precisely measurable; he has valued it himself, and has paid for it according to his assessment. Certainly, he is interested in it, and if he is interested in it, he ought equitably to bear his fair share of the cost of preserving the value of that security against the acts of the King's enemies. That is all that is contended.
    Were it not for the big financial interests involved, the insurance companies and the banks, this Amendment would not be resisted. It cannot be resisted in equity, and it would not in fact be resisted but for the power of these great financial organisations. This is a Bill, as it stands, to make the world safe for moneylenders. They are the only people who are fully secured under the Bill. They are the only people who will pay no share of the cost of insuring their security. It is not right that a great social Measure of this kind should be not merely marred but, as far as these matters are covered, destroyed in the public mind as an equitable Measure by its tender regard for institutions that are better able to look after themselves than are those for whose interests we are contending in this Amendment. If there had been advanced good, sound and equitable reasons why these particular mortgagees alone should escape any share of the common burden, we would not be pressing this Amendment upon the Government. But I say that no one who has listened to the two Debates on this matter, the Second Reading Debate and the Debate on the present Amendment, can think for one moment that any sound case for this favourable discrimination has been or can be made, and I hope it is not too late for the Government to look at this matter again with a view either to accepting one or other of the Amendments—I would prefer the one that raises the general principle—or, if they think that the

    865
    Amendments do not effectively deal with the matter, finding some other machinery for carrying out what I think is the universal opinion of the Committee.
    Lieutenant Butcher: I want to reinforce the arguments that have been used in this Debate, and to say how unusual it is that on a matter of this kind the arguments should come from every quarter of the Committee. As the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) has said, there is a widespread desire to remedy an injustice which is apparent and inherent in the Bill as it now stands. This is not an insurance scheme. If it were an insurance scheme, the owner of property would have the right to decide whether or not he should come into it. This Bill imposes obligations on every owner of property in however remote or safe an area of the country the property may be. There is no choice and no opportunity for the property owner to elect whether or not he will come into the scheme. But there is this point, that wherever and in however dangerous a position may be the property on which the money has been advanced, the property is guaranteed against war damage for the benefit of the moneylender who has lent money on it without his making a penny contribution to the scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Hely-Hutchinson) concluded his remarks by saying that the matter should be left as it is. There are many people in remote parts of England who would not come into this scheme unless the Government compelled them to do so. The purpose of the scheme is to spread the burden as far as possible and as fairly as possible, and the sole test is whether a person has a definable interest in the property of which he may suffer some loss. I do not believe the Chancellor intends to accept the Amendment, but unless he does so, it will go out that of all the people who are interested in the property only the moneylenders can get benefits for which they do not pay.
    Sir K. Wood: Let me say in reply to the observations which have been made that I hope the Committee will dismiss from its mind any question here of sinister vested interests. Indeed this is the first time this notion has been imported into our discussions. If we were to look into the question we should, I suppose, find
    866
    that the large section who might be particularly interested in this Amendment are proprietors of great blocks of flats who have felt the considerable weight of the contributions which have to be paid under this Measure, coming on top of the very considerable losses which they have sustained by loss of rents. I am very sorry for them, but I am glad to observe, without giving any secrets away to the enemy, that the loss in regard to rents is now rapidly disappearing. Therefore, if one wishes to go into the motives, or into the question of where vested interests stand, much can be said on both sides. And let us not prejudice the position by using a word to which some people object. A stigma seems to be attached to the word "moneylender," which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Holland-with-Boston (Lieutenant Butcher) used of the mortgagee.
    Lieutenant Butcher: The Chancellor will be aware that on a previous occasion we got a little tangled up with the words "mortgagee" and "mortgagor." I was trying this time to keep myself neat and square.
    Sir K. Wood: My suggestion is that my hon. and gallant Friend should use the words "borrower" and "lender." The word "moneylender" has that little touch which excites prejudice. Let us put these two matters on one side and endeavour to deal with the case on its merits. It is a case for which much can be said from both points of view. This is, of course, not the first time we have had to deal with this problem. The House has already debated it and come to a decision. That decision was taken when the first Measure was brought before the House. That Measure was the subject of very careful consideration. Points of view were put by both sides, both in this House and in another place. Therefore, as I say, we are not considering this matter for the first time. What we are really being asked to do now is to upset a decision which was arrived at by both Houses before the principal Act was put on the Statute Book. It would have very serious consequences, quite apart from the merits of the proposal, if we reversed that decision at this stage. The House of Commons has power to take a step of that kind, but first, it must have regard to the previous decision, and whether there is a considerable amount of

    867
    opinion to support such a course. We have only to look round the Committee to-day to judge the measure of that. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend draws attention to the hour of the day; but I myself have not had an opportunity to avail myself of it. This Debate has been going on for some time, and here we are a nice little happy party—and no more than that. It does not look to me as if the masses of the country are up in revolution about this proposal.
    I do not for a moment desire to minimise the arguments which have been advanced against the Government's proposal by my hon. Friends, who always speak with great force and persuasion, but we have to have, not only an overwhelming case, but a case which is backed up by a very large body of opinion—larger than has been exhibited to-day—before we can reverse a decision of this kind. What was the decision taken? In a typically British way we arrived at a compromise on this proposal, although, no doubt, it can be attacked upon strictly logical grounds. The compromise which we reached, as the Committee is well aware, was that we would make special provision for cases excepted by the House. There was a special kind of relationship between landlord and tenant, and for that we made special provision. The compromise was accepted, and, as is set out in the Section of the principal Act, no contributions are made by the mortgagee.
    Mr. Bellenger: Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer amplify his statement about the compromise in cases analogous to landlords and tenants?
    Sir K. Wood: I do not want to interrupt my argument to deal with that. I would refer my hon. Friend to the Section of the Act, with which I think most Members are fully familiar. The arrangement was come to after the most careful consideration, yet it is that arrangement which we are now asked to upset. There were very good grounds for that decision. I do not think that sufficient ground for altering that decision has been given by anything said in the course of this Debate.
    Since the principal Act was passed the position of the persons who have to pay contributions has been very much improved by the decision of the Government
    868
    and the course of events which have taken place since the first Bill was introduced. A considerable contribution is exacted from those who have to make it. But so far as concerns the bearing of the burdens, there has been great improvement since the House came to its decision on the last occasion, and that must obviously be borne in mind in our consideration of the matter to-day. It is true, as has been indicated by some hon. Members, that if a house is completely destroyed the mortgagee comes in and takes the whole amount of the money that is due to him. He has paid no contribution towards it, and therefore he receives great advantages under the Measure. It is entirely overlooked however that, owing to the provisions of the Bill and the money which has been found by compensation, the person who has borrowed the money is relieved entirely from the covenant into which he has entered and the obligation which he has incurred, which would follow him for the rest of his life if it were not otherwise met. And you must have regard in all these cases to the fact that, apart altogether from the question of the mortgaged property, there is a personal covenant entered into which in a very large number of cases is of considerable value. I do not think there will be very many who, with the choice of mortgages available to-day, would themselves lend money or advise other people to lend money to people with shaky reputations or about whose honesty there was doubt.
    One of my hon. Friends instanced the position of some of these large property-owners and the important and proper part that they play in lending money for the purchase of houses and matters of that sort. There is another section of the community whom I do not want to see prevented from assisting us in our housing efforts in the future. I think it is the experience of almost all of us—it was certainly mine in days gone by in my professional capacity—that one of the best things in the country was the number of people, not with large fortunes, who were prepared to lend sums of £300, £400 or £500 on property and to regard it as a first-class investment. One has often been asked to advise as to the choice of investments for such sums, and again and again it has been said, "This is one of the safest investments you could make. It is true you are not getting a big sum by

    869
    way of interest. You could get more if you liked to take a measure of risk, but if you lend your money in this way at a smaller rate of interest you are sure of getting it and it is one of the best and safest securities you can have." I submit we should not do anything to make people look askance at that kind of investment. If you begin to interfere and make arrangements of that kind impossible, you will be doing a great deal of mischief. We shall want all the assistance we can get in dealing with the housing problem after the war, and I believe that in this way a very useful contribution can continue to be made by those investors who have helped us so much in the past. Therefore, I will do nothing which might disturb or interfere with that valuable type of investment.
    The difficulties are also illustrated by the Amendments that appear on the Paper. All sorts of suggestions have been made in order to overcome them. One of my hon. Friends seeks some kind of remedy in an arbitrary contribution to be made by the mortgagee, which he fixes at 2s. in the £1. Other of my hon. Friends have, I suppose, apprehended the difficulties which arise from bank overdrafts and commercial mortgages and they in their turn have put down varying Amendments, all in an endeavour to meet an extremely difficult situation. If we attempted to put upon the Statute Book the Amendment that we are debating, it would throw into chaos many commercial transactions. When the Act was in another place Amendments were moved designed to meet the difficulty, which it was found impossible to accept. If we accepted this Amendment or any of the others on the Paper a difficult position would be created with regard to debenture holders covering in their security some measure of real property. I can visualise a large gold-mining company with a head office in the City of London. The contribution they would have to make in respect of that building under the War Damage scheme would be hardly of any account for such a large company. If, however, this proposal were followed to its logical conclusion, there would have to be a fractional deduction in the case of every one of the people concerned with debentures. Clearly it would be impossible to follow out, in practice, a proposal of this kind.
    Mr. Selley: All that would be required would be to take the Schedule A on the property itself.
    Sir K. Wood: My hon. Friend does not follow me. I am pointing out how impossible it would be to obtain the contributions where the building was covered by debentures. I will look at some of the suggestions that have been made. I do not think it is possible to distinguish housing associations from others. I think that the House came to a reasonable decision on the last occasion. It is a compromise and I would advise the Committee to adhere to it. It has been illustrated, again and again, that that decision is a reasonable compromise, and the solution of many of the difficulties that confront us in dealing with this matter.
    Sir H. Williams: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has almost converted me against him. On this matter I have differed with many of my property-owning friends, but now the Chancellor says, "Look at this man. He is a mortgagee and is therefore a valuable creature. We must cosset him and be careful with him, or otherwise he will not come forward in future and lend money on mortgage." If you lend £400 on mortgage you are safe, but if you use the £400 to buy the other end of the house, the equity end, you have to carry the whole burden. There is a house worth £800. If you buy the back end the Chancellor comes to your aid and you must not pay one penny. If you buy the other end you are like Barnum's elephant, you have to carry the whole lot. My King Charles's head is that this problem will never be solved until we provide compensation for loss of rent and the rates of contribution should run for a sufficient number of years to meet all charges. The burden is very oppressive on some mortgagors. Take the case of a house with a Schedule A value of £100. The income runs out roughly the same as Schedule A. There is £60 mortgage interest to be paid to the mortgagor, who pays 5s. in the £ contribution on his income. He is paying only 2s. in the £ on the £100, but his income is only £40. On that he has to make a contribution of £10, which is 5s. in the £. The Chancellor, by way of Income Tax, takes any £10, so that these people are bearing a burden, where the mortgage is 60 per cent. of the total, of 15s. in the £. If the mortgage is 70 per cent. there

    871
    is only 1s. 6d. in the £ left out of the whole income. It really is, therefore, a very oppressive burden. It is not 2s. in the £, but anything from 3s. to 8s. according to the proportion which the mortgage interest bears to the Schedule A valuation. That is an aspect of the problem to which the Chancellor has not yet devoted sufficient attention.
    I am satisfied that until a change is made in some direction or another, this agitation will continue. I have tried to explain to my property-owning friends that mortgages have to be divided into two categories. There are those which are associated with the purchase of a house and those advanced for reasons which have nothing to do with the purchase of a house. I do not go so far as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) who suggested that big financial interests were behind the Chancellor in preventing him from doing what is desired. I think that it is the desire to preserve the sanctity of contracts that is fundamental in the Chancellor's mind. It is no good attacking the banks and insurance companies and calling them great financial interests. They are trustees and we have to bear that in mind. My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Hely-Hutchinson) is the director of an insurance company in which I have insured my life. He does not take a narrow selfish view of the affairs of his company as a director, but he acts as a trustee of the thousands of people whose capital is with the company. There is no narrow selfish point of view in these concerns, and it weakens our case to say that there is.
    Mr. Silverman: I did not suggest that anyone was taking a narrow or selfish view. I did assert, and I repeat, that even if the great institutions are acting in a trustee capacity and are as altruistic as my hon. Friend suggests, this Amendment would not be resisted but for their influence.
    Sir H. Willlams: The phrase used was "big financial interests," and we know its implications—that they are necessarily dirty dogs who must have no consideration. We all indulge in that kind of prejudice. It goes down splendidly when we are addressing our constituents on enthusiastic occasions. There was a proposed new Clause on the Paper in my name
    872
    which was not called because it was thought that the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for the Abbey Division of Westminster (Sir H. Webbe) which follows this would cover the point. The idea was that where the purchase of the property and the mortgage were transactions which took place at the same time and where they were definitely associated, the mortgagee should pay part of the contribution. We have the case of the housing associations. The proposal which I tabled affected the First National Housing Trust, which has large estates in Croydon and many other parts of the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer actually cut the first sod of an estate in Birmingham undertaken by the Trust, and, therefore, he is interested in seeing that the great estates which he helped to develop when Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, are not oppressively treated. When they raised the money they did not raise a separate mortgage on each house but raised a collective mortgage upon the lot, and therefore they do not get the advantage of the compromise.
    They do not get the advantage of the compromise because Lord Kennet, when he was Minister of Health, with the support of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, passed through Parliament a very valuable housing Bill whereby people who in the ordinary way could have got mortgages up to 60 per cent. could raise a mortgage up to 90 per cent. The State came to their aid in order to encourage masses of people to buy their houses. As a result of that useful Housing Act a large number of additional houses were constructed, but the people concerned with their construction, entirely as a result of the form of the Housing Act, 1932, not through any malice on their part, not through any ill-will but merely because they were complying with one useful Act of Parliament, are now condemned under the War Damage Act. Having regard to my declarations in the past, I cannot go so far as to support the Amendment before the Committee, but I hope nevertheless that consideration will be given, if not to-day, at any rate before the Report stage, to proposals for abating an injustice which manifestly now exists.
    Mr. Craven-Ellis: I have followed this Debate closely and I

    873
    am satisfied that those Members who put their names to these several Amendments had just occasion for doing so. The Chancellor has endeavoured to push this Amendment on one side, because Parliament has already passed the War Damage Act. I do not want the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to be too severe with me regarding the observations I am going to make, but at the time that Measure was passing through this House I think I am right in saying that he made an observation to the effect that it was a make-shift Measure. If those were not his exact words the words he used had that meaning, and I would say that it was a correct expression, because Parliament was doing something it had never done before and something which was deliberately contrary to the undertaking which the Prime Minister himself had given to the House. Long before the War Damage Act was introduced the Prime Minister made a statement at that Box to the effect that the State would be responsible for damage incurred through enemy action. That undertaking has never been implemented. We have had an experimental period and we have found that there are faults in this original Act, and I say there is justification for accepting one or other of these Amendments, or a compromise based on the whole of them.
    I want to say that I am opposed strongly to the mortgagee making any contribution. But the position is not normal. The very fact that Parliament has put the War Damage Act on the Statute Book has created an abnormal situation, and if the Government choose to deal with this very serious matter in this way I feel justified in supporting these Amendments, although in principle I am against the mortgagee making any contribution. It has been asked, "But what

    Division No. 11.]

    AYES.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P.

    Culverwell, C. T.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Beattie, F.

    Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

    Hughes, R. M.

    Blair, Sir R.

    De Chair, Capt. S. S.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Bower, Norman (Harrow)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

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

    Bracken, Rt. Hon. B.

    Denville, Alfred

    Jeffreys, Gen. Sir G. D.

    Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.

    Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

    Jennings, R.

    Burton, Col. H. W.

    Ede, J. C.

    Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.

    Cadogan, Major Sir E,

    Edmondson, Major Sir J.

    Kerr, Sir John Graham (Scottish U's)

    Campbell, Sir E. T.

    Elliot, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Kimball, Major L.

    Cazalet, Major V. A. (Chippenham)

    Emmott, C. E. G. C.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

    Etherton, Flight-Lieut. Raiph

    Linstead, H. N.

    Colegate, W. A.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Lipson, D. L.

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

    Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

    Little, Dr. J. (Down)

    Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir Stafford

    Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.

    McCallum, Major D.

    Critchley, A.

    Heilgers, Major F. F. A.

    Makins, Brig.-Gen. Sir E.

    Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

    Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J

    is the mortgagee's interest?" It has been said that he has merely lent money upon a definite security. His interest in the matter is more clearly identified. When money is borrowed on a property it is the natural and proper thing to insure that property against fire, and the mortgagee says, "I must have my name endorsed oh that policy as recognising that I have part ownership." I think that is so; and if that is correct, then it is right, having regard to this abnormal piece of legislation that we should expect the Government, who have failed to implement the Prime Minister's undertaking, to endeavour to bring about an equitable adjustment among the various interests. The imposition on property-owners to-day is very great, and, as I have told my property-owning friends, I blame them to a large extent for it, because there is no unity among them. If there were unity in the ranks of property-owners, this legislation would never be on the Statute Book, because it is such a piece of gross injustice. I said so yesterday and repeat it to-day. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in his cynical way, seemed to brush that on one side, but, after all, the property-owners of this country have a right to expect justice from this House. I hope that the Financial Secretary will report to the Chancellor that there are other Members in this Committee whom he has not heard who feel that some consideration should be given to these Amendments between now and the Report stage, in an endeavour to see whether even a small measure of justice cannot be given to the property-owning community.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 87; Noes, 53.

    Mellor, Sir J. S. P.

    Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)

    Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

    Malson, Capt. A. H. E.

    Salt, E. W.

    Tomlinson, G.

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

    Sanderson, Sir F. B.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Comdr. R. L.

    Nicholson, Captain G. (Farnham)

    Savory, Professor D. L.

    Ward, Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Scott, Donald (Wansbeck)

    Waterhouse, Capt. C.

    Palmer, G. E. H.

    Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

    Wells, Sir S. Richard

    Peto, Major B. A. J.

    Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir D. B.

    Westwood, J.

    Raikes, Flight-Lieut. H. V. A. M.

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    White, Sir Dymoke (Fareham)

    Rankin, Sir R.

    Storey, S.

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

    Strickland, Capt. W. F.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir K. (W'lwich, W.)

    Rickards, G. W.

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (Northwich)

    Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

    Robertson, D. (Streatham)

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

    Robertson, Rt. Hn. Sir M. A. (M'ham)

    Summers, G. S.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.

    Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

    Tate, Mavis C.

    Mr. Boulton and Mr. Pym.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Hardie, Agnes

    Shakespeare, G. H.

    Beaumont, Hubert (Batley)

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Silkin, L.

    Benson, G.

    Isaacs, G. A.

    Sloan, A.

    Bowles, F. G

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Buchanan, G.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Stephen, C.

    Butcher, Lieut. H. W.

    Leslie, J. R.

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

    Charleton, H. C.

    Lloyd, Major E. G. R. (Renfrew, E.)

    Summerskill, Dr. Edith

    Chater, D.

    McEntée, V. La T.

    Tasker, Sir R. I.

    Craven-Ellis, W.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

    Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

    Marlowe, Major A.

    Thomas, Dr. W. S. Russell (S'th'm'tn)

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    Mathers, G.

    Viant, S. P.

    Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

    Maxton, J.

