Sitting of 19 November 1942

Preamble
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
SELECTION
Sir Irving Albery, Rear-Admiral Beamish, Mr. Charleton, Colonel Gretton, Mr. John, Mr. Lambert, Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew, Mr. Mathers, Sir Stanley Reed, Mr. Roberts and Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward nominated Members of the Committee of Selection.—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NATIONAL WAR EFFORT

    Nautical Instrument Makers
    Sir Robert Rankinasked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider the disadvantage of withdrawing skilled workers from firms in the nautical instrument trade which is of great importance to the Merchant Navy?
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): Skilled nautical instrument makers are only withdrawn from their employment when they are required for more important or urgent work elsewhere in their own occupation. They are thus retained in the industry and employed where the best use may be made of their services.

    Building Industry
    Mr. William Brownasked the Minister of Labour whether, in determining on the call up of key men in the building industry, such as plumbers, carpenters, electricians, etc., he has regard to the possible demands on the building industry of future enemy air raids; and whether he is satisfied that the building industry will be able to cope with the situation which might arise from heavy bombing?
    Mr. Bevin: The arrangements for calling up building workers have been made in consultation with my Noble Friend the Minister of Works and Planning, and the Answers to both parts of the hon. Member's Question are in the affirmative.

    War Office Temporary Clerk (Dismissal)
    Mr. W. Brownasked the Minister of Labour in what circumstances he informed the Civil Service Clerical Association, in connection with the dismissal of a temporary clerk from a War Office establishment, that he could not require the War Office to reinstate that employee although the Appeal Board had recommended it; and whether, before he approves the scheduling under the Essential Work Order of any Government establishment, he satisfies himself that the Department is prepared to accept all the obligations which rest upon private employers whose establishments are scheduled and, in particular, the obligation of reinstating any dismissed employee who successfully appeals?
    Mr. Bevin: My Department did not ask the War Office to reinstate the worker referred to as it was satisfied that it would not be in the national interest to do so. The answer to the latter part of the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative, and in this particular case the action taken was exactly the same as it would have been if the employer had been a private undertaking.
    Mr. Brown: Is it not the case that the appeal machinery which operates under my right hon. Friend's Department had decided that this officer should be reinstated, and is not that decision binding on a Department?
    Mr. Bevin: No. The appeal machinery is advisory to me, and I have to take the final decision.
    Mr. Brown: Are we to understand that the Minister overrode the decision of his own tribunal in this case?
    Mr. Bevin: In this case, yes.

    Mobile Women Workers
    Mr. Boothbyasked the Minister of Labour whether he will make arrangements that, so far as is practicable, Scottish girls working in England shall obtain Christmas leave at the New Year?
    Mr. Bevin: Early in the year the Government issued a notice with regard to holidays in 1942, which recommended that as many workers as possible should receive two days' holiday either at Christmas or the New Year. The actual arrangements for the holidays must naturally be made by individual firms in the light of war

    477
    requirements and their own particular circumstances, but I have no doubt that sympathetic consideration will be given by employers to the natural desire of Scottish workers to take their leave at the New Year season.
    Mr. Boothby: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will call the attention of industrial firms generally to the fact that the New Year has considerable emotional and spiritual significance to Scots?
    Mr. Gallacher: Has the Minister given any consideration to the plight of the girls who volunteered for service in England and who have to pay their own fares, and find it very difficult to do so?
    Mr. Bevin: I do not think that arises out of this Question.
    Mr. Boothbyasked the Minister of Labour whether he will take steps to increase the number of voluntary clubs for mobile girl workers who have been transferred to the Midlands?
    Mr. Bevin: The welfare officers of my Department are continuously active in this direction in co-operation with the voluntary organisations. Fifteen clubs are either already functioning or are about to start, while seven others are under consideration. One club has an almost exclusively Scottish membership.
    Mr. Boothby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Birmingham alone the need is not only for 15 but for 50 of these clubs? At present the vast majority of these girls have nowhere to go except back to their billets, which they are naturally reluctant to do.
    Mr. Bevin: The demands for materials, building labour and so on is so great that I cannot do, everything I would like to do, I assure the hon. Member.
    Commander Locker-Lampson: Is Birmingham not a special centre for this need?
    Mr. Thorne: Is the Minister aware that when boys and girls belong to these clubs it is one means of preventing juvenile crime?
    Mr. Bevin: I think club life, especially when people are transferred, is absolutely
    478
    vital, but the claims are so great. I agree that Birmingham is certainly a very special case.
    Mr. McNeilasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the evidence given by a National Service officer, at Falkirk Sheriff Court, to the effect that he had issued a direction to a girl despite the recommendations of an appeal board; whether this action is in conformity with the practice of his Department; and whether he is satisfied that the powers of an appeal board adequately safeguard the interests of an applicant?
    Mr. Bevin: I am aware of one such case, and am writing to my hon. Friend. It is the practice of National Service officers to accept the recommendations of local appeal boards in all save the most exceptional cases, and I am satisfied that the interests of the workers are adequately safeguarded.
    Mr. McNeil: Would the Minister not agree that, as I think he infers in his Answer, this case has created a great deal of unrest throughout the industrial West of Scotland? Could he not make his interest in the matter quite plain to all people concerned?
    Mr. Bevin: I am looking into it.
    Mr. Buchanan: In view of the fact that the Court have not the power to decide whether the girl is guilty or not, but must accept the decision of the national service officer, would my right hon. Friend see that the case is, at least, not proceeded with as a criminal case?
    Mr. Bevin: The difficulty is that I have to do it both ways. At one time I accepted the appeal board's recommendation completely, and then there was complaint the other way. If I have to review now and again one way, I must be able to do it the other way.
    Mr. Buchanan: Would it not be advisable at least that the case should not be pressed in terms of court proceedings?
    Mr. Woodburn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in this case it was stated that there was no right on the part of the person involved to hear the result of the appeal, and that the girl was not advised what the result was?
    Mr. Bevin: I have already explained that in this case I have called for the papers, and I am writing to my hon. Friend.