    Walkden, E. (Doncaster)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Medlicott, Colonel Frank

    White, H. Graham (Birkenhead, E.)

    Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

    Montague, F.

    Wilson, C. H.

    Frankel, D.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Windsor, W.

    Gallacher, W.

    Pritt, D. N.

    Gammans, Capt. L. D.

    Reakes, G. L. (Wallasey)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

    Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

    Mr. Bellinger and Mr. Silverman.

    Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)

    Selley, H. R.

    Captain Gammans: I beg to move, in page 16, line 16, at the end, to insert:
    "Rights over against mortgages in cases to which Section twenty-five of principal Act does not apply.
    7. Where at the relevant date in any year in which an instalment of contribution is payable the interest of a direct or indirect contributor in respect of a contributory property is subject to a mortgage or mortgages, such case not being one in which Section twenty-five of the principal Act applies the following provisions shall have effect:—

    (a) The contributor shall in respect of his net liability for the instalment of contribution payable in the year in question be entitled to be indemnified by the mortgagee or mortgagees under the mortgage or mortgages in question to the extent of a rate in the pound upon the amount of the annual interest payable by the contributor to such mortgagee or mortgagees for that year, which rate in the pound shall be the instalment rate for the year in question unless than rate when applied to the amount of such interest would yield a sum exceeding one-half of the net liability of the contributor for the instalment of contribution payable in that year, in which case the rate in the pound shall be a rate which, when applied to the amount of such interest, would yield a sum not exceeding one-half of such net liability:

    Division No. 12.]

    AYES.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Bowles, F. G.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Beaumont, Hubert (Batley)

    Buchanan, G.

    Chater, D.

    Benson, G.

    Butcher, Lieut. H. W.

    Craven-Ellis, W.

    Provided that if there shall be more than one mortgagee entitled to receive interest for that year under any such mortgage the share of the indemnity to be borne by any one of such mortgagees in respect of that year shall bear the same proportion to the total amount of the indemnity in respect of that year as the amount of the interest payable to that mortgagee for that year bears to the total amount of the interest payable under the mortgage or mortgages for that year;
    (b) The expression 'mortgage' means any charge, lien, floating charge, debenture, debenture stock, or like security on any property (including in that expression floating assets) for securing money or money's worth, other than a security, which can be discharged upon less than three months' notice;
    The expression 'mortgagee' has a meaning corresponding to the meaning of the expression 'mortgage,' and the expression 'the instalment rate' means the rate in the pound at which in the year with respect to which the expression is used the instalment of contribution is levied in pursuance of the provisions of Sections twenty and twenty-two of this Act."
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 57; Noes, 90.

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    Kirby, B. V.

    Southby, Comdr. Sir A. R. J.

    Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

    Leslie, J. R.

    Stephen, C.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Lloyd, Major E. G. R. (Renfrew, E.)

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

    Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Summerskill, Dr. Edith

    Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

    McNeil, H.

    Tasker, Sir R. I.

    Frankel, D.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

    Gallacher, W.

    Marlowe, Major A.

    Thomas, Dr. W. S. Russell (S'th'm'tn)

    Groves, T. E.

    Mathers, G.

    Viant, S. P.

    Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)

    Maxton, J.

    Walkden, E. (Doncaster)

    Hardie, Agnes

    Montague, F.

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

    Headlam, Lt-Col. Sir C. M.

    Pritt, D. N.

    White, H. Graham (Birkenhead, E.)

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Reakes, G. L. (Wallasey)

    Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)

    Higgs, W. F.

    Selley, H. R.

    Wilson, C. H.

    Hughes, R. M.

    Silkin, L.

    Windsor, W.

    Isaacs, G. A.

    Silverman, S. S.

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Sloan, A.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Kerr, Sir John Graham (Scottish U's)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Captain Gammans and Mr. Bellender.

    NOES.

    Baxter, A. Beverley

    Grimston, R. V.

    Robertson, D. (Streatham)

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P.

    Groves, T. E.

    Robertson, Rt. Hn. Sir M. A. (M'ham)

    Beattie, F.

    Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

    Ropner, Col. L.

    Blair, Sir R.

    Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.

    Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

    Bower, Norman (Harrow)

    Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

    Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)

    Bracken, Rt. Hon. B.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Salt, E. W.

    Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Sanderson, Sir F. B.

    Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.

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

    Scott, Donald (Wansbeek)

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

    Jeffreys, General Sir G. D.

    Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

    Burton, Col, H. W.

    Jennings, R.

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Cadogan, Major Sir E.

    Keeling, E. H.

    Storey, S.

    Campbell, Sir E. T.

    Kimball, Major L.

    Strickland, Capt. W. F.

    Cazalet, Major V. A. (Chippenham)

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (Northwick)

    Challen, Flight-Lieut. C.

    Linstead, H. N.

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

    Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

    Lipson, D. L.

    Summers, G. S.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Little, Dr. J. (Down)

    Tate, Mavis C.

    Colegate, W. A.

    Lucas, Major Sir J. M.

    Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

    Gripps, Rt. Hon. Sir Stafford

    Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

    Tomlinson, G.

    Critchley. A.

    Makins, Brig.-Gen. Sir E.

    Touche, G. C.

    Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Comdr. R. L.

    Culverwell, C. T.

    Mellor, Sir J. S. P.

    Ward, Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    De Chair, Capt. S. S.

    Molson, Capt. A. H. E.

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

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

    Waterhouse, Capt. C.

    Denville, Alfred

    Nicholson, Captain G. (Farnham)

    Wells, Sir S. Richard

    Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Westwood, J.

    Ede, J. C.

    Palmer, G. E. H.

    White, Sir Dymoke (Fareham)

    Edmondson, Major Sir J.

    Petherick, Major M.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir K. (W'lwich, W.)

    Elliot, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Peto, Major B. A. J.

    Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

    Emmott, C. E. G. C.

    Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

    Etherton, Flight-Lieut. Ralph

    Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Frankel, D.

    Rickards, G. W.

    Mr. Boulton and Mr. Pym.

    Mr. Frankel: On a point of Order. I have to inform you, Sir Dennis, that I have inadvertently voted in both Lobbies, first in the left, which from my point of view is the wrong, Lobby, and secondly in the right one. Therefore, my vote is recorded in both Lobbies, first with the "Noes" and then with the "Ayes." Can anything be done about it?
    The Chairman: I am afraid the hon. Member has done all that he can to remedy the matter. He has in fact cancelled his wrong vote, but only at the expense of, practically, not having voted at all. I am sorry, but I am afraid that in the circumstances, under our Rules of Procedure it is not possible to do anything more.
    Mr. Frankel: Thank you very much, Sir Dennis. I will do my best to remedy those Rules.
    Amendments made:
    In page 18, line 10, leave out:
    "The foregoing provisions of this paragraph and the provisions,"
    and insert:
    "The provisions of this Act and."
    In page 19, line 2, leave out:
    "or by paragraph 9 of this Schedule."—[Sir K. Wood.]
    Sir John Mellor: I beg to move, in page 19, line 5, at the end, to insert:
    "except in any case where the Commissioners of Inland Revenue have allowed the discharge of such liability to be deferred by reason of the fact that a payment in respect of expenditure on the making good of war damage to property has accrued or is accruing but has not been discharged."
    It is sought to insert this Amendment at the end of sub-paragraph 12, which provides:

    879
    "A right to indemnity conferred by Part I of, or the Fourth Schedule to, the principal Act or by paragraph 9 of this Schedule shall not be enforceable until the discharge of the liability in respect of which the right arises."
    The exception we seek to insert is:
    "except in any case where the Commissioners of Inland Revenue have allowed the discharge of such liability to be deferred by reason of the fact that a payment in respect of expenditure on the making good of war damage to property has accrued or is accruing but has not been discharged."
    The right to indemnity which is referred to in sub-paragraph 12 of the Second Schedule to the Bill is the right which arises under the principal Act that the ground landlord shall make a partial contribution to the contribution made by the direct contributor. In the Fourth Schedule to the principal Act there is a table which defines the appropriate proportions in which the contribution is ultimately to be divided between the direct contributor and the ground landlord or other parties bearing a similar relation to him. As matters would stand, were the Bill to proceed unamended so far as this sub-paragraph 12 is concerned, the direct contributor, whose contribution is deferred because there is accruing to him a war damage payment of some kind, as in those circumstances where there is a permitted set-off, would not obtain the due indemnity from the ground landlord according to the strict wording, although I do not think according to the intention of the Government. He would not be able to get this indemnity although he had in effect discharged his liability to the contribution, because what he is to receive will be subject to an appropriate set-off. I think that the matter will be corrected if the Chancellor can accept the words of the Amendment or some similar words so as to secure in effect that a set-off shall be equivalent to a discharge of the liability within the words of sub-paragraph 12.
    Sir K. Wood: This matter is a rather complicated one, as my hon. Friend pointed out. I would just say that I will bear in mind what he has said in any further consideration I give to this particular proposal. I would remind he Committee that sub-paragraph 12 of the Second Schedule which my hon. Friend desires to amend provides that an indemnity is not to be recoverable by a landlord, tenant or mortgagor, until the liability in respect of which the right to an indemnity arises has been discharged.
    880
    Consequently the direct contributor must have paid the Inland Revenue before he can recover his indemnity. My hon. Friend proposes that this condition shall not apply where under an administrative arrangement the Inland Revenue has allowed collection of the contribution to be deferred until the direct contributor has received from the War Damage Commission payment in respect of expenditure which he has incurred in repairing war damage. The deferment extends to contributions on the damaged property and the direct contributor's other properties up to the amount of the claim on the Commission.
    As we see it, the proposal before the Committee would operate in a way which probably my hon. Friend would not regard as satisfactory. Suppose that a person held long leases of 20 properties from 20 different landlords and the instalment due from him as a direct contribution on 1st July, 1942, in respect of all the properties amounts to £500 and that he will be entitled to recover from his landlords indemnities amounting in all to £200. If he has expended more than £500 in repairing war damage to one of the properties and has claimed that from the War Damage Commission, the Inland Revenue Department is prepared, if he so requests, to allow the collection of £500 for all the properties to be deferred until the Commission pays. But the effect of the Amendment would be that because a direct contributor's claim for making good the damage to a single property has not been met he would be allowed, before paying anything to the Inland Revenue, to recover his indemnities, both from the landlord of the damaged property and the 19 other landlords whose property has suffered no war damage. It would indeed be hard to satisfy those 19 that they should be excepted from the general rule by the fact that the lessee holds from another landlord a property which happens to have been damaged. That, as I understand, may be the effect of this Amendment. But perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to consider what he has said, and I will confer with him if necessary.
    Sir J. Mellor: I am much obliged to my right hon Friend, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

    THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Amendments in Part II (Goods).)
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): I beg to move, in page 20, line 5, at the end, to insert:
    "3. Conditions to secure application of early payments for replacement of essential goods.

    (1) Where the whole or any part of a payment in respect of the destruction of or damage to any goods is made on an earlier date than would be allowable under Sub-section (1) of Section sixty-one, and is so made by virtue of the Board of Trade being satisfied that the replacement or repair of the goods is expedient in the public interest, the Board may impose conditions requiring that the sum paid shall be applied in or towards the replacement or repair of the goods, or shall be so applied within such time as the Board may specify, and if any such condition is not complied with the sum paid shall be recoverable as money had and received to the use of His Majesty.

    (2) Nothing in this paragraph shall be taken to prejudice the power of the Board of Trade under Sub-section (3) of Section sixty-one to impose conditions restricting the manner of application of a payment."

    This Amendment is designed to set right an oversight in the drafting of the original Act. The original Act lays down that the Board of Trade may impose conditions restricting the manner in which the sum paid for destroyed business goods may be applied in the replacement or repair of such goods destroyed or damaged. It was thought that that gave us complete power to specify how any money we paid out should be expended. In fact, we are advised that we have not any such power. We can say how the money shall be expended if it is expended, but we cannot say that it must be expended. Suppose that a man lost a capstan lathe, and we decided that it was in the public interest that that capstan lathe should be replaced, and we gave him £500 to replace it. We could say, "You will spend that £500 on replacing that lathe, and you will paint it blue." If he painted it green, we could get the lathe back. On the other hand, if he did not buy a lathe, but spent the money on having a few months in Blackpool, we could not get our money back at all; we should just be left looking rather foolish. This Amendment is to give us power to say how any money provided by us for a specific purpose shall be spent.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Captain Strickland: I beg to move, in page 20, line 20, at the end, to add:
    "5. Payments for damage prior to scheme coming into force.
    Notwithstanding anything in Section sixty-eight of the War Damage Act, 1941, and subsequent regulations made under the provisions of that Section, payments shall be made to a person who suffered war damage to goods or private chattels prior to the date of the scheme coming into force on such terms as would have applied had the scheme been in force on that date."
    My reason for moving this. Amendment, which I think will appeal to the sense of the Committee, is that, according to my reading and the reading of a good many friends of mine, when the original Act was before the House it was the intention that those people who were unfortunate enough to lose their private goods and chattels prior to the passing of the Act should come under the same conditions as to compensation and as to premiums as those who suffered damage after the passing of the Act. The general feeling was that we were all in this together, and that we should share alike. Section 68 of the War Damage Act stated that—
    "The Board of Trade, acting in accordance with the regulations made by the Treasury, may make payments to persons in respect of … war damage occurring to goods which … if the scheme in question had then been in force would have been uninsurable …"
    It might almost seem that those words would cover the Amendment I am now moving, but a position has arisen which is contrary to the speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 17th December, 1940, when he said:
    "Out of evil good may come, and this Measure will not only enable us to do justice by securing that the burden shall be shared between those who suffer and those who are fortunate enough to escape damage to their property … It is another principle of this Measure … that all must stand together, so far as the rate of contributions is concerned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th Dec, 1940; cols. 1125–6, Vol. 367.]
    When the Board of Trade issued Notice 123, dated April, 1941, Section 1, headed "What the private chattels scheme is," said:
    "If you are a householder, there is free compensation, without payment of a premium."
    A further explanatory leaflet was issued, known as P.C.S.5, in Section 15 of which occurs the phrase:

    883
    "The War Damage Act also provides for those cases in which the damage occurred before the scheme came into force. You will be treated as if you had a policy under the scheme, and will receive the same compensation as you would have received in that case. A sum will be deducted from your compensation to cover any premium which you would have paid if the scheme had been in force."
    No mention was made, when the assessments were done on the pre-Act damage to furniture, of any deduction of a-premium where the amounts were assessed by the valuer. That went on right through the year, until January this year, when a further assessment was sent out, showing how much the original assessment was, how much had been paid on account, and the balance to be paid in future, when the war had finished. It was not until the Spring of this year that the first mention was made in official documents of the deduction of a premium which would be paid to the people who suffered damage prior to the passing of the Act. I put down a Question to the President of the Board of Trade on 28th April, and he replied:
    "My attention has been drawn to this case. For reasons of practical administration and for the advantage of many of the claimants, the very large number of claims outstanding, when the War Damage Act became law, have been assessed for compensation as if they were the subject of an insurance policy. No premium is levied where the loss is less than £100 or payment is made on hardship grounds. In other cases the premium is calculated on the actual loss only."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th April 1940; col. 777, Vol. 379.]
    That means that a married man, living with his wife, may have suffered £300 damage to furniture prior to the Act coming into force, and another man, living in the same circumstances, may have suffered damage to his furniture to the same amount in the following month. One man is charged a premium, or is notified that a premium will be deducted from the £300, while the other has no such premium charge made. I am sure that it is not the desire of the Treasury that this distinction should be made. I am not particularly wedded to this Amendment. I would rather learn that there was a sense of the justice of the thing. If there has been administrative difficulty, I hope there will be some statement from the Treasury that they will meet this case in a just, generous and open way, so that people who suffered before the passing of the Act
    884
    may be treated in-exactly the same way as those who have suffered after the passing of the Act.
    Captain Waterhouse: I am glad that my hon. and gallant Friend was able to say that he did not attach great importance to the particular form of this Amendment. Although we cannot possibly accept the Amendment as dratted, for the reason which I will shortly explain, we can do something which will substantially meet the point that he has put so very clearly. If we were to accept this Amendment, it would mean, in these pre-Act claims, that we would have to investigate the amount of free cover to which each applicant was entitled. The Committee will remember that anyone is entitled to a certain amount of free cover for himself, a certain amount of extra free cover for his wife and a certain amount of extra free cover again for his children living with him at home. It would have been a very great administrative difficulty—in all these matters we are dealing with hundreds of thousands of cases—to have had to make such inquiries, and again there would have been the difficulty that a man might have exhausted his free cover but might not have realised the fact and probably would not have realised it. Were he unfortunate enough again to be bombed out of his house—because there are many cases where people are bombed out two, three, and even more times—he might well have expected that he would again be subject to a free cover and would have been extremely disappointed and aggrieved when subsequently he found that he was not covered at all for the second calamity. There are certain disadvantages in that, under free cover, the amount that one can get for any specific article destroyed, such as a motor car, piano or wireless set, is limited to £25, whereas under the policy as a whole it is £50 or 5 per cent. of the total amount insured, whichever is the larger, without any limit for a motor car.
    In all the circumstances the Board of Trade decided that it would be best to deduct this small premium—I know that my hon. and gallant Friend will agree with me that although it is an annoying premium, it is a very small one—when the payment came to be made, but subject to two very material provisos. The first is that when an immediate payment is made on the ground of hardship no

    885
    premium deduction is made at all, and the second, which is equally important, is that no premium deduction is made when the claim is under £100. These two provisions together can make us reasonably sure that no payments have already been made from which premiums have been deducted. We are therefore able to meet my hon. and gallant Friend in this way. The Board have decided that under their existing powers they will in future waive the deduction of premium on the first £300 of pre-Act claims, which will substantially meet the case.
    Captain Strickland: Do I understand that in future that will apply to where assessments have already been made?
    Captain Waterhouse: I will deal with that. Instructions will be issued that, in cases where the notice of deferred payment showing a deduction of premium has already been issued, such deductions are to be disregarded when the payment comes to be made after the war. If there are any cases in which the deduction has already been made from a cash payment, then we are prepared to refund, but we do not think that there are any such cases. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will feel that that provision substantially meets his case.
    Captain Strickland: I would like to thank my hon. and gallant Friend for the way in which he is meeting my suggestion. I know that it must present great administrative difficulties, and it is, as he says, a very small amount to deduct from the point of view of the Treasury, but it is a considerable amount to some of the people who have suffered this damage, and it gave them a feeling that they were being penalised by their misfortunes. I am sure that his announcement will be received throughout the country with wide approbation among these unfortunate people. I beg to ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir Patrick Hannon: I beg to move, in page 20, line 20, at the end, to add:
    "5. Payments for damage to goods pertaining to places of worship.
    (5) Where—

    (a) war damage has occurred to goods pertaining to a church, chapel or certified place of meeting for religious worship of any denomination, being goods in respect of which a policy has been issued under the business scheme; and

    886

    (b) a representative body of that denomination, whether central or not, has made application to the Board of Trade, either as respects that policy or as respects any class of policies comprising that policy, that any payment thereunder in respect of the goods should, in lieu of being made to the person insured, be made to a body of persons specified in the application,

    the Board of Trade may, if they think fit and after consultation with the person insured under the policy and any other persons appearing to the Board to be interested, give effect to the application.