    Transferred Workers
    Sir Irving Alberyasked the Minister of Labour, whether any arrangements are being made to secure the benefits for workers who were members of sick clubs, etc., to which they have made contributions for many years, when such men are transferred to other employment?
    Mr. Bevin: It is the responsibility of the worker to arrange to have his membership transferred, if this is possible, or to have contributions paid on his behalf while he is away from home. The leaflet "Going Away on War Work," of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy, is given to each transferred worker and deals with this matter.
    Sir I. Alberyasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that, in some cases where the transfer of men to other employment is being effected, indoor workers who have been accustomed to work in high temperatures have been moved to outdoor employment and that most of these workers are over middle age; and whether he will issue instructions that when such transfers are made, in so far as is possible, the nature of a man's previous employment will be taken into account?
    Mr. Bevin: In transferring workers, employment exchanges have instructions to have regard to previous experience, physical capability and other relevant factors. If my hon. Friend will send me details of any particular case he has in mind, I will make inquiries.
    Sir I. Albery: I was under the impression that the right hon. Gentleman had already received particulars.
    Mr. Bevin: Of one case?
    Sir I. Albery: Well, concerning several men.
    Mr. Kennedyasked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the protest of London builders against the transfer of skilled tradesmen from their employment to work as labourers for large contractors in other parts of the country;
    480
    and whether the operative trade unions concerned are consulted regarding the transfers?
    Mr. Bevin: The policy of transferring skilled tradesmen to work as labourers which is necessitated by the requirements of the urgent Government building programme, has been made in full consultation with the national organisations of employers and operatives in the building and civil engineering industries.
    Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Mr. Joseph Baxendale, 499, Manchester Road, Westhoughton, Lancashire, was recently directed to work in the Lincoln area as a general labourer; that he was examined by the independent medical officer of his department, who issued a certificate that there are slight irregular nystagmoid movements of both eyes; that the Lincoln job fell through, and that he was then directed to proceed to work at Peterborough; and will he place him in employment near his home?
    Mr. Bevin: On becoming unemployed, Mr. Baxendale registered at the employment exchange and was directed to work in the Lincoln area as a general labourer. The medical referee reported that his vision was normal apart from some slight irregular mystagmoid movement in both eyes, and that this did not influence his work as a general labourer. The local appeal board disallowed his appeal, but by this time the job had been filled. He was then directed to a similar job at Peterborough, and he again appealed to the local appeal board, who will hear his appeal on 20th November.
    Mr. Davies: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman take steps in a case like this, where it is agreed that the man is suffering from nystagmus and cannot work very well unless he is guided to and from his work? Would it not be possible to find a job for him near his home? Then he could work properly.
    Mr. Bevin: I referred the case to the medical referee, who gave the report which I have indicated.
    Mr. Davies: But it was no concern of the doctor, when he issued his certificate, where the man should work. My point is that he has been sent away from home to work.

    Skilled Technicians
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been directed to the great expansion of output attributable to the skilled technicians in every branch of industry who are training unskilled labour, both male and female; and whether he will consider making some public acknowledgment of this valuable contribution to the national effort?
    Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir, I am fully aware of the important contribution to our national effort made by the skilled technicians in industry. The immense increases and changes in production necessary for the war effort have only been made possible by the entry of fresh workers, men and women, into the factories. These new entrants to industry have had to be trained and up-graded to meet the constantly increasing need for more skilled workers. That we have been able to meet these demands is in great part due to the technicians and skilled men who, day by day, on the floor of the factory, have imparted their own knowledge and valuable experience to the new entrants, especially the women who have come forward to play their part in this work for the duration of the war. I am glad to have this opportunity of paying a tribute to the splendid work which all concerned have carried out.

    Engineering Textbooks
    Mr. Colegateasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the difficulty in obtaining textbooks for engineering and other students; and whether he will take steps to see that a sufficient number of people are available in the book-printing and book-binding industries to enable the position to be remedied?
    Mr. Bevin: I am informed that there is no serious shortage of technical books, although there have been difficulties. The labour position in the book-printing and book-binding industries is constantly under review.
    Mr. Colegate: Surely the Minister is aware that one press alone claims that 500 textbooks are out of print? Does that not call for some remedial action?
    Mr. Bevin: Of course, many books are running out of print, but the demands made upon me for war work are so great
    482
    that I have to decide which is the most urgent.
    Mr. Colegate: Are not engineering textbooks essential for the war effort?

    Enginéering Cadetship Scheme
    Captain W. T. Shawasked the Minister of Labour whether he can give an estimate of the cost of the engineering cadet scheme; whether he is satisfied that the educational qualifications demanded from applicants are commensurate with the liberal terms offered as compared with university scholarships; has he considered the danger that the exclusion of youths already employed in engineering may keep out the best natural engineering talent; how many applications have been received to date; and what educational authorities were consulted before fixing the educational qualifications of applicants?
    Mr. Bevin: The engineering cadetship scheme for training boys aged 16, 17, 18 and 19 for technical commissions in the Services was planned in consultation with my right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Education and the Secretary of State for Scotland, with full regard to the issues mentioned by my hon. Friend. We are satisfied that the terms offered are appropriate, having regard to the nature of the course, the qualifications required, and the fact that most of the boys concerned are already wage earners. State scholars at the Universities obtain allowances no less favourable by applying for bursary allowances. The scheme is designed to reduce the demands of the Services upon the engineering industry, but boys who become qualified for technical commissions while employed in the industry have an opportunity to obtain such commissions. Since the announcement of the scheme a fortnight ago some 6,000 applications have been received. I do not propose to announce the number of cadetships to be granted.

    Married Women with Children
    Mr. Brookeasked the Minister of Labour whether married women with one or more children, who have registered under the Registration for Employment Order, are all being treated as exempt from interview or from compulsory obligation to do war work, without inquiry whether they have their children at home and are themselves looking after them?
    Mr. Bevin: Inquiries are made at the time of registration whether a mother has her young children living with her. If she has, she is not summoned for interview or directed to employment under present arrangements.
    Mr. Brooke: Is the Minister aware that a number of women were not asked this question when they registered—although that may have been in the earlier days of registration? Will he bear that fact in mind when planning future woman-power policy?
    Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir.