    (2) Regulations of the Treasury under Section sixty-eight may provide for applying the provisions of sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph to payments in respect of such goods as aforesaid made under that Section otherwise than under policies."
    The Amendment relates to the operations of the war damage business scheme as operated by the Board of Trade. In present circumstances the operation of the scheme is a contractual arrangement with the particular person who arranges the insurance on the part of the particular denomination or church or chapel. The Bishop of London's Committee, which embraces representatives of all the religious bodies of the country, has decided that this Amendment is necesary in view of the eventualities of our time. For example, evacuation has taken place in many districts, air raids have destroyed churches and chapels, and trustees are concerned about their insurances against war damage. This Amendment aims at releasing the Board of Trade from the obligation of dealing with the particular person who carries through the insurance policy and ensures payment to the representatives of the church or chapel affected by the insurance itself. I need not elaborate the matter, but, in the circumstances in which we live, people are often out of touch, and some of the persons possibly who have effected an insurance may be non-existent or untraceable. An insurance can be effected by a particular person on behalf of a particular church or chapel. In the Roman Catholic Church we have a diocesan committee whose responsibility is the maintenance and continuity of church or chapel arrangements. That body would be the proper one to receive the compensation if it was paid under the provisions of the principal Act operated by the Business. Committee of the Board of Trade. I understand that the Board of Trade is friendly to this Amendment being introduced into the existing legislation, and I

    887
    have received a friendly smile from no less a person than my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Denman: I think there is nothing I need add to the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) except to endorse what he said about this being an Amendment which is proof of the collaboration of all the main Christian bodies in this country. It is a very happy collaboration in considering the problems of physical reorganisation after the war, and this is an exceedingly useful product of that body. I had a letter to-day from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Luton (Mr. Burgin) asking me to add his name on behalf of the Methodist Church, so it will be seen that the main Christian bodies are united in this request. The purpose of the Amendment has been clearly explained by the Mover, and I think it will be for the convenience not only of the Churches but, I hope, of the Board of Trade as well. The principle of a negotiation between a central body of State and a central body of the Churches is accepted in the first part of the War Damage Act, and I think that principle will be conveniently applied to the insurances under the business section of the same Act.
    Captain Waterhouse: An Amendment on these lines was first brought forward in another place by the Bishop of London when the original Bill was under consideration. At that time the Lord Chancellor, while expressing doubt as to whether or not that particular Amendment could be accepted, was most sympathetic to the general idea underlying it

    "Section three, subsection (6).

    The word 'immediately' shall be omitted.

    First Schedule, paragraph 5 (1) (6)."

    In page 21, line 16, at the end, insert:

    "Section nine, subsection (4).

    For 'immediately before the occurrence of the war damage' substitute 'at the date by reference to which the disposal of a value payment in respect of war damage thereto is under the preceding provisions of this section to be regulated.'

    First Schedule, paragraph 6."

    In line 20, at the end, insert:

    "Section twelve, subsection (2).

    For the words from 'if the mortgage' to 'share shall' substitute 'if the mortgagee receives the payment or share he shall be liable to account as if it had been paid in full, but if not it shall.'

    First Schedule, paragraph 8."

    and promised that on the first suitable subsequent date, if the matter was raised again, it would be most sympathetically considered. This, of course, is the first such occasion and, as the hon. Members who have moved and supported it have pointed out, it has been agreed by all the main bodies of the Churches in the country. There are adequate safeguards, we think, for the rights of the insurers. After all, it is up to the Board of Trade to see that those rights are properly safeguarded. If the parochial council of any particular Church have taken out an insurance policy and some other body; of that denomination thinks the payment should be made to the diocese or to themselves rather than to the insurers, the first thing the Board of Trade have to do is to consult with the insured.
    Sir P. Hannon: If they can be found.
    Captain Waterhouse: Yes, if they can be found. If they had been blown up it would be difficult to consult with them. But if they can be found consultation will take place with them, and it is also our duty to consult with any other persons who seem to us to be interested. We feel that these safeguards are sufficient and that the object of the Amendement is desirable, and, therefore, we are very glad to ask the Committee to accept it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

    FOURTH SCHEDULE.—(Consequential Amendments.)
    Amendments made:
    In page 20, line 25, at the end, insert:
    In page 22, line 31, at the end, insert:

    "Section forty-four, subsection (3)(a).

    For the words from 'the depreciation in' to 'its value in' substitute 'that section shall have effect with the substitution for the reference in subsection (4) to the state in which the hereditament was immediately before the occurrence of the damage of a reference to.'

    First Schedule, paragraph 5(1 ((b)."

    In line 40, at the end, insert:

    "Section sixty-three

    In subsection (2) the words 'in relation to the goods' shall be omitted, and at the end of paragraph (b) of that subsection, insert 'or, where the conditions require the replacement or repair of the goods, whether within a specified time or not, that if goods have been acquired or repaired as aforesaid they would be on any premises.'

    Third Schedule, paragraph 3."

    In line 49, at the end, insert:

    "Section eighty, subsection (4).

    The word 'immediately' shall be omitted.

    First Schedule, paragraph 5 (1) (b).

    In page 24, line 20, at the end, insert:

    "Third Schedule, paragraph (2) (d).

    The words 'the subsistence of' shall be omitted.

    First Schedule, paragraph 8."

    —[Sir K. Wood.]

    Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended to be considered upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed. [Bill 31.]

  EMERGENCY POWERS (DEFENCE) ACT, 1939.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Milk Marketing (Special Areas) (Scotland) (Charges) Order, 1942, dated 14th 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."—[Captain Crookshank.]
  Major McCallum: I must apologise to the House for taking up its time with what may be considered a matter of very small importance, but this is a matter of considerable importance to the part of Scotland which lies within my constituency, namely, the three islands to which this Order refers. Agricultural conditions in these islands have been steadily declining for a number of years, and I would like to say to the Government that the farmers there are deeply appreciative of this scheme having been extended to them as a result of representations which have been made. It is true that there has been a certain dilatoriness in the
  890
  scheme being brought into effect for these three islands, and I frankly admit that it is not only the authorities which are to blame for the delay. There was, among a very conservative set of farmers, definite opposition to bringing these three areas under the control of the Milk Marketing Board However, good sense has prevailed, and the scheme is now to include these three islands.
  I would like to refer to the Island of Coll, which is five or six hours' steaming away from the mainland and has a population of about 200 people. Not so long ago the number was about 1,000. The cheese-making industry on this island was fast disappearing. The inclusion of Coll in this scheme will be the beginning of a new lease of life for the farmers and inhabitants of this island. I am given to understand that this is only a war-time Measure, and while many of us know wartime Measures of control are not always welcome or acceptable, I can assure the Government, on behalf of the farmers, that this one is most decidedly welcome. We hope it will not only be a war-time Measure but a peace-time Measure, when that happy time comes again. The war may be over in two or three years' time and it is very difficult for farmers when they are more or less at the mercy of uncertainty, particularly in such an industry and in

  891
  such remote areas, if they do not know whether this is to be a permanent scheme or not. On behalf of my constituents, I hope that the scheme will be carried on after the war. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and many others in Scotland are firmly convinced that co-operative marketing is one of the principal conditions that will bring better times to our agricultural industry. We look upon this scheme as a small beginning. I know that in some parts of my constituency, inclusion in the Milk Marketing Board's scheme has brought a tremendous revival in agriculture. We look forward to these three islands also having a new lease of life as a result of the scheme. Other islands in my constituency and outside it on the West Coast of Scotland, and also certain
  892
  parts of the mainland, have rejected up to now all efforts to include them in the scheme, but I feel certain that when they see the beneficial results that come from inclusion, they also will be only too anxious to be included in the scheme. On behalf of the agricultural community of the islands, I heartily welcome the scheme.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  "That the Milk Marketing (Special Areas) (Scotland) (Charges) Order, 1942, dated 14th 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."

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. J. P. L. Thomas.]
CIVIL DEFENCE.
  FIRST-AID POSTS, LONDON.
  FIRST-AID POSTS, LONDON.
  DETAINEES (HOLLOWAY PRISON).
  DETAINEES (HOLLOWAY PRISON).
  HOUSE REPAIRS (LOCAL AUTHORITIES' POWERS).
  HOUSE REPAIRS (LOCAL AUTHORITIES' POWERS).
  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.
  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.
  MALAYA (BRITISH PRISONERS' DEPENDANTS).
  MALAYA (BRITISH PRISONERS' DEPENDANTS).
  WARSHIP WEEKS, WALES.
  WARSHIP WEEKS, WALES.
AGRICULTURE.
  JUVENILE WORKERS (WAGES).
  JUVENILE WORKERS (WAGES).
  PIG CLUBS.
  PIG CLUBS.
  RABBITS (TRAPPING).
  RABBITS (TRAPPING).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  FRUIT PRESERVATION.
  FRUIT PRESERVATION.
  MILK (TUBERCULOSIS PATIENTS).
  MILK (TUBERCULOSIS PATIENTS).
NATIONAL WAR EFFORT.
  TRANSFERRED WORKERS (ALLOWANCES).
  TRANSFERRED WORKERS (ALLOWANCES).
  FACTORIES (CLEANLINESS).
  FACTORIES (CLEANLINESS).
  Ex-R.A.F. FITTERS (EMPLOYMENT).
  Ex-R.A.F. FITTERS (EMPLOYMENT).
  MEDICAL MAN-POWER.
  MEDICAL MAN-POWER.
  RACING (NATIONAL HUNT FIXTURES).
  RACING (NATIONAL HUNT FIXTURES).
  PRIME MINISTER (RAILWAY JOURNEYS).
  PRIME MINISTER (RAILWAY JOURNEYS).
MILITARY SERVICE.
  TEACHERS.
  TEACHERS.
  CIVIL SERVANTS.
  CIVIL SERVANTS.
  SCHOOLCHILDREN (WORK ON FARMS).
  SCHOOLCHILDREN (WORK ON FARMS).
Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

MEMORANDUM ON MILK POLICY.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE) (Lord Cecil): My Lords, I think that perhaps before this House proceeds to the business on the Paper noble Lords might allow me to refer briefly to a matter which arose yesterday during the debate on the distribution of foodstuffs. First of all, I should like to express my sincere regret to the House that I was not myself present. I was unfortunately engaged on important duties elsewhere, and I hope, therefore, that my absence will be forgiven. I have been informed, however, that certain noble Lords felt that the House was being treated with some discourtesy because the White Paper on milk was issued only just before the beginning of the debate. I need not assure the House that it was far from the intention of the Government to treat noble Lords with any discourtesy, and perhaps it would be helpful if I explained how this position arose.
The debate on the distribution of foodstuffs was originally arranged, as your Lordships know, for the end of April, and subsequently, for reasons which it is not necessary to go into to-day, it was postponed, first of all until May 19 and then again until yesterday. In the meantime, my noble friend the Minister of Food was engaged in evolving and securing agreement on a new policy for the reorganization of the milk trade and the distribution of milk to meet war-time needs. These negotiations were not dependent on, nor directly connected with, the debate, and it was in fact a mere coincidence that the issue of a White Paper giving particulars of this new milk policy fell due on the date arranged for the debate on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. My noble friend's original idea was that he should make a statement on milk policy in answer to a Private Notice Question, but I told him—and I am entirely responsible for this—that I thought this was unlikely to be acceptable to your
114
Lordships; because the House will remember that recently exception was taken to this particular procedure, and I had undertaken that Private Notice Questions should be strictly confined to matters of urgent national importance on which there could be no delay. He then drew my attention to the fact that there was the debate on the distribution of foodstuffs, which seemed to provide an opportunity for such a statement, and he would also then announce that a White Paper was being issued on the subject of milk. It seemed to me, rightly or wrongly, that this proposal would be more acceptable to the House than the other procedure which had been suggested, and I advised him to adopt it.
It is, after all, not an unusual proceeding that a statement should be made by a responsible Minister in one or other of the Houses of Parliament, and that a White Paper should be simultaneously or subsequently issued to provide members of the two Houses with a record of Government policy in a convenient form for use in subsequent debate. I would, emphasize that this particular White Paper could not in any case have been issued earlier—that would have been impossible—and the only alternative procedure would have been that the White Paper should have been issued yesterday without a statement, and the statement and a debate should have followed later. That, I quite agree, might have been the better method. But it was never contemplated by me, or, I think, by my noble friend, that the debate would focus round the White Paper, and I thought that the House would wish to have the statement as soon as it possibly could. I would assure noble Lords that the sole object of the procedure which was adopted, and for which I accept the very fullest responsibility, was to suit the convenience of the House, and I am very sorry if it failed to attain that object. At any rate the White Paper is now before your Lordships, and if there is any noble Lord who would like to put down a Motion for discussion on it, I know that my noble friend Lord Woolton will be very happy to arrange a date for such a discussion.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I am sure everyone welcomes the statement of the Leader of the House. I should like to express my accord with him in regard

115
to the matter which was recently put before a special Committee appointed by your Lordships as to defining, so far as you can define, the purpose of Private Notice Questions, and I think the procedure that he indicated is the right procedure. As to the other part of his statement, I am quite sure that neither he nor my noble friend the Minister of Food ever thought of doing anything which was contrary to the wishes of the House, but I entered a protest because on principle I think it is exceedingly desirable that Papers on Government policy should be in the hands of members before a discussion takes place—I am sure we all agree to that—and that a statement therefore should not be made upon such a document unless members had had the opportunity beforehand of considering what it was going to be about. I gratefully acknowledge the courtesy of the Leader of the House, and I am quite sure we are all quite satisfied with it.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Crewe, who made some observations on this matter yesterday, is prevented by a public engagement from being present in the House this afternoon, but I am sure he would desire me on his behalf to express his appreciation of the explanation that the Leader of the House has been good enough to make.

POST-WAR SETTLEMENT.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion moved by Lord Addison on Tuesday last—namely, 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.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, the first stage of the debate which we resume this afternoon was remarkable, I think, not only for its interest but for the degree of agreement which it manifested. I except, of course, the speech of the noble Duke, the Duke of Bedford, who struck a harshly discordant note. He was not playing the part which he attributed to himself of Socrates, Jeremiah, and an enfant terrible, but rather that of advocatus diaboli, for he has made himself
116
a spokesman in many respects of the most diabolic personality that has appeared in the modern history of the world. But, for the rest, the House was on almost all points of one mind. We all agree that the Government have been right not to declare in detail at the present stage their proposals for world settlement after the war, and that my noble friend Lord Addison had carefully worded his Motion to make it plain that he was not endeavouring to bring pressure upon the Government to do that; for it is obvious that in a war such as this, where many nations are allied together, most of whom among themselves have agreed not to make separate peaces, it must be essential that any declaration that is made should be made in collaboration, not only collaboration with Allies, but with States which are closer to us than Allies—with our own Dominions. And history shows that many wars have been lost owing to divergences between Allies, divergences giving rise to controversy, mistrust, estrangement, open quarrels and ultimate defeat.
Above all, therefore, the Government must see it is their duty to endeavour to march in step with our Allies. And not only to maintain unity among our Allies and Associated Powers, but also throughout our whole nation. There is now a Coalition of Parties, forming a united Government, and too great precision in details of the future settlement might easily give rise to very severe divergencies and acute controversies among the supporters of the Government themselves. The Atlantic Charter, which is a very remarkable statement of principle of war aims, has now been endorsed by all the Allies, all the Dominions, and by all the principal Parties in this country. That is a great achievement—a very remarkable achievement—but controversy has only been avoided at a certain cost, and that cost has been, of course, in the matter of precision. Therefore the conclusion is that the whole House feels the Prime Minister has adopted an attitude of wise caution in not yielding to pressure prematurely, and perhaps in isolation, to make announcements of precise aims after the war.
Particularly is it essential that we should have the fullest co-operation in every step both of Russia and of the

117
United States. The history of the relations of this country with Russia since the last Great War has, of course, been somewhat delicate. At first the events of the Russian Revolution, and the terrible occurrences which took place afterwards, aroused a very strong feeling of antipathy, and the propaganda that was carried on by the Russian State, or by organizations in close touch with the Russian State, in the British Empire and other countries naturally aroused resentment. There was a possibility that this country might then take the same attitude as it took after the French Revolution when the Terror, the execution of the Royal Family, and militant Republicanism in Europe led to a violent reaction here, of which Edmund Burke was the spokesman. That was followed by twenty years of war with France. Now we are taking a very different view, and Russia also is taking a different view from that which was taken by France after her great Revolution. She no longer is engaged in a deliberate attempt to foment revolution in other countries, and the abandonment of the Trotsky policy marks a definite breach with the policy that she adopted immediately after the last war.
Now that we are fighting in a common cause, when the Russian people are bearing for the sake of that cause the most terrible sufferings, when Russia is indeed bearing the main brunt of the war on land on behalf of all the Allies, and when we remember that in future hers will still be the greatest danger of all from Germany—that she has been many times invaded and always under threat—surely we should recognize that our duty is not only to support her in every way in her military effort, but also to associate ourselves with her in the fullest possible measure in framing the course of the world settlement after the war, particularly with regard to the future of Germany. That matter is often discussed as though it were a subject in which we were primarily and almost solely interested, and on which it was for us to declare our views and endeavour to force them on everybody else. Surely it is a matter, above all, on which the views of the Russian Government and people should be clearly heard. They are also most directly concerned with regard to the future of Polard, the Baltic States, and, the Balkans, and that very difficult question which must arise under
118
the conditions which prevail after a war, as it arose in 1918 and 1919—namely, how far it is just and legitimate that frontiers should have regard to strategic considerations as well as to ethnographic.
There is undoubtedly in the minds of some people in Soviet Russia an element of suspicion lest, when it comes to the point, and the war is over and the victory has been won, there will be political elements in this country which would seek to secure a settlement establishing something in the nature of a balance of power between post-war Germany and Russia—a balance in Eastern Europe in which Britain may play the part of makeweight. That I believe is an ill-founded suspicion. I cannot find that there is any serious school of thought, even concealed, in this country of that kind. The doctrine of the balance of power, according to such study as I have been able to make of the history of Europe, has always been a, mistaken doctrine. It never was able to maintain peace for any length of time. In the eighteenth century, when it was dominant, this country was at war for as many years as it was at peace; and any balance of power that might be established is quite easily upset by shifting alliances, and never proves to be stable. It has always been a wrong doctrine, and although it is often said it is a doctrine that Britain has pursued historically in Europe, I do not think a right reading of events would confirm that.
The one doctrine this country has always pursued unswervingly, and always in the long run with success, is that of opposition to the domination of Europe by any single Power. That was her effort in the last Great War, and it is her effort now. Such an aim cannot, I submit, be achieved by any system of clever equipoise, but can only be achieved in the long run by some system of collective security. It is to that, therefore, I believe we must return. If the spokesman of the Government to-day could say anything to remove that suspicion that we may in our hearts be desiring to see Germany and Russia after the war more or less equally balanced in Eastern Europe, and to see the future peace of the world safeguarded by such an arrangement, I feel it would be of service.
The other chief party in the Alliance is, of course, the United States of America. There our hope is that she will consent to