    Juveniles (Change of Employment)
    Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that young persons under 15 years of age are not allowed by some of his local officers to leave their employment for jobs where the wages and conditions are superior and where the new employment is important and is much nearer their homes; and will he look into this matter?
    Mr. Bevin: In some cases it may be right, in both the national interest and the interests of the juvenile himself, not to allow a change of employment in the circumstances described; but my officers have been instructed, before taking decisions in such cases, always to have regard to the juveniles' industrial well-being, as well as to the present national interest. If my hon. Friend has any particular cases in mind, I shall be glad to investigate them.
    Mr. Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have sent a specific case to his Department; and would he be good enough to instruct his officers to show a little compassion towards these very young persons?
    Mr. Bevin: I do not accept the suggestion that they do not show compassion.
    Mr. Davies: I will send particulars of a case.
    Mr. Bevin: The position about juveniles is that a large number of people are willing to offer juveniles blind-alley employment at very high wages. I have a double purpose to fulfil, both in the national interest and in the interest of the juveniles themselves.

    Milk Pasteurisation Plants (Skilled Workers)
    Dr. Edith Summerskillasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that mere is a shortage of skilled workers for the milk pasteurisation plants; and, in the interests of public health, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. Bevin: I am not aware of any serious shortage of skilled workers for milk pasteurisation plants.
    Dr. Summerskill: Has my right hon. Friend had representations from the dairy industry on this subject?
    Mr. Bevin: No, the representations would come to me from my Noble Friend the Minister of Food; I have had none.
    Commander Locker-Lampson: Is it still true that you can sell infected milk without punishment, but not infected water?
    Mr. Bevin: That is another question.

    Absenteeism
    Miss Wardasked the Minister of Labour whether in view of the reluctance of his Department to prosecute workers of 17 years of age who are reported for absenteeism and bad time-keeping, he will outline his policy with regard to disciplining persistent offenders?
    Mr. Bevin: I would refer my hon. Friend to the pamphlet on absenteeism recently issued by my Department. In my opinion, avoidable absence from work is most likely to be eliminated when it is treated as a domestic matter, to be settled within an establishment by mutual cooperation between management and the workers' representatives. If this course be seriously pursued, the number of cases remaining for which prosecution is the only effective deterrent will be found to be very small. Further, where an offence has been committed by a young person, the assistance of the juvenile committee is sought, in order to bring influence and persuasion to bear upon the boy or girl, and the advice of the local probation officer may also be obtained. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that the prosecution of young people should only be undertaken as a very last resort.
    Miss Ward: In view of the fact that boys of 18, 19 and 20 are daily sacrificing their lives in the national cause, does my

    485
    right hon. Friend not agree that boys of 17 are quite old enough to have a sense of responsibility in the national cause; and is he satisfied that his Department sufficiently realises the need for disciplinary action?
    Mr. Bevin: I always try to examine these cases in the light of what I might have been doing at 17.

    Canteen Workers
    Major-General Sir Alfred Knoxasked the Minister of Labour whether in view of the difficulty industrial concerns experience in finding personnel to carry on the work in their canteens and of the necessity for providing as many workers as possible with meals in these canteens, owing to the distance from their homes, he will provide labour from men and women called up for National Service?
    Mr. Bevin: Employment in canteens in works doing essential war work is already one which women, and, to a smaller extent, men may be asked to take when they are called up for national service.
    Sir A. Knox: As regards the other firms which are not doing non-essential work, but are doing work which is really necessary for the war effort, can the right hon. Gentleman see his way to help them to get employees for the canteens?
    Mr. Granville: Will the right hon. Gentleman direct his attention to the canteens at Slough and in that district, where they are extremely short of personnel?
    Mr. Bevin: I will look into the matter. One of the difficulties about this class of work is that there are no regulated conditions, no rates for the job, and it is in a chaotic condition. It is difficult for me to direct people where I cannot tell them what they are going to get.
    Sir A. Knox: These people at Slough work at a great distance from their homes, and it is important that they should get their meals.
    Mr. Bevin: I will look into the position at Slough.

    Juvenile Unemployment
    Mr. Kenneth Lindsayasked the Minister of Labour whether he can offer any explanation for the persistence of juvenile unemployment generally above the figure of 20,000 during the past year?
    Mr. Bevin: There is little persistent unemployment among juveniles, and that little is found only in certain areas. The figure to which my hon. Friend refers represents mainly the number of boys and girls changing over from one job to another on the day of the count and the effect of school-leaving. In general, the experience is that a juvenile registering for employment is placed very shortly after registration.

  FACTORY ACCIDENTS
  Sir Herbert Williamsasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the increase of fatal accidents in factories from 944 in 1938 to 1,646 in 1941, that is to say, 74 per cent., and in non-fatal accidents from 179,159 to 269,652 in 1941, that is to say 50 per cent., he will institute an immediate inquiry, with a view to a reduction in the suffering involved and in the impairment of the national war effort; and in particular will he inquire into the effect on the accident rate of the overtime still worked despite the recommendations of the Select Committee on National Expenditure against it?
  Mr. Bevin: Ways and means of reducing the number of accidents are already the subject of continuous inquiry by the Chief Inspector of Factories and his staff, and recommendations are made from time to time in official publications and by factory inspectors in the course of their visits to firms. The Industrial Health Research Board have also published reports from time to time on the causation of accidents, but their later investigations during the first two years of the war show that under war conditions there are too many variable factors influencing accident rates to enable reliable conclusions of practical value to be reached as to the relationship between accident rates and working hours. Repeated changes in the type of work, and the employment of a large number of persons either new to industry or to the particular operation on which they are

  487
  required to work, inevitably contribute to an increase in the number of accidents so that the effect, if any, of longer working hours cannot be isolated.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Is the Minister satisfied that the Safety First organisation is functioning relatively as efficiently as it was in pre-war times, and is not the collaboration between works committees and other representative interests in the factories tending to deal with this matter?
  Mr. Bevin: I think there is very great room for improvement, but the difficulty is that men are working, as the Question puts it, long hours. We call on them for fire watching and many other extra duties, and the ability to give time to these voluntary efforts has been seriously hampered.
  Sir H. Williams: Has the Minister any indication whether this increase in accidents is continuing during the present year?
  Mr. Bevin: I have not the figures up to date.
  Mr. Rhys Davies: Does not the Minister think it would be a good thing if we had a Debate on the Chief Inspector's report, and that it would have a salutary effect if that were done?
  Mr. Bevin: We had one not long ago, but that is not a matter for me.