119
take her full share after the war in the leadership of the world, moral, political, economic, and military. Our anxiety is not that she should claim that position, but that she may not claim it. We hear warning voices that the spirit of isolationism is still somewhat strong in the United States. We have to remember with deep regret the course of events in 1919 and their consequences, and we must devoutly hope that the attitude of the United States after this war will not be such as was taken then. Many members of your Lordships' House have referred to the very noble speeches that have been made of late in America by Mr. Wallace, Mr. Cordell Hull, Mr. Sumner Welles, Mr. Perkins, and others. Our friends in America may know that in this House and in this country those speeches have been heard and noted and are most warmly appreciated, and this House would desire nothing better than that we should re-echo the sentiments that were there expressed.
Then there is the position of China in the Alliance. Our defeat in Singapore and Burma has placed China militarily in great peril, and I am sure anything that can be done by the Government to strengthen her hands and fortify her resolute spirit will be welcomed in that quarter, and especially an assurance that in helping to form the peace settlement we shall consider the interests of China in the Far East no less than our own.
There was agreement in the House two days ago also as to the proposals of the Atlantic Charter with regard to disarmament of aggressor nations. In fact I think those proposals have been received with absolutely unanimous approval throughout this country. When the aggressor nations have been disarmed then the world will be able to proceed about its business undisturbed by the threats of those who have made aggression their creed. Hitherto those who believe in war have had the arms for the very reason that they do believe in war, while those who believe in peace have often left themselves comparatively unarmed for the very reason that they do believe in peace. Now in future, if the proposal of the Atlantic Charter is carried out, things will be turned the other way about, and we shall have disarmed warmongers and armed peace-lovers. The world then will be a much healthier place.
120
As to the political settlements after the war, there in some respects there was not quite the same unanimity in the House as on these other matters, and particularly in regard to the future of Germany. Some favoured the suggestion that the United German Reich should be broken up, and that fractions of that Reich should be kept apart forcibly. On the other hand other noble Lords regard that as impracticable. The noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, on Tuesday animadverted in very strong terms on a book recently written by Professor Carr on the Conditions of Peace. In some respects, no doubt, that book is open to much criticism. But at all events in the section in which that able and provocative writer deals with the question of the breaking up of Germany, he gives arguments against that being made the fundamental part of our policy which seemed to me very convincing. The noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, is not, I regret, taking part in this debate to-day; he has always impressed us so greatly by his speeches. For my own part, when I have recovered my vision after one of his coruscating speeches, and my eyes, dazzled by the brilliance of his advocacy, are able to see things clearly, I come to the conclusion that his general position is perhaps not wholly wise. I should prefer to accept the policy with regard to Germany that has been adumbrated by Stalin rather than that which we hear propounded by our noble friend Lord Vansittart.
But here, again, in regard to the future of Germany we must above all listen to the views that are being expressed by Russia, and moreover we have also to listen to the views of the Poles, the Czechs and the Austrians who are very directly concerned. Naturally the Government of this country would not wish to arrive at any definite opinion on this gravely important matter before having fully considered all the views of those Allies of ours. In general the problem of the small nations is one of the most difficult that will arise after the war. Here there is an entirely new situation in the world. The invention of the new implements of war, very complicated and very costly, and above all the invention of air warfare, have completely changed the position so far as all small nations are concerned practically in every part of the world. No longer are patriotism, valour, heroism of any avail by a small people neighbouring

121
on a great one, for that great Power within an hour can concentrate air forces from all over its territory which are completely overwhelming against a small Power, and, supported by powerful mechanized Armies, make the position of any small nation militarily impossible. And when this strategic factor is coupled with the complete repudiation of any international morality, which used to guarantee to some extent the interests, and the welfare of small Powers, their position has become indeed desperate.
This has brought about an entire change in the comity of nations. The Foreign Minister of Norway, Herr Trygve Lie, recently said that the Norwegian people have been convinced that the policy of neutrality is bankrupt, and that has received support from spokesmen of other of the smaller nations. The question of the alternative political system that has to be created in Europe is of course one of extreme complexity. We are offered by some of our friends—perhaps my noble friend Lord Davies is of that school—a dilemma between a continuance of anarchy on the one hand, and the creation of a federal system on the other. But there are other forms of international co-operation besides federalism. Federalism means, if it means anything, a composite Government such as the Federation of the United States, or the Federation of Switzerland, or any other Federation—that is to say, a Government dealing with foreign policy and with finance consisting of members of all the federated States, and an Assembly or Parliament elected in great constituencies at a simultaneous poll of the whole area. That is federalism. A unitary Government with a unitary Assembly is not practicable. Without entering into the argument which would occupy me too long, I would only express my own conviction that such a system in the present state of the world is quite impracticable. It is not likely that even one of the British Dominions would agree to federate in that sense, nor is it probable that any European nation would agree to do so.
But, as I say, there are other forms of co-operation and the Governments of some of our Allies have already declared their adoption of one other form—namely, confederation. The Poles and Czechs have formally agreed to the basis of a new Constitution in which their two States will be linked in a Confederation, and the
122
Yugoslavs and Greeks have done the same. A Confederation is, of course, a system of separate Sovereign States which unite together for purposes of defence and foreign policy, and any other matters they may desire to include, with an organ not superseding the existing Governments but formed from the existing Governments and without any simultaneously elected Legislature common to the whole of the group. That is a system less close than federation but closer than an alliance, which may perhaps give us the pattern for large parts of a new Europe. Thus the two pairs of States that I have just mentioned think that other adherents will come into their Confederations, and such Confederations in various parts of Europe, linked together, may perhaps provide us with part at all events of the political machinery that is needed. But let us not forget in considering the post-war world and federations or confederations, that there is already existing a looser but very effective union in the British Commonwealth, which itself is a service to the world, not only on account of its powerful influence for liberty and general peace, but also because it ensures internal peace over one-quarter of the whole area of the world. Let us never forget that in searching for greater unity we ought first to preserve such unity as there is.
Furthermore, there is the question of the revival of the League of Nations, perhaps with wider membership and more limited powers. I was very grateful to hear the kindly Words spoken by my noble friend Viscount Cranborne on Tuesday about the League of Nations, which in these days is usually made the subject of condemnation or even ridicule rather than commendation. After all, the League of Nations did succeed for ten years in maintaining peace throughout the world. It is the first time in modern history that a whole decade has passed without any nation warring against any other nation. It may be that while the armed Powers, particularly the British Empire, the United States and Russia, may by possessing overwhelming forces ensure the peace of the world, under that shelter the League of Nations may perform a most useful part in matters cultural and juridical, some political matters and particularly economic matters.
As to the economic side—if I may detain your Lordships for a few moments

123
longer—that is perhaps the most difficult of all the matters that will have to be dealt with after the war. My noble friend the Marquess of Crewe, who spoke on Tuesday as Leader of the Liberal Party in your Lordships' House, declared very frankly that it is universally recognized now that to abolish every form of restriction and control in international trade, and to establish universal freedom of trade, is impossible in the existing state of the world. Although I cannot speak myself for the Liberal Party, I do not know that there is anyone who would disagree with that view. The classic economics, as they were called, assumed that free competition would be universal, that every individual manufacturer or merchant would compete with every other individual manufacturer or merchant within his own country, and in external trade with all other countries; but we have been for some years now very far from that situation, not only on account of the existence of tariffs, but on account of the growing existence of cartels, of systems of trade such as that practised by Germany with political and military direction, and the Russian system in which the whole national commerce is in effect in one hand. Whatever our views may be concerning the desirability of abolishing restrictions on trade, that fact is not to be ignored.
The fact that a great part of the commerce of the world is directed politically and militarily has got to be recognized, and we have to devise new methods for dealing with it; otherwise the countries of Europe may be tempted to conform after all with the German New Order which has been largely designed to reinforce that system and to extend it. It is not enough for us to say in propaganda statements that the German New Order is being imposed by force and is being conducted and will be conducted in the selfish interest of a Power which is dominant militarily, that that Power will by means of currency and price control drain away the products and the profits of other countries for the benefit of a robber State. That is all true, but we must at the same time not merely have a negative but also a positive. We must propose some kind of alternative which will save Europe and the world from economic anarchy. That is not to be found in the old crude system of tariff barriers, the foolish attempt at one and the same time to stop imports
124
and to increase exports—an obvious impossibility. There we have been put on quite wrong lines by the advocates of that system. As an opponent of the Ottawa arrangements, ten years ago, I may be allowed to express a modest satisfaction that it is now realized that that clumsy method has proved ineffective, that it is largely discredited and rapidly falling to pieces. I do not know whether I am exposing myself to the heavy batteries of my noble friend the Earl of Selborne who will reply to this debate, but let us not fall into an unreal dilemma. Federalism is not the only alternative to international anarchy, and protective tariffs are not the only alternative to anarchy in economic affairs. I think the time has now arrived when all sections of political thought may agree that it is inevitable that there should be some form of rational international economy. The aim should be to combine individual initiative and enterprise and willingness to take risks with some measure of ordered guidance and control of international trade.
We know that the immediate position which will arise after the war is being dealt with by the Government. Steps are being prepared for feeding the population of Europe and Asia and Mr. Sumner Welles has told us that agreements are being made for stabilizing the prices of basic commodities. There will be, of course, after the war a great demand for restocking, for reconstruction, and for repairs. But, after that, with the enormous development of productive power—the increase in the world's production of machine tools alone would immensely increase productive capacity of many industries—and, with the stopping of employment upon the manufacture of armaments in Germany and elsewhere, there seems likely to be the most merciless scramble for international trade after the time is over when stocks are made good and reconstruction has been effected. There is a real danger that two or three years after the war there may be depression worse than that which followed the last war.
Here again there seems to emerge a great measure of agreement expressed in your Lordships' House two days ago, that the only means of avoiding that situation is to secure improved standards of consumption. British agriculture may find its

125
largest potential market at its own doors for dairy production and higher grade agricultural production, asking not for more protection but for less poverty amongst its customers, for the poverty of the consumer can never lead to the prosperity of the producer. China, India, Russia, Eastern Europe and the Colonial Empires of various States may offer abundant markets for industrial countries, such as the United States and ourselves and other industrial countries of Europe, including Germany, and for Japan. This matter has been interestingly dealt with in a remarkable report just issued by the Federation of British Industries, which shows that British industry is well alive to this important aspect of the whole situation.
Reference has been made to a very valuable contribution to this discussion in an article published in The Times two days ago, dealing with the scheme of an officer of the State Department of the United States, expressing not the views of that Department but his own views, and outlining a very comprehensive scheme which would go to the root of the whole question of international exchange as it now presents itself through the breakdown of the international gold standard. These matters are not to be dealt with, and these tasks are not be accomplished, in one year or two or three years. Planning for one country will be a heavy and difficult task, but planning for the planet—for it is nothing else—is a formidable task indeed. These problems, military, political and economic, are not to be settled at once all in a rush. We cannot have another Paris Conference and another Versailles Treaty and we must, I think, accustom ourselves to the idea that the war settlement can only be accomplished by stages. Any fool can make war, but it needs wise and patient statesmen to build a peace which shall be lasting.
I end as I began by saying that we must in all these matters work in closest cooperation with the Allied Nations, and above all, with the United States. Since I have had the honour to be a member of this House in season and out of season I have preached that doctrine, for I believe profoundly that the future welfare of the world depends upon that, on the political plane, more than upon any other one thing. Furthermore, owing to the
126
close economic and other relations of Australia, New Zealand and Canada with the United States, I believe that close cooperation between this country and the United States is in the long run a necessary safeguard to the cohesion of the British Commonwealth of Nations. I said on the political plane, for politics is not self-contained and self-supporting but is based on ethics; ethics is based upon philosophy and religion in its widest sense and, as the most reverend and noble Lord, Lord Lang, pointed out two days ago, it is there, in those factors, that we find the elements that ultimately condition the welfare and the happiness of the human race.
As for the United States, when we remember past relations throughout the history of the United States between that country and ourselves and how it was largely one of antagonisms with Great Britain, how their history begins not with 1066 but with a long and bitter war against the Britain of George III, and the many grave controversies that have arisen since, we may be thankful that in this greatest of all crises these old enmities and misunderstandings have been mitigated. When we recall that another King George, his present Majesty King George VI, was able to go to the United States, where he was widely acclaimed, and, standing at Mount Vernon, alone but personifying the whole British Commonwealth paid his tribute at George Washington's tomb, we may see the most significant act of symbolism in the history of the modern world.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will not think me unduly precocious in having the audacity to address you after being for so short a time a member of your Lordships' House. But making one's maiden speech is rather like facing a cold bath; the more you look at it, the more terrifying it becomes, and so I have decided to make the plunge. I am fortified by the fact that even in my very brief sojourn here I have found this a very friendly place. I am further fortified by the fact that as I look round your Lordships' House I do find many faces that bear a very strange resemblance to some I have seen opposite me or at my side in another place. I can quite understand many of your Lordships feeling in your hearts that this is rather a dreadful

127
thing: that here is another loquacious ex-member of Parliament who has come to join you. That will not perhaps be expressed vocally because everyone is so polite here, but I have no doubt that many people are feeling it. I would like to give your Lordships this promise. First of all, when I rise I will always be short, and I will never require a lectern.
Now I have in my notes here the instruction to contradict the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, because, after all, we are not making set speeches here. This is to be a debate, and, theoretically, I should contradict him. But I must say that I listened to his speech with tremendous interest because he is a master of language, and I agreed with practically everything he said. I think that perhaps he just got "on the edge," if I may put it that way, in dealing with the Ottawa Agreements, but considering everything there was nothing that I disagreed with.
What I would like to stress is that if we, these great united countries, are to work together after the war, if we, Great Britain, are to work with the United States, with Russia, with China, difficulties of getting to know each other will have to be overcome. We must get to know the people of the Allied Nations as well as their countries, and how it is going to be done, by freedom of access, intercourse by means of broadcasting and so on, will have to be considered. With regard to post-war planning many people are inclined to say: "It is much better to win the war first and then to plan for peace." I think that is a very mischievous doctrine. What are we fighting about? Germany is trying to impose upon us a post-war situation which we dislike and we are fighting to avoid it. So really the whole time both sides are thinking of the post-war position, and, in these circumstances, we have every right, and I, personally, think it is most desirable, to discuss these great problems and to hear each other's views.
It is, I think,-interesting that in most of the expressions of view that one hears the post-war situation is almost always rather coloured with the political views of the speaker. In this debate, for example, the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, brought in a slight Free Trade bias. I was interested to see that he did not quite go the whole hog. But there are difficulties
128
about that. I remember so well that in another place years ago, when Sir Alfred Mond, an enthusiastic Free Trader, was telling the House how we were going to get ships from Germany as part of the Reparations, there was a howl of protest from the Liberal Benches that that would spoil the shipbuilding market. Sir Alfred Mond turned on them and in his rather fruity voice said: "I cannot imagine any freer trade than ships for nothing." And then my noble friend Lord Cecil of Chelwood brought in his favourite world's work, the League of Nations. Although nobody has lost confidence or hope in the possibility that in future another League of Nations will be formed, I hope that he will feel some twinges of conscience in discriminating between the League of Nations and the League of Nations Union, because the League of Nations Union practically did nothing else but teach England, and nobody else, to disarm. Then we had a very, very eloquent speech from the most reverend and noble Lord, Lord Lang, in which again he, barking, so to speak, up his own tree, said that we could cure everything by adopting Christianity. That seemed to be a very quaint idea, because history will not bear out the efficacy of that solution. There have been more wars over Christianity than about any other subject. However, perhaps he meant the adoption of the teachings of the Gospel, which is a different thing. Then we had a very interesting speech from the noble Duke, the Duke of Bedford. I wish that he was here to-day. He certainly had some courage, because, apart from his very curious views on Germany, he did something for which I have the greatest admiration: he tried to explain Social Credit to your Lordships. That is a very heroic effort on any one's part! I must say that he did not convince anybody, but it was a bold thing to do.
Not only in this House but outside it people plan according to their own ideas. I have not so far, I must confess, heard a prominent industrialist or financier giving us his opinion on the more intricate theological questions. On the other hand, the Archbishop of Canterbury, ignoring the wise advice to leave '' unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's," has given the world some very curious advice on finance—some very odd advice. In a recent book, Mr. H. G. Wells took up some remarks made by the late Archbishop of Canterbury with which he disagreed, and

129
said he had a suspicion that the Archbishop was "talking through his mitre." That is a very shocking thing to say. I sincerely hope that what was a suspicion in the case of the late Archbishop will not become a fact in the case of the present one.
We have had the Communists pretending that we are fighting this war in order to make a Communist England. I do not believe that any one will think that is a truism. We have had the noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, in a somewhat bad temper, giving a broadcast to America on his ideas of how the Jews should be treated in Palestine—not a very pretty piece of porcelain; not, I think, deserving to have the great English name of Wedgwood attached to it. Still, these things go on. The Socialists plan a splendid future for us all, but nobody seems to explain how no one is to have any money, no one is to be allowed to earn it, and yet astronomical figures arc to be spent on social welfare. Perhaps at a later date we might at any rate start to explore the financial reconstruction of the country after the war, because I think that that would be very illuminating, and would possibly clear our minds.
Looking at the matter from a general point of view, England dislikes extremes, and the future, of course, will be decided by what may be termed the Right Wing of the Labour Party and the Left Wing of the Conservative Party. It is there that the great political genius of this country rests. We must not fight too strenuously about silly things like questions of public ownership. That is a shifting line; after all, it goes from the old idea of running wars on a basis of private armies to the nationalization of children. The line of public ownership is a shifting line, although it always tends to be more on the side of public ownership; but this is a question which should be decided as civilization advances.
In dealing with post-war questions, it seems to me that we should take great things first, and the greatest thing for us to consider is how we are to stop war recurring every twenty years; because planning for this and that without dealing with that problem is just waste of time and is nonsense. I think it is a truism to say that mechanical science outstrips political wisdom. We have seen in our time the birth of flight, an invention
130
which promised great good as an internationalizing influence throughout the world; and how have we used it? It has become, so to speak, a Juggernaut which may well destroy civilization itself. We had after the last war supreme power in the air, but so lacking were we in imagination that we threw it away as if we were ashamed of it. As we look at the campaign which is going on throughout the world, of what are we becoming more and more convinced? Surely of the fact that an Army without air support is quite innocuous, and that a Navy without air support is also innocuous. Unless you can provide air support for them, they are practically harmless. We have the key to the future in our hands, therefore, if we deal with the air situation.
I want to plead with the Government to consider at the earliest possible moment announcing to the world that the United States of America, Russia and ourselves intend to take charge of the air throughout the world. Having done that, they will, of course, delegate certain powers to each State, but there will be no more Air Forces. These three great countries would abolish the idea of usque ad coelum by which every country owned the air above its territory. Their international civil air force would be able to go wherever it liked and could see that Air Forces were not to be built up anywhere for future mischief. I want to impress this on your Lordships. You would not be creating an armament; you would be creating a form of transport which is long overdue, and which is much wanted in order to bring the countries together as much as possible. In return for taking this upon yourselves, you would guarantee protection to all the countries in the world, and you would have in your hands, without great Armies and without great Navies, this vast transport service—civil, if you like, in civil times—contributing to the world's welfare, but ready at any time to stop any aggressor anywhere throughout the world.
That seems to me to be the right way of thinking in the future. The idea of the League of Nations, which was a talking shop without any power, we must not indulge in again. Let us start with this overwhelming force in our hands first of all, and then unite it with another League of Nations. I do plead that we should think of this thing now, and that we should get into touch with America