  MILITARY SERVICE

    Arrested Man, Barnsley
    Mr. Collindridgeasked the Minister of Labour whether he will inquire into the case of Trevor Herbert, 7, South Street, off Dodworth Road, Barnsley, 18½ years of age, a member of the Home Guard, willing to go on full military service when called, who failed to receive calling-up papers until these were brought by a police officer, was arrested and kept in the cells of the local police station for two days waiting a military escort; and will he take disciplinary action against those responsible for this injustice to the boy and his family?
    Mr. Bevin: I am having inquiries made, and will communicate with my hon. Friend.

  INDIA (MR. RAJAGOPALACHARI)
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware of the proposals of Mr. Rajagopalachari respecting the transference of power to a responsible representative Indian Government; and whether he will encourage the visit to this country of this Indian leader and secure travelling facilities for him?
  Mr. Granvilleasked the Secretary of State for India whether he will invite Mr. Rajagopalachari and other responsible Indian leaders to discuss with Mr. Jinnah and to visit this country to explore the possibility of the Indianisation of the Viceroy's Council and the setting up of a national government to secure, during the interim period, the fullest Indian co-operation in the prosecution of the war?
  The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) on 17th November.
  Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable resentment among the non-Congress parties' representatives against this refusal to allow them to have contact with the Congress Leaders; and what possible harm can there be for some Indians to meet other Indians, both of whom have a certain political significance?
  Mr. Amery: It is the considered policy of the Government of India not to allow access to Congress Leaders in view of the line they have taken and continue to take.
  Mr. Granville: Is it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to do absolutely nothing to assist this sincere and energetic Indian leader to try and break this deadlock; and if he does not consider the progress of opinion in this country, will he consider it in the Dominions and the United States of America?
  Mr. Amery: We always welcome agreement, but you cannot make people agree who are not prepared to agree.
  Sir A. Knox: Is it not a fact that this intelligent Indian leader has totally failed to convert Indians to his views and has

  489
  been turned down by Moslems, Sikhs, the oppressed classes, and by Indian Christians?

  BURMA (SELF-GOVERNMENT)
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for Burma whether His Majesty's Government will give the assurance that complete self-government for Burma will be implemented immediately on the cessation of hostilities; and whether he will enter into negotiations with representative Burmese respecting this?
  The Secretary of State for Burma (Mr. Amery): The aim of His Majesty's Government continues to be self-government for Burma as soon as circumstances permit. The hon. Member will recognise the impossibility of discussions with representative Burmese, the great majority of whom have remained in Burma, until the country has been freed from Japanese control and normal conditions have been restored.
  Mr. Sorensen: Are we to take it, therefore, that the majority of these Burmese Ministers prefer to remain under Japanese occupation rather than come elsewhere under their own control?
  Mr. Amery: The great majority are people in Burma who could not help themselves from remaining under Japanese control. Certain Ministers were able to get away with the Governor and are working with him now.
  Mr. Sorensen: Do not these Ministers desire most earnestly some assurance that their country shall be self-governed immediately after the war?
  Mr. Amery: They have had that assurance as soon as circumstances permit. Order will have to be restored in the country immediately after the re-occupation.

  CIVIL DEFENCE

    Detainee
    Sir I. Alberyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to his decision during the month of August not to give effect to the recommendation of the Advisory Committee
    490
    concerning a detention under Regulation 18B, whether the recommendation of the Committee was for release or for further detention?
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The recommendation was for release.

    Auxiliary Fireman (Compensation for Illness)
    Mr. Ness Edwardsasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that D. J. Morgan, of Abertredwr, Glamorganshire, was an auxiliary fireman and contracted acute rheumatism in the performance of his duties; and whether, as this occurred prior to the 3rd September, 1939, when the Civilian Injuries Scheme came into operation and he has been deprived of compensation, he will take steps whereby this man shall have reasonable compensation for his loss?
    Mr. H. Morrison: I am making inquiries into this case and will communicate with my hon. Friend when they are complete.

    Fire Prevention
    Sir Robert Rankinasked the Home Secretary whether he is satisfied that, in the special areas of the Regional Commissioners, the fire departments are making full use of the special knowledge and experience of the local technical committees set up by the Fire Offices Committee to advise in respect to fire prevention and surveys?
    Mr. H. Morrison: When a few months ago the Fire Offices Committee put at the disposal of the Ministry of Home Security the services of their Regional Technical Committee, I asked Regional Commissioners to call upon these Committees for advice in all suitable cases. I am glad to be able to say that many of these Committees have rendered valuable assistance both to Regional Commissioners and the Departments responsible for the storage of commodities.

    Camp Expulsions, Horndean
    Major Sir Joselyn Lucasasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to expulsions under the Camp Restrictions Order at Horndean and, in view of the fact that the men concerned are nearly all evacuees from bombed areas in Portsmouth, and that the huts are barely within the 10-mile limit, will he

    491
    exercise his discretion and authorise the police to grant immunity for the duration of the war?
    Mr. H. Morrison: I understand that certain persons have recently been convicted for contravention at Horndean of the Camping (Restrictions) Order and that some of these persons have had their homes destroyed or damaged by enemy action at Portsmouth. As regards the suggestion in the latter part of my hon. and gallant Friend's Question, I am making some inquiries, and I will communicate further with him as soon as possible.

    Emergency Water Tanks (Protection)
    Mr. Ammonasked the Home Secretary whether he has arrived at a decision as to the provision of protective covering for emergency water tanks?
    Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir, and an announcement will very shortly be made on the subject.