131
and with Russia and try to get them to agree; because, if we leave it until after the war, the world will be tired and lacking in imagination. It will be licking its wounds, and you will never get anything agreed to then; but under the stress of the times now, with people thinking with vision of the future, I believe that you could get agreement. We cannot ask the Minister to say anything at present, but I do hope that he will convey that suggestion to the Government, in order that they may consider it.
In conclusion, I should like to say a word about the speech of my noble friend Lord Addison. I have referred to many people flogging their own horses here, and I have done the same with my pet theory about the air. I should indeed like to see the air harnessed to the good of the world, because I have seen so many friends produce this thing only thirty years ago with such great ideals as to what it was to do, but it has fallen short of them and become such a catastrophe. With regard to Lord Addison's speech, I have known him for many years, and I think his great reputation here was indeed enhanced by the very great contribution which he made in his speech. He did not touch on any extreme political view. He felt the wounds that wanted curing after the war, and I for one am very privileged to give him all my thanks for having been able to listen to him.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I never believed in my many efforts of imagination that I should ever be privileged to follow the noble Lord who has just made his maiden speech in this House, and I am sure I shall be voicing the opinion of all your Lordships when I say with what pleasure we have listened to his speech to-day, and how we hope that his contributions will be numerous in your Lordships' House. Those of us who have contributed to debates in this House, and perhaps have not always interested the House in the speeches we have made, can always feel confidence that to whatever subject the noble Lord addresses himself he will exercise an invigorating influence and will speak from profound knowledge. The noble Lord has shone in many walks of life, and when he speaks of aviation we know well that he was one of the great pioneers of that science and deserves much for what he has done in that connexion.
132
This debate is obviously the precursor of a great many debates of the same description, and I feel that it is of the greatest value that your Lordships should have many opportunities of making those contributions which so many of our members can make to the future and to the development of plans on which the future world must rest. We have listened to many speeches of wide range and great variety, every one of them interesting and without a note of controversy, or rather I would say with hardly a note of controversy, in any of them. But I think your Lordships will agree with me—and you may believe that perhaps it is the proper line to take—that, although all sorts of subjects have been mentioned, we have really not arrived at any concrete suggestions. And there is one concrete suggestion that I shall venture to offer later on in the few remarks that I shall make. We have to contemplate in the future a world in complete chaos. The difficulties and the complexities are vast and overwhelming, and are due to the havoc created by the traditional historic aggressor nation. The first step that we shall take is to prevent that aggressor from doing anything of the same kind again, and if that one great danger is removed—how it will be removed I cannot say at this moment, although naturally every one of us has ideas on that subject, and they have been mentioned in this debate—then, and only then, will the world have an opportunity of developing along those lines which are in all our minds.
But I think your Lordships will agree with me when I say that there is no time to be lost, and we do want a concrete character given to many of those suggestions which have been forthcoming in this debate which, as I say, is the first, I hope, of many. It is necessary that we should know what to do, and moreover it is also necessary that we should know what not to do. One feels somehow that one would like to see in the suggestions that are made some vital living inspiration, which seems to be lacking now. Our energies and our activities are all devoted to winning the war—to self-preservatior—which we shall achieve at some date in the future which it would be unwise actually to forecast. But one feels that somehow behind that there is not a great inspiration to enable not only the people

133
of this country but the nations throughout the world to feel that after all they are fighting for something.
I listened with great interest to the speech which the most reverend and noble Lord delivered on Tuesday. He touched on the fringe of a great number of subjects. He spoke of one material aspect, the aspect of finance, which of course is one of those paramount subjects on which the victor nations will have to develop a definite policy. I cannot in the few remarks I am making to-day indulge in my own opinions on that subject, and I certainly am not going to err, like the Duke of Bedford, in speaking of Social Credit, because I cannot understand anything about it, and I shall listen with interest to anybody who develops that point in any speech that may be made. But the most reverend and noble Lord made a second point, and that was when he quoted from General Smuts. I feel that that is a most striking quotation. The most reverend and noble Lord has made many of his own in other places, but I feel that that is a note which will certainly be struck in every debate on this subject which develops in your Lordships' House.
I was sorry to listen to what my noble friend Lord Brabazon said in his speech, and naturally I have no desire to raise a controversy with the noble Lord, especially one concerned with religion. It would be pedantic and presumptuous on my part if I as a very humble layman ventured to do so. But I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he thinks that Christianity has had a chance. It has fought for centuries and it has achieved an immense work; and one feels that if one could adopt the doctrines which are embedded in that religion and the doctrines which are the fundamental basis of all religions, we should be able to provide that inspiration which we are lacking at the present moment.
I listened with interest, as I always do, to the speech delivered by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and I was glad to hear that in no uncertain language he condemned the doctrine of the balance of power. That is a subject which opens up a very wide vista. I think there is one point to which the noble Viscount did not refer—namely, that when we are engaged in carrying out that policy we really spoke as an island in the West of Eurolpe; while, at the present moment. We are speaking
134
in the name of the British Commonwealth of Nations, which I believe makes a great difference. In the last twenty years we can say that the general history of the world has been one of failure and frustration. We remember naturally the hopes expressed after the last war, the ideas that were put forward and the disappointments which succeeded one after another. I listened with great interest to the speech which fell from the noble Earl, Lord Perth. He invariably makes a speech which interests your Lordships and one also which does not err on the side of length. He did a great service. He did what we should have expected him to do—he gave his measure of support to, and explanation of, the League of Nations.
I thoroughly agree with him that in the international order which must succeed we should have some organization which will collect the voices of all the nations and carry out that work which the League did carry out successfully for a certain time, but not long enough. Everyone is inclined to forget the immense work the League of Nations did carry out in all sorts of fields of endeavour. I would not blame the League of Nations itself. I would blame all those people who should have supported the League of Nations and made use of it in those directions in which it could be useful. Whatever the developments may be, I am hoping we shall find that the statesmen of all nations will recognize their responsibilities, and not put the blame on an organization which was asked to carry out duties it was quite incapable of fulfilling. The noble Earl also alluded to the fact that one of the disasters of twenty years ago was the failure of America to co-operate with all of us who were endeavouring to set the world aright. The noble Earl will remember that perhaps one of the most important failures was when both America and Great Britain followed each other in refusing to ratify the guarantee to France. It is quite certain that had France had any idea that that guarantee was not to be ratified, she would have claimed the Rhine as her frontier, which would have made a vital difference to all the grave difficulties with which we have been faced.
The reason I have ventured to address your Lordships is to emphasize the greatest failure of all—one which has resulted in the present situation. That was the

135
failure to observe and conserve the sanctity of treaties. If we go through those fateful years we can remember that Germany, beginning on a small scale and increasing that scale as time went on, was continually making breaches in the Treaty of Versailles. These breaches, for some reason or other, were not noticed. They were condoned and accepted. Lord Vansittart—whom I am sorry not to see in the House on this occasion, as I should have thought this was a debate in which he could have given us a most useful speech—in very eloquent phraseology tells us what is already written large in history, and which every student of history knows perfectly well. We know quite well that the German nation, led and stimulated as they have been in the past, and as they are being led and stimulated by their present leaders, are capable of every bestiality and brutality, with no ideas of civilization—that is really what it comes to. Yet, although we knew this, although we knew that Germany was arming—there was no secret about it at all—and arming in defiance of a Treaty which she had signed (signed under duress, it is quite true), nothing was done to frustrate her in what she was doing.
I never want to trespass on your Lordships' indulgence too often, but after the speeches which we have heard from Lord Vansittart, while we agree with every condemnation he puts forward, I have always wanted to ask him what the Foreign Office was doing, what four successive Foreign Ministers were doing, in condoning and accepting these breaches of the Treaty of Versailles. We know that the whole of our civilization depends on the observance of treaties—on these simple words "observance of treaties." If a great country like Great Britain is prepared to condone a breach of a treaty in any form, it strikes at the root of our civilization and is the forerunner of the anarchy we are seeing at the present time. We had every opportunity. After all, Germany was impotent. I go so far as to say that Germany was impotent up to 1937. They had made a peak for their development—they made no secret of it. We hear a great deal about Germany's secret rearmament, but it was not a secret at all. She had a peak, which was somewhere about 1940, but by reason of the disagreements among the Powers the Germans advanced that date until they were
136
more or less ready in 1939 to fall on the world, as everyone knew they would do as soon as they developed the strength which was at their command.
The great difficulty which I see in front of us at the present time, and which I hope will be overcome as these few months go by, is in relation to what is called by the hackneyed phrase, a "world order." Germany has got a world order. Hitler says to his people: "I will give you a life, an existence, but in return for that I want to absorb the whole of your freedom and the whole of your independence." That is the plan he has in his mind. It is the German plan. It is one which a primitive race like the Germans are quite willing to accept. We should have a world order of some definite kind. We speak of Democracy, and there is no more ardent supporter of Democracy than I am. I believe the great majority of your Lordships accept it too; but we must remember that this Democracy—our freedom and our independence—which it is really very difficult to define, carries with it a sort of suggestion of lack of organization, of muddling through, of hoping for the best and, as the noble Marquess (Lord Crewe) who spoke from the Liberal Benches said on Tuesday, believing it will be "all right on the night." We have got to do some planning. We have got to have an idea in our minds as to what doctrine we want to put forward as our own doctrine, and try by our example to induce other nations to follow us.
We have many acute differences in our own country. That is a sign of the healthiness of our Democracy and of our people, and shows that instead of being at a standstill we are going forward. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, referred to that point. I think he said in effect that each of our Parties deals in exaggeration, and that in between the promotion of our policies there appears to be a rancour and bitterness which foreign countries never understand. Usually it turns out that we adopt a middle course, and that is probably what will happen in the future. I am not going to embark upon the merits of Socialism or Capitalism or anything of that kind now. I would utter this word of warning. I sincerely hope that whils we continue our political controversies, in which all of us have taken part and in which most of us have enjoyed taking part, let us not forget what is going on it the world outside. Let us realize that it is

137
necessary for us to give an example to all those nations who are distracted at this moment and who are being ravaged and destroyed by the brutal tyranny of Germany, which has a plan. We shall be the godfather of an enormous family. We shall have to take all these countries under our wing, and we shall have to assist them for some considerable time. The best service we can render them is to give them an example as to how they should carry on.
There is one final word that I desire to say which I am quite sure will find an echo in the hearts of noble Lords. We have been suffering for twenty years under an inferiority complex. That inferiority complex seems to have proceeded alongside our unilateral disarmament, and it came ultimately to such a pitch that Great Britain never spoke as Great Britain but was prepared to play second fiddle to France and to any other country which seemed to have ideas of its own. I have never had those ideas. I do not think I have an exaggerated idea of the British Commonwealth of Nations, but I am quite certain that, what we should have done twenty years ago we shall have to do in the future. We shall have to take the lead in the world. Our aggression, if you can call it aggression, in the past ha s realty been the pressure of the system which we have adopted. Those responsible for our great Empire did not resort to aggressive tactics and conquest. We really have made our Empire by being able to impress on people that the doctrine of the British mission is one which is infinite and which in the end must prevail. While I am naturally willing that we should obtain all the cooperation that we can from America—and I have no doubt that we shall get it this time—and from that great country Russia, and from all the peace-loving countries of the world, I do feel that our duty lies in taking the lead in all these matters, and propounding the doctrines which we believe in our hearts are essential for the wellbeing of the world.
THE EARL OF DARNLEY: My Lords, I feel most diffident, after having heard so many exports in every branch of life making plans for the future of the world, in adding even a short contribution to this total, and also in delaying still further the healing balm of His Majesty's Government's edict. But I feel all the same even the smallest doubt as to the
138
solidity of the houses they are designing, and especially as to their foundations. I feel perhaps that I am justified in asking you to bear with me for a short time in my attempt to urge a plea for the assured welfare of the principal invalid who has to live in these buildings, and to implore that this time he may be housed, as is his due, on a foundation of rock. I refer to civilization. Not so very long ago the present Prime Minister wrote a book called Great Contemporaries, which your Lordships have doubtless read. In his chapter on Hitler he wondered if Hitler was to be the man who was eventually to launch on the world a war in which civilization would inevitably succumb. Those are trenchant words from a well-informed and intelligent man. The first part has already come true, but the second is still in the melting pot. If the second part of his prophecy is right, then planning for a world settlement is completely useless. You cannot make settlements for barbarism. If he was wrong it seems to me it is absolutely certain that the next war will bring about this result. Therefore I say with the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, whose speech I enjoyed enormously, like everybody else, that postwar settlement appears a useless discussion unless it ensures as its first proviso a means for making this event completely and absolutely impossible, and exploding the myth of its inevitability, at any rate, in all civilized countries.
Your Lordships know that in the past two thousand years there have been many great and gallant leaders who have defeated their enemies and done all manner of doughty deeds in the name of peace and freedom. Their names are all on the scroll of history. There have been many aggressors, many victims to defend and rescue, and every country has been very proud of the exploits of those who have led them to victory. And yet it seems that the net result of the whole is that civilization, that edifice of culture and security which has been built out of so much endeavour and sacrifice, is, in the opinion of one who is amply qualified to judge the age in which we live, on the eve of dissolution and destruction. It seems to me, therefore, that if that is to be said it must have a new doctor and a new treatment. I feel, perhaps wrongly, that there is nothing new enough in this debate.

139
One noble Lord—I think it was the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank—referred to Prussia as the cancer of Europe. I would like to take up this analogy. Your Lordships have had the questions of guilt and responsibility vividly debated recently in this House and often proclaimed in Press and pulpit. These bear some resemblance to the process of deploring the frightful manifestations of humanity's most terrible physical disease, and of feeling compelled to mutilate the body to remove the growth without endeavouring, as the noble band of doctors and scientists are now doing, to use them sufficiently as means for finding out its prevention and cure. Surely the establishment of the questions of degree of guilt and frightfulness is most valuable in proving the seriousness of civilization's illness and the vital necessity for its cure, and the absence of any method of effectually producing one during civilization's existence up to the present. The worse the excesses the more necessary for an absolutely new cure.
One of the proposals made by the noble Viscount who leads the House was to use a force similar to our own police force to control nations. I agree with the noble Viscount, but the English policeman does not represent force so much as prevention. His weapons are most rudimentary, his presence itself represents the united agreement formed over a period of one thousand years in the minds of this people that brawling shall not disturb the peace, and this, coupled with the suggestion always given that peaceful ways obtain better results, always give him his value. "You can't do this here" is said to attackers and attacked alike, and both are taken to the lock-up if they do not agree. The magistrate is always at his back to settle quarrels not in the interests of the disputants alone but in the interests of the whole community and to preserve the country's peace. This principle should certainly be well applied to the preservation of world peace and the preventive desire behind it also. But eventually peace is going to be founded on a desire for peace and not on any form of compulsion, and it is that feeling that we must try to create if civilization is to remain.
After all the very necessary preliminaries of restitution and re-establishment,
140
so fully and ably discussed by your Lordships in this debate, have been achieved, some method of continuance will have not only to be found but even to be guaranteed if civilization is to remain. So I assert again that the horror, the terror, the cruelty and atrocities of Germany's attack on the world have as their first lessons the seriousness of civilization's condition, the greater and more alarming violence of each successive relapse, and the need of investigating and curing the methods that have brought it about as doctors are now doing for cancer. The important problem is not to found post-war planning on guilt, however flagrant, but on methods of preventing it developing and thereby ruining the lives of countless innocent millions and bringing civilization crashing round our feet. The world has indeed to be given something that will guard international peace as faithfully and successfully as the policeman in England, but, like him, almost entirely by the prevention of the coming into being of large-scale destruction and its subsequent results of collapse, by demonstrating and producing the better means available.
The noble Earl, Lord Perth, referred to the League of Nations and to the fact that it was not supported by America. I would like to suggest to your Lordships that it was not properly supported by anybody, not because it had not the finest of ideas, of sites and houses, but because it seemed to lack authority. Therefore it developed into a babel of officials and material mechanism, and so gave no confidence to anybody, and was deserted one by one by those whom it could have helped. I believe with the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, that it can still be used to produce the desire for peace, but in a new guise and with considerable added power. That must be done first of all by propaganda and post-war planning, recognizing the fact that if wars are allowed to continue civilization will go and making that into a phobia of immense magnitude to the world; secondly, by aiming in producing at Geneva a novel method of ensuring its safety and make this so necessary that every nation will be obliged to use it and join it. But this time the League must be made into a much more active and efficacious organization.
I put it to your Lordships that it should be constituted practically and decisively

141
as a board of trustees for civilization. It must consist of statesmen of at least Cabinet rank to give it the necessary weight and importance. The board of trustees must take as their first oath of trust that they will undertake immediately at first hand the impartial examination of every grievance of every country, however preposterous it may seem, and thus secure the abolition for ever of the pompous, note-sending, speechmaking and uttering of veiled threats of pre-war days. It may be a method involving many sacrifices, but if sacrifices can be borne for war surely they can be borne for peace. It seems to me the apotheosis of co-operation and the complete rejection of competition. I maintain that the latter can now be said to have failed and the former to be the first necessity of mankind.
It would be an attempt to show an appreciation of the fact that it is now acknowledged that civilization has reached a crisis which speed and the diminution in distance and space have now brought to a head. It would be an attempt to close the past, which has perhaps been largely a failure by every one and for every one, in favour of a better future. It would save the necessity of those ghastly operations and have all humanity in the investigation department instead of in the operating room. The question of punishment and admission of guilty countries into any scheme is obviously not one of deserts alone, because according to all human laws they are well deserving of punishment—of course they are. But it should be subject to all future action being concentrated on future efficiency, and on how much the dead past can be safely allowed to influence it, and whether any body can function without the free use of all its limbs. It is no use planning treatment for one nation alone. The next would-be aggressor may be quite unsuspected. The cure has to be universally available and applicable. Of course no one can do anything but condemn cruelty, aggression and atrocities, but the lessons that they teach one are manifold.
If such ideas are idealistic and are therefore thought to be unpractical, it is much more certain that realism is one of the doctors who have wrongly treated civilization for ages. There is room for idealism at any rate as a second opinion. Idealism, after all, only says, as we all
142
know, that there are better things in life than those we have all suffered for so long and that we should explore in other directions, and new directions, if we are discontented with the old ways. Are we all content with the old ways—content to say that all the wars and miseries of the past and present are due to causeless and innate evil disposition and that therefore we must continue the old destructive ways ad infinitum? Have force and compulsion ever produced penitence and regeneration? Can we not more hopefully believe that such attacks are more likely due to the aggregate of faulty treatments of man by man and nation by nation for countless generations, which from ignorance and selfishness and pride have produced the various villains in the many tragedies on the human stage, with their permanently-recurring sequels, and feel that such an admission gives the only ray of hope possible for human betterment if it is translated into such action as can supply a radical and complete change of ideas in national co-existence?
I believe that is the only charter that will succeed. I suggest that, whatever is planned for the future, you will have assuredly to face the danger of civilization's collapse prophesied by your Prime Minister if old methods continue. If his prophecy is to be taken with its deserved seriousness, it becomes absolutely vital to find a cure that cannot fail and the answer must be some form of complete co-operative effort. Competition has brought it to its present state. There are no other variants. So there is perhaps no alternative to setting up some form of co-operative world organization which can say to future aggressors and victims alike, like the policeman in my story, "You can't do this here," and which will be able to support this order by making it obvious that for the benefit of the peace of the world the members are fully prepared to give fairer treatment to disputants than they could obtain in their old-fashioned and futile way. I put it to His Majesty's Government that if in their post-war planning they can devise such an edifice and even lay its foundation stone now they could truly say that it was laid on rock.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I have the great privilege and pleasure, in company with others of your Lordships who have already spoken in this debate, of supporting my noble friend Lord Addison. My

143
noble friend both in your Lordships' House and in the years gone by in another place has made many speeches dealing with matters of high moment. I venture to suggest that he has never addressed himself to a more vital subject than that of post-war planning. I hope, as has been already said by others of your Lordships who have spoken previously, that he will address us again on this all-important question, outlining his ideas in more detail. I was very interested to hear the maiden speech of Pilot Number One, my noble friend Lord Brabazon, who was followed by another co-pilot, Lord Londonderry. Both of them congratulated Lord Addison—and I join with them in doing so—on raising this Motion.
The British Empire can, by example, play a leading part. In November last, as your Lordships will remember, I was privileged to introduce a Motion in your Lordships' House touching the economic aspects of the Atlantic Charter, and I asked, at the time, what steps were being taken by His Majesty's Government to give practical effect to the fifth and sixth principles of that great instrument for good. My noble friend Lord Addison was unable to be present in your Lordships' House at that time, but he spoke to me with some keenness afterwards saying that it was appropriate that the matter should have been raised. He informed me at the same time that he proposed to put down a Motion for debate on post-war planning at the earliest opportunity. The noble Lord's Motion was first put on the Paper on November 25 for debate on December 16. On December 9 it was put off sine die. In accordance with the custom of your Lordships' House it disappeared from the Paper on March 19, it was reinserted among the Notices Pending on March 24, and on March 25 was appointed for April 21. On April 15 it was again put off, and appointed for debate last Tuesday, the first sitting day after Whitsun. His Lordship has certainly been very persevering and was asked, so I understand, on the occasions aforementioned, by the Leader of the House to postpone the Motion as His Majesty's Government were most anxious, but not, at the time, ready, to give some clear indication of their ideas on these, vital questions.
I am sure that your Lordships will be glad that my noble friend did not withdraw
144
his Motion again as it is of paramount importance that an indication should be given as to the structure—in particular the economic structure—of the post-war world. Nothing, I suggest, could be more heartening to all those fighting aggression than to know of these plans—always provided, of course, that in their making the root cause of the difficulties from which the world is suffering have been faced and tackled in a courageous manner. The fear that this may not be done is ever present in the minds of all, and the older generation have certainly not forgotten the fervent promises that were made during the last war of "a land fit for heroes to live in" and the like, which proved to be entirely illusory. Millions are striving for victory, and that right will prevail we have no doubt. But I would again suggest to your Lordships that we must make it clear to all nations that when fighting is over a new system of world economy, planned and made known in advance, comes into operation which will secure for all improved labour standards, economic advancement and social security. When we see the plans of the new economic structure, which we have it in our power to make, and in which the old and all too familiar difficulties are avoided, our energies to see the end of the war will be more than doubled.
In the debate in your Lordships' House on November 18 last, the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, when replying for His Majesty's Government, said:
" It is clearly right that we should take thought for the future now, so that as soon as German morale begins to crack, as we hope and believe it will do, we shall be in a position to go straight on to the next phase, the rebuilding of the shattered world."
My noble friend also pointed out that His Majesty's Government had set up an organization to consider post-war problems under the guidance of a Minister Without Portfolio, and that a statement in another place would be made shortly. This was in November, but no statement touching matters of an economic character as embraced within the fold of the Atlantic Charter, that were debated in your Lordships' House on November 18, was made by the Minister Without Portfolio; and some three months ago my right honourable friend resigned from the War Cabinet.
On January 29, during a debate, I took the opportunity of reminding the noble

145
Viscount, the Leader of the House, that three months had passed and still no pronouncement had been made, as was promised. My noble friend was good enough to say at the time:
" I will get into communication with my right honourable friend the Minister Without Portfolio, who deals with this particular subject, and see whether some statement cannot be made."
The indication of what might be expected from the then Minister Without Portfolio was fully supported in a personal letter in which he wrote: "I think I shall have some interesting things to say." No pronouncement, however, was made, and, as I have already mentioned, my right honourable friend resigned from the War Cabinet some three months ago and his duties so far as post-war planning is concerned were taken over by the Paymaster-General. I wrote to congratulate my right honourable friend Sir William Jowitt on his appointment, and in his reply of March 20 he indicated that he would give the most careful consideration to the suggestions submitted to your Lordships on November 18. He said:
" I shall have to make a statement to Parliament on the general proposals for reconstruction, but I think you will readily agree with me that I must be given a little time to familiarize myself with the work which is of vast scope whilst it would be desirable that the discussions with the United States, to which reference is made in the Mutual Aid Agreement, should be given an opportunity of developing."
As your Lordships will be well aware, the Mutual Aid Agreement of February 2 sets out certain mutually agreed objectives, including provision for agreed action by the United States of America and the United Kingdom, and is open to participation by all other countries of like mind.
My hopes were high indeed when, at long last, this debate, which opened on Tuesday last, took place, and I expected that in view of what had transpired the noble Viscount the Leader of your Lordships' House, would make an important pronouncement as to these economic questions, seeing that over half a year has gone by since suggestions were submitted in some detail to your Lordships. During that time the, noble Viscount has had, as he has told your Lordships, at least two meetings with the Ministers responsible for reconstruction plans on the issues raised on November 18. I was very greatly disappointed on the first day of this debate to hear but a few cold words
146
fall from my noble friend, who said that it would not be possible for him to go at any great length into these exceedingly difficult questions. Let me remind the noble Viscount that the reply which was promised to the suggestions submitted to your Lordships on November 18 has not been given, and surely six months is sufficient notice. I do not think, therefore, that your Lordships could be accused of being too greedy if you expected something more substantial and inspiring than the few crumbs which fell on the first day of the debate.
As over half a year has passed since the Atlantic Charter was first debated in your Lordships' House, there has been ample opportunity for discussions to take place outside; and perhaps I may be allowed to give some indication of what has happened, from the results of which it is very clear that a keen and growing public interest has been aroused. The representatives in London of the various nations now fighting aggression have shown enthusiasm. Many are friends of years' standing, and others I have had the pleasure of meeting for the first time during the course of the war. All of these statesmen, and other eminent foreigners whom I have met, and who are looking after the interests of the peoples now struggling under the heel of the aggressors, have expressed the keenest interest in and agreement with the plans outlined in the debate of November r8 in your Lordships' House. They realize the enormous potential for good of the Atlantic Charter, and await a lead from His Majesty's Government, so that together a new world economy may be planned in which "all may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want."
Keen interest has been aroused in these matters in the Dominions, and in particular in Canada. In that Dominion, the Official Report of November 18 was reprinted and widely circulated from the Atlantic to the Pacific coasts. In the United States also interest has been awakened, so much so that the leading banker of the principal manufacturing industry sent for a hundred copies of the Official Report to be dispatched by air, and for copies of the booklet referred to in the course of the debate, A Twentieth Century Economic System. I understand that over 10,000 reprints of the

147
Official Report of November 18 have been sold. Your Lordships have given a lead in this most vital question of the reform of the economic system. Such a reform, rightly directed, will exercise a most profound effect on the future stability of the world.
In the last few months noble Lords, both spiritual and temporal, have given voice in the most definite language to the need for planning and making known a new system of world economy. The most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury has stressed this point, and has been followed by others of your Lordships, as well as by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the Lord Privy Seal and the Minister, of Production. His Majesty's Ministers are not alone, as the recent speeches, already referred to in the course of this debate, by the Vice President of the United States, Mr. Wallace, the Secretary of State, Mr. Cordell Hull, and the Executive Director of the Board of Economic Warfare, Mr. Perkins, have shown us how very alive these three right-hand men of the President are to this question of the welfare of the human race, so very near to his heart, as all his actions have shown to the world.
Your Lordships may perhaps have read an article in the quarterly publication, Foreign Affairs, by Mr. Feis, the Economic Adviser to the United States Government. He holds a similar position to that held in this country by Sir Frederick Leith-Ross. This article was commented on at some length in The Times of June 2, and has already been referred to in the course of the debate to-day by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. It is clear that Mr. Feis recommends the adoption of a technique similar to that outlined in the debate in your Lordships' House. Although Mr. Feis explains that he is writing as a private individual, and not necessarily committing the United States Government, the trend of informed opinion is extremely significant. It is very interesting indeed to hear from the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, words in support of Mr. Feis's suggestions.
As your Lordships know, we are faced with a situation which shows beyond argument that our financial and economic system is out of phase with the world of to-day, the world of power production.
148
We have certain preconceived ideas on financial and economic matters which are very deeply rooted, as they have been held for so long; and I suggest that, unless we face the realities of to-day, and recognize that the forward-rushing world of economic facts cannot be controlled by the ideas of the backward-looking world of economic thought, then of a truth our civilization is going forward to a major catastrophe. Your Lordships will have noticed that Mr. Cordell Hull said recently that if "policies of narrow economic nationalism, such as our extreme and disastrous policy after the last war "are to prevail, then, as Mr. Perkins, who spoke about the same time, said "the tides of life will leave us to one side; and we shall become isolated in a world where men are growing closer to each other."
The unemployment which was so evident in all countries in the years before the war gave rise to acute social unrest, and the seeds of National Socialism were sown amongst the seven million unemployed in Germany; and to-day we are striving against the terrible effects of this canker. Unemployment at home, and the ferocious international struggle for markets, must, I suggest, be eliminated; otherwise the fear, resentment and sense of frustration which these evils have spread over the world will destroy our civilization. The time for small measures has passed, and nothing short of a courageous tackling of the root causes will suffice. The problem is surely one of equating effective demand with supply, whereas hitherto we have aimed at equating supply with effective demand by the scrapping of capital equipment, by the limitation of output, and by the deliberate destruction of real wealth. Mankind will never again tolerate a situation in which those in need of the necessaries of life should be denied the money with which to buy those necessaries because there is a superabundance of them, and therefore their services are not required to produce more. Your Lordships will, I feel sure, be in full agreement, and I ask you to consider for a moment how powerful a weapon of propaganda we should have in our hand were we to offer the world, as we can, an economic system which would guarantee the individual against long-continued and enforced idleness, and all the nations a brighter prospect of the exchange of their goods and services, to their mutual advantage.

149
Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say a few words as to the developments in economic thought that have been taking place in the United Kingdom during the past six months. The London Chamber of Commerce, the largest organization in the Empire, with a more extensive and a more varied experience of international trade than any other body of a like kind in the world, has just issued a report entitled "General Principles of a Post-War Economy." This Report, which was referred to on Tuesday by the most reverend and noble Lord, Lord Lang, fully supports, and in fact expands, the suggestions submitted to your Lordships' House on November 18 last. I will not detain your Lordships by quoting from the report, but, were I to do so, your Lordships would become aware of the exact similarity of view. The importance of this fact cannot be overestimated in view of the leading position of the London Chamber of Commerce. In addition, your Lordships will be aware that the Federation of British Industries have issued a report making somewhat similar recommendations, and the Master Cotton Spinners Association's report gives full support to the same ideas as those expressed by the London Chamber of Commerce. These signs are all-important, as they show, as do others, that the world of commerce and industry is becoming increasingly alive to the need of announcing the advent of a new economic system along lines that experience shows to be necessary.
We have been assured by His Majesty's Government that finance is to be the servant, not the master; and I would like to ask the noble Earl who will reply for His Majesty's Government whether in the negotiations now proceeding with the United States the Board of Trade has a predominant voice over that of the Treasury, which is in charge of the bookkeeping. We know how after the last war, when we were capable of producing more real wealth, and were therefore richer, our book-keeping system, which should reflect reality, showed us that we were poorer, but we preferred to believe the book-keeping rather than our senses. The British Empire has, over many centuries, done much for the advancement of mankind, but, if your Lordships will allow me, I say with all due humility that its greatest moment is yet to be. The dawn of peace will give an opportunity
150
for expressing in a practical fashion the high ideals set out in that great instrument, the Atlantic Charter. The United States of America is well aware of the immense benefits that can fall to the common cause of all right-thinking people from the centuries of the background of our traditions. Your Lordships' House has, consonant with its great traditions, given a most important lead on this vital question of the economic structure of the post-war world. The advent of any new-system entails certain sacrifices, but that these will be made once it is known that they are for the common good is beyond doubt, and was made very clear indeed by the Leader of your Lordships' House in his speech on the first day of this debate.
Your Lordships' House has therefore given a directive to the thoughts of economists throughout the world, and my right honourable friend the Paymaster-General, Sir William Jowitt, in his personal letter of a few months ago said:
" With your general thesis that we have it in our power to lead in the establishment of a new economy suited to the present age;, I am in the fullest agreement. ''
Rupert Brooke, who died on active service in the Dardanelles, in one of his poems portrays the passing away of an old standard, perhaps the gold standard, which he likened to Smet-Smet, the Hippopotamus Goddess, and pictured the priests within the temple saying of her:
'' She was wrinkled and huge and hideous !
She was our mother.
She was lustful and lewd, but a god;
We had none other.
In the day she was hidden and dumb
But at night she moaned in the shade;
We shuddered and gave her her will in the darkness.
We were afraid."
The people without say:
" She was so strong;
But death is stronger.
She ruled us long;
But time is longer.
She solaced our woe
And soothed our sighing;
And what shall we do
Now god is dying? "
I submit that the answer to '' the people without "is very clear. They should study the debates in your Lordships' House of last Tuesday, of to-day, and of November 18 last, and also the small booklet referred to in this debate and entitled A Twentieth Century Economic System, and press for the

151
carrying out of the reforms contained therein. I ask your Lordships very anxiously to support me in urging His Majesty's Government to make a clear declaration on the new world economy. The noble Earl who will reply for His Majesty's Government has many advantages. He has the advantage that comes from the control of large business enterprises, and he will realize to the full the force of these suggestions. Your Lordships will look forward with keen appreciation to hearing what he has to say.
LORD CRAIGMYLE: My Lords, I rise to raise in a very few minutes an aspect of this subject which has not been touched upon, but first I shall crave the indulgence of the House to make a brief reference to the speech of my old colleague in another place, the noble Lord behind me. Surely seldom in recent years has a racier and better maiden speech been delivered in this House. It was therefore all the more startling to hear my noble friend describe a mysterious and evil force at work in the world throughout recent history, causing distress and wars among nations, and it was still more mystifying when he proceeded to give to this mysterious force the name of Christianity. One was rather relieved to hear my noble friend go on to treat Christianity as being on one side of the fence and another force, which met with more acceptance from my noble friend and which he called the Gospel, on the other—a contrasting force—and to the latter he was good enough to give some measure of his support. One understood in a way to what my noble friend was alluding, but he will not misunderstand me and other members of your Lordships' House if we ask that he should sometimes bear in mind that in dealing with these matters he is dealing with things to which importance is attached, things which many of your Lordships regard as the highest ideals, and indeed the only hope of human life.
I was much interested in his speech because he dealt with the air. He is one of the great air pioneers not only in this country but in the world. His name will go down to history for all time as a great pioneer of the air. I crave your Lordships' indulgence to say something about the sea. We have had in concrete form a calamitous example of the truth of the principles for which some of us
152
have been for years contending. We have been talking about the air, we have been talking about the land, we have been talking about the West, I wish in the few minutes at my disposal to talk about the sea and the East. There we have had an example on the one hand of a Government which treasured its shipping—the Government of Japan. We have had a plan going on year after year by which the Japanese Government, Japanese shipping, Japanese manufacture, Japanese mechanism for the distribution of products, and Japanese Fifth Column were bound up together in one tight bundle. We went on constantly neglecting it. In June of 1914 the Japanese Mercantile Marine—talking in tons gross—amounted to about 1,500,000 tons. During the last war, when British ships serving India were mostly withdrawn for other purposes, the Japanese crept in, and in the intervening years since the last war we had a succession of Governments which were blind to what was going on.
Japan in the old days had practically no shipping trade with India. The shipping trade between Japan and India was 100 per cent. in British hands, which was no doubt an unhealthy state of affairs; but the state of affairs which took its place and which prevailed in 1936—my figures are for 1936—was far more unsound. This deeply subtle and aggressive nation had, by the methods which I have tried to explain, collared, if I may use a vulgar expression, 80 per cent. of the shipping trade between British Bombay and the Far East and nearly 90 per cent. of the trade in the other direction. Great Britain, the predominant Power in the Far East, was left with only 15 per cent. The Japanese boasted, and correctly boasted, that, taking India as a whole, in 1936 73 per cent. of the trade between India and the Far East was being carried in Japanese bottoms. We called the attention of the Government of India to this and were cold-shouldered for doing so. The Government of India were at that time engaged in trade negotiations with Japan, and we specifically made, here and in India, the point of the danger to our defence of allowing this vast Mercantile Marine to grow up as a training ground for the Japanese navy—a Mercantile Marine which was planned to be four times more than was required to carry Japan's overseas trade.