    Czech Airman (Naturalisation Application)
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Home Secretary whether the Czech subject, of whose name he has been informed, who has been in this country since 1935, including five terms at Cambridge University, who is a sergeant in the Royal Air Force and obtained his wings in Rhodesia, can have his application for naturalisation granted?
    Mr. H. Morrison: No, Sir. There are many foreigners who are giving direct and valuable help to the war effort either by service in His Majesty's Forces or in other ways; and the consideration and investigation of applications from all such persons would involve so much work both for my Department and the police that I should not feel justified in undertaking it at a time when everything possible must be done to economise in man-power. The case in question cannot be distinguished from many others.
    Mr. Lipson: Can the right hon. Gentleman' say that no naturalisations have been granted since the war?
    Mr. Morrison: Generally speaking, that is so. The principal exception is in the case of British-born women who have married aliens.
    Mr. Lipson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give high priority after the war to applications for naturalisation of all men who have served in the Forces?
    Mr. Morrison: I think it would be wrong for me to commit myself now to what is to happen after the war to refugees who came to this country.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: Will the Home Secretary be good enough to inquire into the practice in America, where, I understand, they are daily joining the American Forces or are being conscripted and are in the end automatic American citizens?
    Mr. Morrison: I am willing to do so, but our policy must be settled in the light of British considerations.
    Mr. Lipson: If a man is good enough and loyal enough to fight for this country, ought not he to be given naturalisation?

    Interned Italians' Wives
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that in Italy the wives of interned British subjects are allowed to share their husbands' internment; and will he consider conferring a similar privilege upon the wives of Italians interned in this country, some of whom are British born and are suffering financial hardship?
    Mr. H. Morrison: No, Sir. My information is that the contrary is the case, and that British husbands and wives interned in Italy are not united in the same camp. In this country the policy is when both husband and wife are interned to allow them to live together in the same internment camp; but I do not think it would be practicable or justifiable for the Government to provide accommodation for women whom it is not necessary in the public interest to intern.
    Mr. Lipson: Is the Minister aware that his answer means, in effect, saying to these women, "If you want to be interned with your husband, you must do something which is disloyal to this country"? Is that sound policy?
    Mr. Morrison: I think that is a very unsound observation. My business is to intern people who, in my judgment, may be a danger to the security of the State, and I think it would be quite wrong to intern people who are not a danger to security.

    Eire Woman's Arrest, Holyhead
    Professor Savoryasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the arrest, on 12th November, at Holyhead, of a woman arriving from Eire who was fined for concealing important Irish Republican documents, including a code, in the lining of her hat; and why, instead of being detained in this country, she was sent back to Eire, as she may make an attempt to carry these documents to Northern Ireland?
    Mr. H. Morrison: My attention has been called to this case, and I am making further inquiries with regard to it. The documents referred to were retained by the police in this country, and the question of ordering her detention for the purpose mentioned in the Question did not therefore arise.
    Professor Savory: May I ask what guarantee the right hon. Gentleman offers that the same lady will not play the same hat trick on Northern Ireland?

    Personnel (Uniform)
    Mr. Hannahasked the Home Secretary whether he realises that the report and control staff in the case of non-scheme making authorities are not allowed uniforms; that this, in the case of nightwork, is extremely uncomfortable and hard on clothing, especially for girls; and will he have uniforms provided?
    Mr. H. Morrison: The provision of uniform for Civil Defence personnel is at the discretion of the individual local authority. The authorized uniform for persons serving in Report and Control Centres is a cotton overall with beret and great coat. In view of the nature of the work and the very difficult supply position, I do not feel justified in authorizing the supply of serge uniforms.

  LEWES PRISON (DISTURBANCE)
  Mr. Thorneasked the Home Secretary whether he can give any information in connection with the disorders at Lewes Prison when about 100 prisoners attempted to rush the prison gates on Friday, 23rd October; and what was the cause of the trouble?
  Mr. H. Morrison: The disturbance occurred on Tuesday, 20th October. Four men managed to get on to the roof of the
  494
  chapel which was undergoing repair and it was not possible to get them down for about two hours. This defiance of authority—the men shouted and rang the chapel bell—created an atmosphere of excitement in the prison and provoked in some prisoners a spirit of indiscipline. (Laughter.) Well, it was no joke for the prison authorities for the moment. As a result, while the prisoners were at exercise, a few men succeeded in stirring up a disorderly demonstration, of which an ostensible purpose was to demand the release from the separate cells of a prisoner who was on report for an offence committed the previous day. No violence was shown to the staff, but a few stones were thrown at windows. The Governor, however, had asked for police assistance, and when the demonstrators saw the police reinforcements they obeyed the order to return to their cells. All the prisoners concerned have been brought before the visiting magistrates who have awarded graduated punishments. The four men who got on to the roof told the visiting magistrates that they were demonstrating because the evening meal was too early, and because the sugar supplied was insufficient. The sugar ration for prisoners is the same as for other people, and it appears that these complaints were afterthoughts advanced as pleas in mitigation. Amongst the other delinquents there were individuals who each pleaded that he joined in the disturbance because he was frightened of what the others would do to him if he deserted them.

  POLICE RAID, LONDON
  Mr. Thorneasked the Home Secretary whether he can give any information in connection with the raid made by the police on Henry's Long Bar, Oxford Street, on 26th October, when they seized £1,000 worth of liquor; how John Charles McLaughlin, managing director, was dealt with; and whether his attention has been directed to the statement made by Mr. Melvillie and Inspector Osmond in the police court?
  Mr. H. Morrison: A company called Henry's Long Bar, Limited, of which Mr. McLaughlin is managing director, acquired licensed premises, and despite police warnings that application should be made for the transfer of the licence, con-

  495
  tinued the retail sale of intoxicating liquor under cover of the previous licence. The police obtained summonses against the company for selling liquor without a licence, on various dates, and against the managing director for aiding and abetting, and, as the offence continued, obtained a search warrant to seize the stocks. The summonses were heard on 26th October. On a plea of guilty, the court imposed a fine of £180 with £21 costs on the managing director and the same penalty on the company, and made an order for the liquor to be forfeited and sold, the estimated cost being between £800 and £1,000. I have seen certain Press reports of the statements referred to, and am advised that they are substantially correct.
  Mr. Thorne: Can my right hon. Friend state how the man in question obtained this amount of liquor?
  Mr. Morrison: No, Sir, I am afraid I do not know, and if I did I am not sure that it would be in the public interest that I should say.

  CHANNEL ISLANDERS (DEPORTATIONS)
  Mr. Ammonasked the Home Secretary whether he can give any information concerning the number of people deported from the Channel Islands under the German deportation orders of 15th and 26th September last; and will he invoke the offices of the Red Cross to obtain information and lists?
  Sir W. Davisonasked the Home Secretary what information the Government have with regard to the people of the Channel Islands who have been deported by the Germans, in particular, as to the conditions of their confinement; and whether the International Red Cross have been able to make any arrangements for sending them parcels of food and clothing?
  Mr. H. Morrison: Lists have so far been received from the German Government of some 800 persons, including women and children, interned in an officers' camp in Germany. The International Red Cross Committee immediately extended the British Red Cross weekly food parcel service to these people and the Home Office have informed the
  496
  next of kin in this country. It is expected that the persons interned in Germany will be allowed the privileges to which prisoners of war are entitled as regards correspondence and food parcels. Friends in this country have already received postcards from some of them.

  ELECTORAL PROCEDURE (COMMITTEE'S REPORT)
  Sir Reginald Blairasked the Home Secretary whether he has yet received the Report from the Committee on Electoral Procedure; and will it be available to Members?
  Wing-Commander Hulbertasked the Home Secretary when the Committee now sitting on Electoral Reform will issue its Report?
  Mr. H. Morrison: I understand that the Committee have completed their report and will present it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself very soon. The report will be presented to Parliament, subject of course to consideration, from the security angle, of any information likely to be of value to the enemy.

  CHAINED PRISONERS OF WAR
  Mr. Graham Whiteasked the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to make a statement with regard to the chaining of prisoners of war?
  The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave yesterday in reply to Questions on this subject.
  Commander Locker-Lampson: Is it not better to spend money on bombs instead of chains?

  AGRICULTURE

    Potato Sets
    Sir William Davisonasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the success attained in Russia in cutting off the small tips of potatoes with the seed bud in order to provide potato seed for the forthcoming season, while using the greater part of the potato for food; that plants grown from potato tips have been found to be less subject

    497
    to disease than those grown from the whole potato; and whether steps will be taken in order to increase our food supply to advise farmers to adopt this practice in Great Britain?
    The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I have had some particulars of Russian work on this subject, and I am arranging for it to, be examined further. The cutting of tubers to save "seed" is already practised to some extent in this country, but my information is that heavier and better crops are produced from high class certified "seed" than from "sets" of ordinary ware tubers.
    Sir W. Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it has been officially stated that it is expected that 2,500,000 acres will be planted with these tips in Russia next year whereby 8,000,000 or 9,000,000 tons of potatoes will be warehoused, and in view of the appeals made in the Press about the necessity for more potatoes is it not desirable that we should press forward with this experiment which, apparently, has already been proved?
    Mr. Hudson: I have no information about the particular figures quoted by my hon. Friend, but so far as this country is concerned we are producing approximately the same tonnage from half the acreage and, therefore, I do not think it would be much use adopting that method.
    Sir Waldron Smithers: Is it not a fact that there is no shortage of potato seed?

    House Sparrows (Crop Damage)
    Major Milnerasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the damage done by sparrows to crops grown in the vicinity of built-up areas; what instructions have been given to war agricultural committees to enable them to deal with these pests; and on what date?
    Mr. Hudson: I am aware that house sparrows cause some damage to cereal crops grown on land adjacent to urban areas. No instructions have been given to war agricultural executive committees to enable them to deal with this pest because it is impracticable to take effective action by serving directions under the Defence Regulations; but steps have been taken by means of Press notices, broad-
    498
    casts, and demonstrations by committees, to impress upon farmers and urban dwellers the necessity for reducing the house sparrow population and to advise as to suitable and effective methods of destruction.
    Major Milner: Is not the right hon. Gentleman rather slow in this matter? Has he not had representations from war agricultural committees for many months past and taken little or no action?
    Mr. Hudson: I cannot admit that I have taken no action. I have had plenty of representations, but the difficulty is to find effective action. We have, however, recently asked the Agricultural Research Council to consider the possibility of carrying out investigations into the use of temporary narcotics for dealing with house sparrows.
    Sir H. Williams: Will my right hon. Friend take account of the extent to which flies, mosquitoes and larvae are destroyed by sparrows?

    Pig Swill (Sterilisation)
    Mr. Higgsasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the great loss of livestock in this country due to foot-and-mouth disease and swine fever, which are often caused by swill being fed raw or insufficiently cooked; and will he give further publicity to the imperative necessity of all swill being properly sterilised, both to farmers and to camps, and other places where swill is collected in large quantities?
    Mr. Hudson: I am well aware that several recent outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease and swine fever are attributable to infection carried by swill. I have arranged, as far as possible, for every pig keeper to be supplied with a new leaflet, a copy of which I am sending to my hon. Friend, setting out in clear and simple terms the dangers inherent in unboiled swill and the precautions that should be taken. The co-operation of all local authorities and Service units is being sought in the distribution of the leaflet to all purchasers of unboiled swill. At the same time I am collaborating with the Waste Food Board in arranging wherever practicable for the sterilisation of swill in central processing plants before distribution to stock keepers. A very large tonnage is already being dealt with in that way.
    Mr. Higgs: Would my right hon. Friend see that war agricultural committees are instructed to see that swill is sterilised, and will he take action against offenders?
    Mr. Hudson: I have explained fully the action of my Department.

    Ploughing Demonstration, Brooksby
    Major Kimballasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that a demonstration of ploughing was arranged at Brooksby, Leicestershire, during the week commencing 26th October, which caused the withdrawal of war agricultural executive committee machinery and labour from many neighbouring farms, with resultant delay in ploughing and drilling winter wheat; and will he take steps to ensure that, in future, similar demonstrations are arranged at times when the machinery and labour can be spared without holding up productive agriculture work?
    Mr. Hudson: I have encouraged county war agricultural executive committees to arrange demonstrations of improved methods for farmers and farm workers as I consider them a valuable means of securing increased efficiency. I have no doubt that the considerations mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend were borne in mind by the committee responsible for the demonstration referred to, which the Ministry's inspector reported as being very successful and useful.
    Major Kimball: Is it not possible to arrange these demonstrations at a time when war agricultural executive committee machinery and men are not required for such agricultural work as ploughing and drilling?
    Mr. Hudson: It could not have been possible in this particular case or it would have been done.