153
We brought before the Government here and in India this specific question of defence, and nothing was done either here or in India. We went humbly hat in hand to the Government, pleading. We were received with courtesy, it is true, but as a result we got a letter to say that although British ships had served the Indian Empire for nearly ninety years, although the crews were Indian and the services Indian, yet because the ships were not owned by naive-born Indians they washed their hands of the matter. British interests in India were thrown as a sop to Indian extremists. That is a strong thing to say, but I hope that frame of mind has ceased. We built up, largely at the expense of British shipping, a Mercantile Marine in Japan which, instead of being 1,500,000 tons, is well over 5,000,000 tons, and which is the instrument which has carried their Armies and their munitions all over the south-western Pacific. That was the result of having on the one side a far-seeing aggressive Government, and on the other an entirely peaceful, well-meaning Government with its eyes tightly closed to the facts before its nose. What I want to ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House is this. When he talks, as he did in his most able reply on Tuesday, about hammering away at the solution of these problems, is this one of the problems he is hammering away at, and what is going to be done with regard to this matter of British shipping after the war?
Japan is not by any means the only example that could be given. For the sake of brevity I must content myself with only a few figures. In the years between the two wars the Mercantile Marine tonnage of the world went up by 16,000,000 tons—an enormous increase-but the British tonnage went down by over 1,500,000 tons, nearly 2,000,000 tons. I am talking about real ocean-going tonnage. Answers were given in another place to say that these figures were wrong, and it turned out that those who gave these answers were relying on the tonnage of the British Empire and including purely coastal tonnage, and even small vessels on the great lakes between Canada and the United Slates. The tonnage on which we relied sank by over 1,500,000 tons, and, at the commencement of this war we had over 2,000 fewer vessels than we had in the last war. That in any circumstance
154
was a grave factor. When we arc told by the Prime Minister that we had plenty of men and plenty of arms to send to Singapore, Rangoon, to Burma, and he tells us that the commanding factor was not the absence of men or arms, but the absence of shipping, it is no satisfaction to those who were cold-shouldered year after year.
What is to be done about it in the future? It is no new problem. It has an economic as well as a defence side. Our whole history, as your Lordships know—it is unnecessary to state it—has been connected with the sea. Since ever we began to count as a nation it is our sea power that has been the foundation of our strength, and unless we maintain our Navy and our Mercantile Marine we shall just have to drop out of history. We can only maintain the size and output of our population in this way. Our Mercantile Marine is necessary not only to carry the things that our people need, but it is more than ever necessary to pay for them, as your Lordships know. The great reserves we had in foreign countries—the devisen as it is called in financial quarters—were rapidly running down before the war. The amount of our investment was being paid off, it was diminishing from year to year, and at the end of this war it may have gone. We may have an entirely new situation to face. Instead of being a great creditor nation we may be a great debtor nation. It really seems to some of us almost wicked to be raising before our people's eyes the ideal of a most luxurious standard of life when the great object for which we must bend all our effort is to maintain the standard of life, which, by the grace of God, we were able to maintain in the days of peace. We are up against a proposition of a peculiar kind which affects no other Power in just the same way. It is true we must discuss, and I think His Majesty's Government are discussing, these grave matters with the Governments of the United Nations, particularly with the United States of America, but I do trust that in all these discussions they will press that, when we ask for a predominant Mercantile Marine, we do so, not for the sake of predominance, but for the sake of our life as an Empire and as a people.
I desire to make no reference whatever to a matter on which your Lordships' House has had several debates. It would be quite out of place to attempt any sentimental argument with regard to the men

155
of the Merchant Navy. We all appreciate their services, those most I think who are privileged to meet them in the ordinary course of their work, and it is quite obvious from recent debates that these men have no warmer friends than the members of your Lordships' House. But their interests are bound up not with any namby-pamby legislation, if I may put it in that way, but with the future of the shipping industry of this country. And with that is also bound up the lot of every man, woman and child in this country. Therefore I ask His Majesty's Government to hammer away at some concrete solution of these problems. I am not talking about private enterprise or State ownership or State control. These can settle themselves. What I want is ships, for without ships this country and Empire cannot endure.
THE DUKE OF MONTROSE: My Lords, in speaking to this Motion I do not intend to cover the same ground as has been so well covered by noble Lords who have already spoken. There is just one point to which I would like to refer. It was mentioned by my fellow-countryman, Lord Perth, the other day, and it was referred to again to-day, much to my satisfaction, by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. That was that it would be lamentable if the idea got abroad that we in this country were handling the terms of peace by ourselves. I think the idea is rather prevalent in the country that we are playing an undue part in settling the peace terms. If that is so, the sooner that impression is corrected the better it will be. I think it was General Smuts who the other day said that there were twenty-three nationalities associated with us among the Allies, and eleven other peoples who were assisting. That means that there are to-day thirty-four peoples joined together in this great battle for freedom and Democracy. Therefore our people in this country should understand that when the day of peace comes the British voice will probably be just one voice among thirty-four.
Bearing that point in mind, it is very right and proper that we should consider the terms of the Atlantic Charter. When the Atlantic Charter was first made public everyone praised it and recognized it to be one of the greatest historical documents of our time. But public memory is very,
156
very short, and if you asked any man or woman in the country outside to-day to tell you the principles embodied in the Atlantic Charter I doubt whether you would find anyone who could do so. The Government might do a little more in the way of giving publicity to the contents of the Atlantic Charter. I would suggest for the Government's consideration that they might draw up a small poster concerning the Charter to be displayed in every household, and that a suitable leaflet should be provided, not only in our own language but in the languages of all the Allies, which could be obtained with ease at the counter of every Post Office. If that were done I believe the publicity would go a long way to educate the people of the country as to the principles for which we are fighting.
There is one other point. We have heard a great deal about planning. I am not sure who is planning, but the idea very prevalent outside is that those in control of the peace planning are in London, and that the fruit of their labours may be imposed upon the man in the street or the man in the country lane without his being consulted. If I know anything at all it is that the people in the country are looking forward to having a say, and a very big say, in the conditions of the future life under which they are going to live. And why not? The people generally are well qualified to speak of the hardships under which they have lived in the past. They are well qualified to speak of the happier and better conditions under which they are to live in the future. Therefore I feel that the idea that they are going to be consulted should be given to them. I know that foreign policy is vitally important. Whatever is going to happen in Moscow, in Libya, and in Malaya is important, but we must remember that what is important to the average man are the things which affect his own life—better health, better housing, better agriculture, better education. The things which touch the life of every man and woman and child in the country are important, and, while we pay attention to foreign policy, we must not neglect home policy.
I think that the people are determined to have some say in this. There are bound to be changes. There are some wrongs which have got to be removed, and they will be removed. The only reason they have not been removed

157
before is that the Houses of Parliament were choked with business. Before the war, Ministers and Members of Parliament hardly knew where to turn in order to get time to carry out reforms in home policy. If Parliament here was choked with home legislation before the war it will be choked ten times more when we have to deal not only with home policy but with Imperial policy, Dominion policy and world policy and the settlement of peace terms all over the world. How is the Parliament at Westminster going to carry these things through, and at the same time pay attention to home affairs and home policy unless we change our Parliamentary system a little? Before this war the time may not have been ripe to make any alteration in our Parliamentary system, but it may be ripe after this war, and looking to the reforms and the importance of domestic policy, and knowing that speed and rapidity in reform is the essence of peace, I would urge our Government seriously to prepare their minds to consider whether the time has not arrived to undertake some form of devolution, to localize Legislative Chambers to deal with purely domestic affairs, leaving all other affairs to be dealt with by the Parliament here in Westminster. If we are choked with business, and there is delay, and our Service men come back hoping to find conditions better than when they left and do not find them so, we shall just drift again into a miserable, unsatisfactory, unfortunate peace like that of Versailles.
LORD DAVIES: My Lords, I intervene with great diffidence in this debate after all the interesting speeches to which we have listened. I do not propose to follow my noble friend who has just pleaded for Home Rule for Scotland. I would only suggest that when Home Rule is given to Scotland we may also have a measure of Home Rule for Wales. May I be allowed to say how greatly we are indebted to my noble friend Lord Addison for having put this Motion on the Paper and for having given your Lordships an opportunity of discussing post-war reconstruction? The fact that there have been so many speeches indicates the intense interest which your Lordships' House takes in this question. We have had two days' debate and I believe that that debate has given a lead in the country. I hope it may be a source of encouragement to the
158
Government to pursue their plans for reconstruction.
In the speeches delivered on Tuesday there was general agreement, except perhaps in one or two instances, on three points. Those were, firstly, that no time should be lost in preparation and collaboration with our Allies—not necessarily resulting in a new Declaration—secondly, that we ought to distinguish between what may be described as the short-term programme and the long-term plan; and thirdly, that there should be a transitional period between the operation of these two plans. I venture to emphasize what the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, suggested, that no time should be lost in setting about this very important work. We all remember that at the end of the last war hostilities finished very suddenly. Very few people—hardly any people, I think—expected that the enemy's collapse would come when it actually did come. It is equally true that the Democracies who were unprepared for the last war in 1914 found themselves also unprepared for the peace which came in 1918. Although unprepared they won the war, but unfortunately they lost the peace. It is equally true I think to say that the Democracies were unprepared for this war. We must hope they will not be unprepared when it comes to winning the peace.
I trust, as my noble friend Lord Samuel said, that there will not be a repetition of the procedure adopted at Versailles. Looking back at that period it seems ludicrous that the statesmen who took part in those proceedings, while labouring under the stress of dealing with political questions at home, could ever have hoped in the course of a few months to legislate and settle the affairs of the world for years and years to come. Therefore it seems to me there is need for a transitional period between what I have described as the short-term and long-term plans. The short-term plan, as we were told by the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, in his splendid exposition of that plan, is bound to deal in the main with economic questions. I cannot help feeling that the long-term plan will have to deal mainly with political questions.
In a speech a few days ago Mr. Sumner Welles said he believed there would be a demand that the United Nations should become the nucleus of a world organiza-

159
tion of the future to settle the final terms of a just and honest and durable peace, to be entered into after the passing of a period of social and economic chaos which would come inevitably after the termination of the present war, and after the conclusion of the initial and gigantic task of relief, of reconstruction and of rehabilitation which will confront the United Nations at the time of the Armistice. I gather from those remarks that Mr. Sumner Welles anticipates that there will be a transitional period, and that during that time not only will it be necessary to bring relief to the peoples of Europe, but it will also be necessary to take measures for restoring law and order and giving a start to the Provisional Governments which will have to be established during that transitional period.
Article 3 of the Atlantic Charter says that the United Nations "respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live." If that is to become a reality then it will be necessary in the short-term plan to establish some Parliamentary institution to allow the people to elect their own representatives under a democratic system. How long this first period will last of course no one can say at this moment, but I should imagine that some council consisting of the four Great Powers, the United States, Russia, China and ourselves, would have to be formed to supervise and control in some way the arrangements which will have to be made during this short-term period. It will probably do that through what Mr. Sumner Welles calls the "nucleus of a world organization," through the appointment of Commissions upon which these four Governments will be represented together with the Provisional Governments of the occupied countries. In that way collaboration would be secured between all the countries concerned. When this period is over, and when some kind of international authority is established, the Commissions and the personnel of the Commissions will have obtained most valuable experience, which, no doubt, in an advisory capacity, they will be able to place at the disposal of the new League or authority or whatever it is.
Now, may I, very briefly, comment upon the speech of my noble friend who leads the House, and thank him for the reassuring statement which he made to your Lordships on Tuesday? He told us
160
of the collaboration which is now actually in progress between the Allies, especially in regard to what I have tried to describe as the "short-term period." I am sure that the more the Government take the public into their confidence—and as the noble Duke has just told us it is essential that people throughout the country should understand what is going on and what steps the Government are taking—the better it will be. I was delighted to note that he alluded to the I.L.O. and the economic and political departments of the League of Nations, and that it is proposed to utilize the services of these organizations in the solution of these very difficult problems with which all Governments will be faced at the conclusion of the war.
Next I would say a word about what I call the long-term plan or programme. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord said in regard to unilateral declarations. I think it would be most unfortunate if any of the Allied Governments made pronouncements of a far-reaching character without first of all having secured the acquiescence of the other countries concerned. My noble friend talked about the Fourteen Points and he pointed out that the Fourteen Points had resulted in misapprehension at a later stage, and had given the German Government opportunities, or at any rate a pretext, for attacking the Treaty of Versailles. May I point out to him that there is a similarity, in a sense, between the Fourteen Points and the Atlantic Charter; that both these documents are somewhat vague? Mr. Gathorne-Hardy said that they were capable of various explanations. I think that is profoundly true and that probably the implications that might be derived from the perusal of these documents by different people might not be the same. What a great many people would like, and what we want, is that the implications should find some practical application, and that, as I venture to suggest, can only be done through the closest collaboration between the Governments concerned. But there is a difference between the Fourteen Points and the Atlantic Charter. The Fourteen Points were a unilateral pronouncement whereas the Atlantic Charter was an agreed statement before it was issued. That seems to me to be a very important difference.
In 1918 there was a great lack of collaboration between the Allied Govern-

161
ments in preparing plans; for peace. I remember that, at that time, it was suggested, in some quarters, that there should be an Allied Commission which might be set up at Versailles, and which should try to work out the implications of the Fourteen Points and deal with other subjects which would have to be dealt with when the time for peace came. But that suggestion, unfortunately, was negatived by the authorities in Washington. We had the Phillimore Committee in this country, which for months worked away at a plan which was afterwards submitted to the League of Nations Commission in Paris and was the basis of their discussions. But one cannot help feeling that it would have been a great help if an Allied Commission had been established at that time which, in conjunction with our American and French friends, could have produced an agreed statement, an agreed document, an agreed report which could have been submitted to the Peace Conference in Paris. I remember that at that time it was also suggested that ex-President Taft might come to this country to assist this Commission. He was at that time the President in America of the League to Enforce Peace. But that proposal also was turned down. I only hope the Allies will not repeat the mistakes which, unfortunately, were made on that occasion.
The noble Lord in his speech said that the League was a great step forward. Of course it was; it was a great advance upon The Hague Tribunal, which was the only international machinery which had been devised before the last war. But, as he points out very clearly, there were two great weaknesses—there were others besides, but there were two which were outstanding. One was the lack of any effective machinery for bringing about peaceful changes in the public law, and the other was that there was no overwhelming force to see that that law was respected and upheld. These were the two gaps in the Covenant. They were the two great vital omissions in the Covenant, and some of us, for years, have been endeavouring to persuade our people and the Government that these two gaps should have been filled. I sincerely trust that my noble friend will, perhaps, give his patronage to the New Commonwealth Society, now that he has become a firm believer in our aims and objectives. After all, the need for the
162
provision of these two parts of the permanent machinery of any international confederation or authority surely is elemental. It means that there must be some machinery for settling disputes, some peaceful procedure for effecting changes in the public law, and that there must be adequate policing power behind this organization.
There was a very interesting debate in this House before the end of the last war, when Lord Parker, who was a Lord of Appeal, made a most interesting and powerful speech. He pointed out that the first essential in any system of collective security was that nations should undertake the obligation and the responsibility to suppress international crime. He pointed out that this was the basis of our social structure ever since the days of hue and cry, when every man in the parish was under the obligation to turn out to apprehend a thief or a murderer. That obligation is still a part of the Common Law; there is still an obligation on every citizen to assist the policeman in the execution of his duty. Lord Parker said that that principle must equally apply in international relationships, and the obvious conclusion was that there must be some policing authority.
I observe that in the speech which Mr. Sumner Welles made he said that the United Nations would have to undertake the maintenance of an international police power in the years after the war to ensure freedom from fear to peace-loving peoples, and he said that that must be done until there was established "that permanent system of general security promised by the Atlantic Charter." We may infer, therefore, that this subject of the provision of adequate sanctions is receiving very careful attention at the hands of the Government in Washington. We, must also remember the speech that Mr. Litvinov made on March 17, 1938. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for quoting from this speech, because we may hope that it represents the views of the Soviet Government. He said:
" The present international situation places before all peace-loving States, and the Great Powers in particular, the question of their responsibility for the peoples of Europe, and not only Europe. The Soviet Government is ready as before to participate in collective actions which will be decided upon jointly with it, and which would aim at checking the further development of aggression and eliminating the increased danger of a new world

163
massacre. It is prepared immediately to take up, in the League of Nations or outside, the discussion with other Powers of the practical measures which the circumstances demand."
Unfortunately at that time the other countries which were Members of the League gave that pronouncement the cold shoulder, and nothing happened. In view of all that has happened since then, one cannot help feeling that the prospects of establishing some international authority which can enforce the rule of law may not be such a mirage as many people told us that it was.
I do not propose to take up the time of the House any longer, except to thank my noble friend Lord Brabazon for the splendid maiden speech which he made this afternoon, in which he told us quite clearly that the real and vital problem for the future is the control of the air, and whether this control can be placed in the hands of some international authority. He speaks with great knowledge and experience in matters connected with the air, and therefore, when he tells us that it is possible to internationalize the air, and to secure the freedom of the air—which is just as important as, if not more import-ant than, the freedom of the seas—I think it gives us a great deal of encouragement, and I am sure the Government will consider very seriously what he has said.
My noble friend Lord Samuel rather jeered at any suggestion that what we call "federalism" should be imported into these discussions of what is to happen in the future. I should like to point out that federalism embraces two distinct branches: federation and confederation. I gather that he dislikes any federal proposals, but that he is not opposed to some form of confederation. I cannot help feeling that perhaps the solution in the end may be a combination of both, because one hopes that the principle of democratic control, the direct participation of the peoples themselves, may find a place in the long-term plan of post-war reconstruction. I believe that, after all, a democratic basis is the best guarantee for a just and durable peace.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, this debate on reconstruction has been mainly focussed on the European aspect of the scene. A notable exception to that was to be found in the speech of the most reverend and noble Lord, Lord Lang. Like other noble Lords this afternoon, I
164
was sorry to hear any criticism of that speech, which to my mind reflected the deepest wisdom and also a most sincere spirit of humanity, which I think is a great encouragement—as was also the recent speech of the Foreign Secretary at Edinburgh—to those who are trying to think out and to give attention to the problems of reconstruction.
The assumption underlying most of the speeches to which I have listened as regards reconstructing Europe has been that our intervention in Europe after this war will be welcomed. I hope that that is so. I hope that the peoples of Europe will welcome immediate proposals for reconstruction. But they may not be in the mood. Very dreadful forces of hatred and revenge have been unleashed in Europe. It has been very noticeable in this debate that every speaker has disclaimed any feeling of revenge, but these feelings of revenge will be afoot in Europe. A great deal has been said about food. It is said that the peoples of Europe will require food, and no doubt that may be thought to be one reason why they will accept our intervention; but I think that even food is a secondary consideration when people are animated solely by feelings of hatred and revenge. And, in any case, are we quite certain where the food is coming from? I have re-read the speech of the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, on that subject, and I am not quite clear from it whether we are certain that this food will be forthcoming that we know where to get it and will be able to produce it at the appointed moment.
Again, I noticed in the debate several references to control in Germany, and such phrases were used as "the destruction of the German military system "and" the alteration of German education." These are matters which seem to me to present very formidable difficulties. It is to be hoped that Germany herself will be prepared to undertake these alterations in her methods and mentality, but if not, how do we proceed? In the matter of education, I have heard plenty of stories from parents about their difficulties in regard to the education of their own children. My mind is rather appalled by the prospect of having to alter the educational system of Germany. How do we proceed? Do we send a fraternal delegate from the National Union of Teachers to explain how we achieve semi-literacy

165
at vast expense in this country? Are we going to write their text-books for the Germans, or control the German text-hooks? Then there are proposals to dissect Germany into a large number of States, each with its own economic entity. My reading of history is that these forcible alterations in geography are very rarely attended with successs, and personally I hope to see fewer rather than more economic entities.
But the real and fundamental problem about reconstruction will, of course, be that of the disarmament of Germany, because the lesson of history is perfectly plain—that you cannot trust the German people with arms. If they have arms, sooner or later there will be a war. And how do you proceed to disarm Germany? I think it is very difficult to disarm Germany unless you dismantle her heavy industry, because so long as Germany possesses a heavy industry it is very difficult to prevent her having plans for rearmament, and carrying them through. Perhaps the solution of these matters is a very long period of occupation of Germany.
There has been great unanimity that we cannot go into details about reconstruction, which is, of course, typical of this country, and of our abhorrence of anything in the nature of planning. But I quite agree that, as regards the international aspect of the situation, it is not possible to go into any great detail, because consultation with our Allies and our Dominions is involved. But we have, of course, the Atlantic Charter as a broad guide. It is not entirely devoid of platitudes, but it is a broad guide to what is wanted. May I in passing refer to one point about the Atlantic Charter? A noble Lord opposite spoke this afternoon about the necessity for maintaining our Mercantile Marine after the war. I am sure the noble Lord will believe that I am very sympathetic to anything of that nature, but it is implicit in the terms of the Atlantic Charter that every nation will be entitled to come forward and press its claims for a Mercantile Marine such as it considers adequate to its needs. And under the terms of the Atlantic Charter we shall not be able to press for priority or for any special position in that matter.
LORD CRAIGMYLE: I am sure the noble Lord will do me the justice of remembering that I specifically said that
166
that was an important matter to be discussed particularly with the United States of America, and that it was not a matter of predominance, it was a matter of life and death so far as we are concerned.
LORD WINSTER: I quite agree with the noble Lord. I do not wish in any way to misrepresent a word he said. But of course many other nations will also come to the council table and say it is a matter of life and death.
LORD CRAIGMYLE: It is a question of fact.
LORD WINSTER: And they could say so too. But while we cannot enter into the international aspects of the situation in very great detail, I think the domestic side of the matter can be considered in considerable detail. I notice that in a speech made by the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, he semed to be in some doubt as to whether the Dominions were being consulted at the present moment. I must say I understood most clearly from the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, that consultations regarding reconstruction were in active progress with the Dominions, and I understood from Dr. Evatt, whom I had the pleasure of meeting over here, and who has since returned to Australia, that he went away considerably happier than when he arrived as regards that particular point. I would like, if I may, to say one or two words about reconstruction at home. Before doing so I may perhaps point out that post-war reconstruction also opens up the question of reconstruction in our Colonial Empire. We must take account of that also. Recent speeches have shown that the whole question of Imperial relationships has recently been lifted on to a very much higher level. There is a new emphasis on social and economic reconstruction, in which the Colonies are being treated as neglected estates, and our responsibility for bringing them into good order is recognized. There is a new interpretation of the principle of trusteeship which, as the noble Lord, Lord Hailey, has pointed out in this House, involves a completely new conception of political relationships with our Colonies. And in this matter of post-war reconstruction certainly due account must be taken of the necessity of embracing the Colonies in it.