    Women's Land Army
    Mr. J. H. Hollinsasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will seek to secure for the Women's Land Army similar conditions and recognition as enjoyed by the other women's services; whether he is aware of the appeal by Lady Denman for £100,000; is he satisfied that this sort of appeal is desirable in view of the great national importance of this service; is he aware that members of the Women's Land
    500
    Army receive no pay during sickness and are frequently dismissed when ill with only 12s. 6d. sickness benefit; and will he seek to protect these women in this service?
    Mr. Hudson: The position of members of the Women's Land Army is altogether different from that of members of those women's services which are in State employment and there cannot, therefore, be similar conditions of work. I can see no objection to the raising of a Women's Land Army benevolent fund. Members of the Women's Land Army and their dependants will be able to receive assistance from this fund in cases of special hardship in the same way as do members of the Forces and their dependants from the various charitable and benevolent funds established for their benefits. Generally speaking, members of the Women's Land Army work under the ordinary conditions of employment which apply throughout the agricultural industry. They have precisely the same rights to pay during sickness and to benefit under the National Health Insurance schemes as are enjoyed by other civilian agricultural workers.
    Mr. Hollins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is widespread discontent among members of this body, which may lead to serious repercussions if something is not done? Will he look into the matter again?
    Miss Ward: With regard to future plans for the demobilisation of women in the Land Army, are they not the responsibility of the Government? Is not this one of the matters being dealt with by the Minister of Works and Planning?
    Mr. Hudson: I think that Question should be addressed to the Paymaster-General.
    Miss Wardasked the Minister of Agriculture whether his Department is making any financial contribution to the objects of the appeal being made by Lady Denman on behalf of the Women's Land Army?
    Mr. Hudson: The appeal referred to is for a benevolent fund similar to other funds raised in connection with other Services, and is quite distinct from the financial provision made for the Women's Land Army on my Department's Vote.
    Miss Ward: In view of the fact that the benevolent fund exists for the purpose of making payments to women from the Land Army when the war is over, is not that part of the responsibility of the Government in plans for reconstruction? Are the Government making a contribution, as a good employer, to the benevolent fund?
    Mr. Hudson: I have said that the appeal referred to is quite distinct from financial provision made for the Women's Land Army by my Department.
    Miss Ward: But are the Government making a contribution as a good employer?
    Mr. Hudson: The answer is "No."

    Bulb Industry
    Lieutenant Butcherasked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he is taking to preserve the bulb industry during the period of the war with a view to enabling it to expand and provide useful occupation after the war?
    Mr. Hudson: As regards bulbs grown in the open, the existing arrangements whereby growers may retain 25 per cent. of their pre-war acreage should enable them to maintain sufficient stocks for postwar development. As regards bulbs grown in heated glasshouses, I have recently authorised county war agricultural executive committees to allow 10 per cent. of pre-war stocks to be retained as a nucleus, or, in the case of specially valuable stocks, 25 per cent.
    Lieutenant Butcher: Will the Minister impress upon those responsible the importance of mantaining the best quality bulbs?
    Mr. Hudson: Yes, Sir.
    Lieutenant Butcherasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the serious financial losses caused to bulb growers by restrictions on planting and transport; that these losses are particularly felt by those cultivating small acreages; and what steps he is taking to assist them?
    Mr. Hudson: I regret that the recent restrictions on the planting and transport of flowers and bulbs necessarily involve some hardship on the growers, but the restrictions are essential in the interests of
    502
    food production and economy of transport. The question of the best means of helping growers in their task of turning over to increased food production is at present under consideration.
    Lieutenant Butcher: While thanking the Minister for his reply, may I ask whether he will direct special attention to those ex-Service men of the last war who are tenants of the Crown with holdings of 10 acres or so but who are not really competent to derive sufficient income from the ordinary commercial crop?
    Mr. Hudson: I will certainly bear that in mind.

  POLICE WIDOWS' PENSIONS
  Mr. Storeyasked the Home Secretary whether, as the failure to implement the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Police Widows' Pensions is due to the refusal of the Police Federation to agree to increased contributions from the police and as such contributions could not be used to supplement the pensions of existing widows, he will take steps to supplement the pensions of widows existing at the date of publication of the Committee's report?
  Mr. H. Morrison: It would not be right for me to make any statement on this particular point in advance of a general statement about the main recommendations of the Snell Committee.
  Mr. Storey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many existing police widows are suffering considerable hardship, and is it fair to delay dealing with their problem until other matters which are not their concern are settled?
  Mr. Morrison: I think it would be an impossible position if I made a concession to women who are widows of policemen at a particular date and refused to do anything for the widow of a policeman who became a widow the day after.
  Miss Rathbone: Has not the Minister some responsibility, for the welfare of women who, according to the report of his own Committee, are suffering serious privation, and need they wait more than a year before the Minister does anything about it because he cannot get complete agreement from the Police Federation?
  Mr. Morrison: The report was based on the principle that the police must contribute, and that subject is under discussion. There will be a meeting of the Police Council in December, and I hope, although I cannot be sure, to make a statement soon after.
  Mr. Maxton: In the meantime are policemen's widows to live on 10s. a week?
  Mr. Morrison: In the meantime the police must face their responsibility and come to a decision about the principle of the report.
  Mr. Maxton: What about the widows of policemen who are dead and cannot face their responsibility?
  Mr. Morrison: I have already answered that point.
  Mr. De la Bère: That seems to be all important.

  ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE, LONDON STREETS
  Mr. Channonasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the growth of robbery with violence, etc., in the London streets, particularly in the West and South-western districts; and whether he will take further steps to ensure the safety of the streets?
  Mr. H. Morrison: During the 10 months to 31st October last the number of offences of robbery and assault with intent to rob reported in the Metropolitan Police District was 181, of which 124 occurred in the streets. Two-thirds of the total number of cases occurred in the central districts. I have been in consultation with the Commissioner of Police and can find no evidence to suggest that the situation in any particular district need give rise to apprehension. The police are taking all possible steps to deal with offenders.

  FILM CENSORSHIP
  Sir W. Smithersasked the Home Secretary whether he will introduce the legislation necessary to ensure that the Board of Film Censors shall be appointed by a Minister responsible to this House and not as at present by the cinema trade?
  Mr. H. Morrison: The present arrangements have been in operation for many years, and I have no evidence to suggest that the practical working of the system has been unsatisfactory and that fresh legislation is required.
  Sir W. Smithers: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is grave dissatisfaction about the censorship of the film industry, and does he not think it would be much better if the examiners, who are at present appointed by the industry, were under the control of a Minister and this House? Would not this restore public confidence in the working of the film censorship?
  Mr. Morrison: I freely admit that this is a curious arrangement, but the British have a very great habit of making curious arrangements work very well, and this works. Frankly, I do not wish to be the Minister who has to answer Questions in the House as to whether particular films should or should not be censored. I think it would be dangerous for the Home Secretary to have direct powers himself in the matter.
  Mr. Granville: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the fact that the most effective part of the censorship is the co-operation between the Censor's Department and the film companies and script departments in order to try to get reasonable arrangements before films are made?
  Mr. Morrison: There is a good deal of good work done that way.

  SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS (WIGS AND THEATRICAL COSTUMES)
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the present illegality respecting the wearing of wigs or theatrical costume on Sundays during the holding of concerts for charitable purposes and as concerts are arranged that have had to be abandoned at the last minute, he is considering amending the law to allow wigs and theatrical costumes to be word, or defining more publicly for the benefit of owners of public halls and charitable organisations what type of concert or dramatic performance is legally permissible?
  Mr. H. Morrison: The question of amending the law so as to allow theatrical

  505
  entertainments on Sunday has already been considered by this House and there was a majority against such amendment. As regards interpretation of the existing law, the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, provides that an authority empowered to grant licences for public music or dancing may allow on Sunday musical entertainments which are defined as meaning a concert or similar entertainment consisting of the performance of music with or without singing or recitation. The licensing authority is also empowered to attach special conditions to such Sunday entertainments and some licensing authorities prohibit by such conditions the use of wigs or theatrical costumes. The difficulties to which my hon. Friend refers may have arisen from failure to ascertain before the arrangements are made what conditions are imposed by the licensing authority concerned.
  Mr. Sorensen: In view of what the Home Secretary has said, does he not appreciate that, from the standpoint of democratic religious principles, it seems extraordinarily inequitable, undemocratic and anomalous that specialised costumes should be allowed in the pulpit but not on the stage on Sundays?
  Viscountess Astor: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the difference between the pulpit and the stage?
  Mr. Sorensen: May I ask for a reply to the second point in my Supplementary Question?
  Mr. Speaker: The Home Secretary has replied to the Question on the Paper.

  EDUCATION

    Church Senior Schools
    Mr. Lindsayasked the President of the Board of Education how many proposals for senior schools, Church of England and Catholic, respectively, have been approved by the Board under the provisions of the 1936 Act; and how many completed?
    The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): Forty-two proposals for Church of England senior schools and 28
    506
    proposals for Roman Catholic senior schools have been approved by the Board under the Education Act, 1936. The number of these proposals which have been completed are 23 and 9, respectively.

    Technical Text-Books
    Mr. Colegateasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that great difficulty is being experienced by technical schools and colleges in obtaining text-books; and whether he is taking steps to remedy this state of affairs?
    Mr. Butler: The question of the adequacy of the supply of books has recently been carefully investigated, and although the publishers are necessarily alloted a considerably smaller supply of paper than they were using before the war owing to the need for saving shipping space, I have no reason to think that this is at present causing any serious interference with the work of the technical schools. I am, however, keeping the position constantly under review.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, as regards paper, that there is an adequate supply of straw from which to make paper in this country, and therefore, no shipping space is required?

    Workers' Educational Association
    Major Petoasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has considered the copy sent to him of a statement made at the Labour Institute at Kettering, on 3rd October, by the acting president of the Workers' Educational Association; and whether he will take steps to ensure that no such partisan or contentious political pronouncements are made in future by officials of grant-aided bodies?
    Mr. Butler: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The acceptance by a body of grant from the Board in respect of its educational work should not be taken as placing a limitation on the right of free speech enjoyed by its officers and members.

    State Science Bursaries and Engineering Cadetships
    Mr. Brookeasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is

    507
    aware of the possibility that boys who were intending to stay at school and compete for a State science bursary tenable at a university may now be tempted to leave school at an earlier age in order to take up one of the newly offered engineering cadetships; whether this is in accordance with the Government's policy; and whether he can make a statement on the respective purposes which these two distinct types of award are intended to serve?
    Mr. Butler: The State science bursary scheme is intended to supply the Services and industry with men and women graduates in science and engineering; the engineering cadet scheme is designed to assist in meeting the additional demands of the Fighting Services for suitably qualified technical officers. The initial arrangements for this latter scheme have up to the present been limited to securing a flow of applicants from among boys who have already left school. The further development of this scheme is at present under consideration and the point to which my hon. Friend draws attention is one that will be taken into account. In the meantime it is not desired that boys should leave school with the idea of becoming eligible to take up these cadetships, as arrangements are being worked out for the selection of boys while still at school.

    Young Farmers' Clubs
    Mr. Lindsayasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is in a position to announce any improvements in the organisation of Young Farmers' Clubs?
    Mr. Butler: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and I have agreed that an extension of the activities of the National Federation of Young Farmers' Clubs is desirable. Mr. right hon. Friend has recently set up a Joint Advisory Committee including representatives of the Federation, and of our two Departments under the Chairmanship of the right hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), one of the Ministry's Joint Parliamentary Secretaries, to guide and assist the Federation in the work in which they will be involved. An increase in the staff of the Federation has already been authorised and a limited number of appointments will shortly be made.

  PUBLIC HEALTH

    War-time Nurseries (Artificial Sunlight)
    Mrs. Beatrice Wrightasked the Minister of Health how many war nurseries are supplied with, or have access to, sun-lamps?
    The Minister of Health Mr. Ernest Brown): Facilities for artificial sunlight treatment are provided by many welfare authorities, in suitable premises and under the appropriate medical direction. Wartime nurseries would rarely be suitable places for establishing clinics for this treatment which, where it is provided, should not be confined to any particular group of children.
    Mrs. Wright: While I accept what the Minister says, can he give us any idea how many war nurseries have the service of sun-lamps?
    Mr. Brown: Not without inquiry in every case.

    Venereal Disease
    Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Health whether he will implement the recent announcement of a 70 per