167
But if I may turn to the home problem, I should like to approach the problem of reconstruction on the Home Front from what is, I think, a dominant conception in the minds of all of us at present, and that is winning the war. And may I remind your Lordships that, while Labour is in the Government, Labour has announced that it will press for no measures on purely Party grounds. But from the point of view of winning the war morale is all-important: it is all-important as a war-winning factor, and the morale of our people is very largely affected by this question of post-war reconstruction and what they believe to be in the minds of the Government about it. In a previous speech I ventured to point out that some of the nations fighting in this war are fighting very fiercely and very determinedly because they are possessed by a dominant national idea, and I said that I did not think we had quite generated an idea of that nature in this country yet. A noble Lord who spoke after me said that we had the great idea in this country of defending our own homes. I might perhaps be allowed to point out that that idea was not sufficient to save France when France collapsed. But on the other hand it has been the salvation of Russia, for not only has Russia been prepared to defend her own homes, but Russians have been pre-pared to burn their homes and everything else they have got in defence of their country and to repel the invader. I feel that we have yet to generate a flame of equal fierceness as that which possesses Germany and Japan and Russia and China at the present moment.
The most reverend and noble Lord, Lord Lang, spoke about the disappointments after the last war—so many pious hopes and promises. Well, I think it would be a mistake to recriminate about that matter. I think that the hopes were entertained in good faith and the promises were made in good faith. But the hopes were not realized, and the promises were not kept, and that resulted in very great anguish among thousands of our population. And I know from contacts I make when I go about the country how very much this fear of being let down again in a similar matter operates to take the edge off the war effort. Lord Lang attributed the disappointments at the end of the last war to lack of preparation. I do
168
not entirely agree. I think the real reason was that we reverted to an old system, an unplanned competitive system, in which private enterprise and private profit and privilege ruled the roost, and that system was incompatible with the fulfilment of those hopes and promises. We went back to a system under which countries were ruined by having huge stocks of raw materials left on their hands, which millions of men in other countries were paid not to produce, a system in which capital equipments, such as shipyards in this country—for which we should be so thankful at this moment, if they were in operation—were destroyed in the name of rationalization. Under such a system as that it was inevitable that those hopes and those promises should have been disappointed and come to nought.
That was a system which failed by many tests. I realize the great advances which were made in social reform, although they were largely in the nature of palliatives, but by many tests that system failed. It failed to avert war. It failed to prepare for the war, and it failed to switch over from peace to war production with anything like sufficient rapidity when war did come. Consider its fruits in mass unemployment and in the distressed areas. I never read that unemployment was part of the curse of Adam, but we manage to make it the curse of our workers; and if you test that system by its effect on three great communities in this country, the miners, the farm labourers and the merchant seamen, I think it must be admitted that by those tests that system failed. We are certainly not going forward into Hitler's idea of a new world, but I trust we are equally determined not to go back to the old world which resulted in such bitterness, and misery.
If we look at the history of this country in the last fifty or sixty years we should have to say that the machines that Man has invented may be a great tribute to his intellect, but that the use to which we have put them has been a poor comment on our morality, and that Science has nobler ends to achieve than those it has so far attained. I hope our A.R.P. shelters in the streets—a great testimonial to the high pitch of civilization at which we have arrived!—will be a monument marking the end of an era. A very strange era indeed it will be when we come to look

169
back on it, an era in which unemployment and distressed areas disappear in war but appear in peace, an era in which the material assets of our Empire become national assets in time of war and revert to private property in peace, an era in which profiteering is a crime in war but a source of honour in peace. I hope this war will marl; the end of that very strange era with these very strange phenomena. From what I hear as I go about, our working men and women are in no mood to accept any more promises. They want undertakings that cannot be forsworn, and they want to see in all the legislation which is passed an assurance that the old bad things have passed away, that the good of the whole community shall be the determining factor in our Government, and that security and economic freedom shall become our common heritage.
Under the impact of war new ideas are stirring. This debate in your Lordships' House has been good evidence of that. Let us accept these new ideas now, and let them colour all our acts. Let us get accustomed to them because this is not only a war, it is a revolution. There is a revolution going on as well as a war. A tide of new ideas is lapping our shores at the present moment and, we cannot bid that tide recede any more than Canute could. If you defeat Hitler and then endeavour to meet your problems at home with plans based on the old ideas you will only find you have cast out one devil in order to bring seven worse devils into the house. There is great anxiety in the minds of our people about these things: great anxiety lest the Prime Minister should be so absorbed with the military side of the war that the Home Front and such matters as I have mentioned do not sufficiently attract his attention. The departure of Lord Reith and Mr. Greenwood from the Government quickened that apprehension in some quarters, and it is very important that the apprehension should be removed. May I recall to the attention of your Lordships a passage in one of the works of Tolstoy?
" The power which decides the fate of nations is not inherent in conquerors, armies, or battles, but has quite a different source."
Unless we realize that and apply that in our acts now and at the end of the war, history may indeed declare in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Lang, that we have been guilty.
THE MINISTER OF ECONOMIC WARFARE (THE EARL OF SELBORNE): My Lords, the debate that is now drawing to a close has been in every way worthy of the wide subject it covers and of the traditions of your Lordships' House, not least because of the brilliant maiden speech which we all enjoyed so much from my noble friend Lord Brabazon, in respect of which I should like to tender him my humble and hearty congratulations. It has been generally recognized that it is impossible for the Government for the reasons explained by my noble friend the Leader of the House to make statements in reply to many of the questions which have been here ventilated. It is quite impracticable to do anything of the sort at this time. We have entered into this war with Allies, we are making the war with our Allies, and the post-war settlement will also have to be made with our Allies and cannot be made without full consultation with them and with the Dominions. That fact, coupled with the fact that the leading statesmen in all the nations of the world are greatly absorbed in the conduct of the war, makes it impossible for any binding statement to be made at this juncture on many of the questions which we have debated. As my noble friend explained, preparatory work can be done—and that is all Lord Addison is asking an assurance upon—and this preparation work is being done. I think, however, that this debate has been of special value. The Government cannot arrive—no Government in a democratic country can arrive—at a solution or settlement of any of these great questions unless public opinion will allow it to do so. Exploratory work has got to be done by the public outside the Government, as well as inside the Government itself, and in that process your Lordships., with your great experience of public affairs, and your freedom from the ties of day-to-day conduct of the war which absorb the Government, can play a great part in guiding public opinion into wise channels on these matters.
My noble friend the Leader of the House explained the nature of the preparatory work that is going on. My noble friend Lord Elibank rebuked him for having made no reference to consultations taking place with the Dominions. I am afraid the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, must have misunderstood my noble friend's speech entirely because, if

171
he will look at the Official Report he will see that my noble friend explained that point most carefully to the House. This is what Lord Cranborne said:
" I can assure all those noble Lords who expressed anxiety 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."
And when my noble friend said that, he did not of course mean that all these questions have been thrashed out and that all work has been covered with the Dominions and with our Allies, but that our Dominions and our Allies are being consulted and arc consulting us as this vast field is explored piece by piece. The field that is covered by the words "postwar settlement," when you come to consider them, touches every kind of human activity; therefore the amount of research, of exploratory work and of consultation involved is immense, and, as my noble friend said, it is proceeding to-day in a number of important aspects with the Dominions, with our Allies, and particularly with the United States, and will no doubt proceed on a great many more points as the process continues.
What are these problems? They can, I think, be divided into three chronological categories. There is first the situation that will arise immediately at the moment of the Armistice. Then there are the problems of the peace terms and the problems of the post-war modus vivendi. With regard to the problems that will arise at the Armistice, I do not dissent at all from the diagnosis that Lord Addison gave your Lordships the other day. An appalling problem will at once present itself in circumstances of the very greatest difficulty. As my noble friend the Leader of the House explained, that matter is being most thoroughly and systematically explored at the moment with our Dominions and with our Allies. Some of the ablest civil servants in this country are working out the practical steps which will have to be taken, working them out with the Allied Governments stationed here in London, working them out with our Dominions and with the United States. In reply to the question that the noble Lord, Lord Winster asked, I think I can assure him that so far as can be at present foreseen, if the war ends
172
within a reasonable time, the food should be available to arrest famine if we are only able to get it to the famine-stricken people in Europe. The actual food will be available, the problem will be one of transport. When I say food available I mean food available to arrest famine, not of course enough to give anything like the pre-war standards of living to which nations were accustomed. That will not return for some time to come.
In regard to the peace terms, I think your Lordships recognize that it is impossible for the Government to say much on that matter at this juncture because we are making war with our Allies, and we must make peace in consultation with our Allies. I do not however suppose there is a single statesman in all the Allied nations or in the Dominions who is not giving what thought he can give to the immense problem of how an enduring peace can be built up. I think the difficulties mentioned by Lord Winster are some of the most formidable difficulties confronting us and are unique in history. My noble friend Lord Samuel referred to fears which he says are entertained in Russia lest some people in this country might seek to create a strong Germany to act as a counterpoise to Russia. I am surprised to hear that there are such people in this country. Personally I am not aware of them, but I can assure my noble friend that that forms no part of the policy of His Majesty's Government. I think indeed he will see, if he looks at Article 8 of the Atlantic Charter, that the complete disarmament of Germany is one of the fundamental conditions postulated in that Charter, and a Germany completely disarmed could not be described as an effective counterpoise to anyone.
Personally I have always thought the doctrine of the balance of power was a poor one as far as this country was concerned, because it always involved us in having to fight on the weakest side. It landed us in one series of wars after another. The whole conception of the Atlantic Charter is different. It is a conception of collective security, and it is in that direction that we are bending our thoughts. But there is one assurance which I think I can give on behalf of His Majesty's Government, and I do so because the matter was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Cecil in the course of his speech, and that is that Great Britain

173
will never propose a peace of revenge. Individuals, it has been made clear, who have been guilty of atrocities will and must be punished, but that is not revenge; that is justice.
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Darnley, in this, though I am afraid I do not agree with everything in his speech, that we must treat the German people as if they were suffering from a disease, as you would treat a diseased fellow-being, and must eradicate that disease not only in the interest of mankind as a whole but in the interest of the German people themselves. That is the real problem which faces statesmen after this war. That disease will not be eradicated by vindictiveness or by injustice; neither will it be eradicated by an ostrich policy of ignoring facts or forgetting events. Last time we trusted the Germans to run a democracy peacefully and they failed to do so. They started rearming at once. That fact must not be forgotten, and whatever we do we must not allow them, as we allowed them last time, to rearm. On the other side we must not impose upon them financial impossibilities in the peace terms. That was surely the greatest mistake in the Versailles Peace Treaty. I think Lord Vansittart is right in saying it was in fact no hardship on Germany because it was never carried out, but it did have a most discouraging effect on the German people. Anything of that sort must be avoided. In making the peace treaty for Heaven's sake let us above all things face facts. We must face the facts of nationality, the facts of geography, the facts of history. Any peace treaty made which is not in relation to those facts will be of no more value than a paper constitution. It will not be worth the paper on which it is written, it will not stand the test of experience.
The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Sankey, in the course of a very interesting speech on Tuesday, pointed out that science has killed isolationism, that isolation from Europe is no longer possible for England or for America. I believe that statement to be profoundly true, and it being true it is equally important that Englishmen and Scotsmen should cease being insular. I believe that past misunderstandings between the British people and Continental peoples were very much due to that insularity of ours and that it has been responsible for a great deal of trouble in Europe. We have misunderstood
174
the Germans and the Germans have misunderstood us. When we have tried to be conciliatory they have mistaken it for weakness, and in trying to promote peace we have, on more occasions than one, in fact promoted war. I hope your Lordships in considering the whole problem of peace terms will pay very great attention to the views of foreign countries. We must get out of the habit of considering continental problems from the Anglo-Saxon point of view. We must learn to appreciate the point of view of the Continent.
That brings me to the third category of problems, that of post-war modus vivendi. Our policy there is laid down as far as it can be laid down at present in the Atlantic Charter. The four pillars on which the policy of the Atlantic Charter will rest are the British Empire, the United States, Russia and China. The responsibility will fall on those four great countries for the maintenance of the peace of the world and the implementing of the objects of the peace treaty. These countries cannot disarm, must not disarm. They will have to keep armed in order to maintain the peace of the world, and I am very glad that that was recognized by my noble friend Lord Cecil of Chelwood. We listened, with great attention to what fell from my noble friend Lord Brabazon m that connexion and I hope his advice will be borne carefully in mind in all quarters. If I may say so, what my noble friend Lord Craigmyle said about the Mercantile Marine was equally important. We cannot divorce the welfare of the Mercantile Marine from naval health and naval strength.
Surety when we are considering the four countries, the four pillars, as I have called them, of peace in the future—here I am speaking entirely for myself—we are bound to ask ourselves how our own British Empire is going to stand that test, how it is going to function. The British Empire is in fact a League of Nations. We hear a great deal of optimistic talk nowadays about an organic League of Nations with a force of its own. We hear talk about the federation of Europe and things of that sort. Will it not be wiser to consider whether some organic development of the British Empire itself is not possible? That problem has only to be mentioned for everyone to realize what a difficult problem it is, but it is

175
surely easier than those other steps so lightly spoken of outside. If there is any lesson Singapore has for us it is that there is a need for a combined Imperial study of defence problems, and defence problems carry with them conduct of foreign policy. I hope statesmen in the Dominions and in this country will give their consideration to that problem. The effective and democratic solution of the problem would be the disbandment of this Parliament of the United Kingdom in which we are now sitting and, as my noble friend the Duke of Montrose wishes, to have Parliaments for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland with an Imperial Federated Parliament, representing all the Parliaments of the Empire sitting not in this country at all but in some more central place such as Cape Town, responsible for Imperial defence and foreign policy. That is a matter which nobody is thinking about at the moment, but personally I hope that the organic development of the Empire and the possibilities in that direction will be considered by all those who are giving attention to our post-war problems.
On the international plane the principles that govern our policy are laid down in the Atlantic Charter which recognizes the need for constructive measures after the war. I was rather surprised that more of your Lordships have not spoken of the Mutual Aid Agreement concluded with the United States last February, although my noble friend Lord Sempill did make some very interesting remarks about it. The most reverend Lord, Lord Lang, asked for a further definition of the Atlantic Charter. I think he will find progress in the direction he desires in the Mutual Aid Agreement, and I should like to say that the Dominions were fully consulted in the preliminary negotiations that led up to that Agreement. Article 7 of the Mutual Aid Agreement defines certain objectives. It is a declaration of purposes, a rallying point for all like-minded nations to gather round. It defines the basic objectives of the United Kingdom and the United States and provides for conversations on points of detail. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, was rather impatient-concerning the progress that had been made in these great issues. But I would remind him that when you are dealing
176
with matters of the greatest importance concerning a great number of different countries progress cannot be rapid, especially when you are in the middle of a great war.
Now Article 7 of the Mutual Aid Agreement does point the way in which it is hoped that the principles of the Atlantic Charter will be interpreted on the economic plane. Whatever is done as a result of Article 7 can, of course, only be done by agreement, but the design of the Mutual Aid Agreement is to create conditions favourable not only to the signatories but to the whole world. I venture to think that that should inspire hope for the future, without causing any anxiety to our kith and kin in the Dominions. Thought as regards economic policy to-day is moving more and more in the direction of increasing consumption and thereby increasing producing power and increasing prosperity. Modern economists are inclined to believe that we can do that for the whole world without injuring any part of the British Empire, but, obviously, progress in those directions cannot take place, and no change in our economic or monetary policy can take place without very full consultation with our Dominions and with the United States and other countries.
A question was asked—I believe it was by the noble Lord, Lord Sempill—about the Paymaster-General. The Paymaster-General is at work mainly on domestic problems, but there are one or two problems which cannot be described as strictly domestic which he is also tackling. Though his main sphere is in the domestic field—a subject on which the noble Lord, Lord Winster, spoke just now but which I have no time to discuss at this late hour—even in our domestic problems there are many points which interest our Dominions and our Allies, and the Paymaster-General sees that the fullest exchange of information on these matters takes place.
I would conclude by repeating that no settlement in any of these great questions which are going to have so great an influence on ail of us for the rest of our lives can be made by a British Government unless public opinion will endorse that settlement. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships and other political thinkers will continue to canvass these problems, so that the public may be

177
made aware of the immense difficulties that lie in our path and give assistance not only to the Government of this country but to the Governments of our Dominions and of our Allies in reaching a wise and just settlement.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I am sure that everyone has appreciated the striking, the emphatic, unanimity almost which has characterized the speeches made in this debate, both on Tuesday and to-day, as to the immense importance of being beforehand with our preparations for world settlement, so far as is humanly possible. I hope that His Majesty's Government if they had any dubiety before—which I do not suspect they had—as to the anxiety of the people that the matters referred to in the Resolution should be actively dealt with, will have had that dubiety completely removed by the speeches which have been made during these two days, for almost without exception the same point of view has been expressed by men of all political affinities. I know very well—and, of course, as the noble Lord has said, that is why the Motion was framed as it was—that we do not expect declarations at this stage on matters in respect of which declarations can only be made in concert with the other United Nations, and on that account the word was not included in the proposal.
I thank the Government most sincerely, and so do my noble friends, for the complete readiness with which they
178
have met the spirit and general intention of the Resolution on the Paper, but whilst I recognize, and the noble Lords who are associated with me recognize, too, the impossibility, in many matters, of making declarations, I hope that the Government will not be unduly shy on that account. As a noble friend reminds me on a slip of paper which is in front of me, Mr. Sumner Welles did not find any difficulty in making far-reaching statements. So that when matters have advanced to the stage at which declarations can be made I do hope that the Government will not by shy about making them. I know that what my noble friend behind me said with regard to our people at home expressed a very genuine anxiety, and I know that the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, appreciates what is behind what I am saying. There are one or two subjects which have emerged in the debate which I have thought, as I have listened, might fittingly form the subject of special discussions at some other time, such as finance and currency and important matters of that kind. I believe that I am expressing the opinion of every one of your Lordships when I thank the Government for the spirit in which they have met this Resolution, and I think that the simplest and readiest way of dealing with it is to ask your Lordships to allow me to withdraw it.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned.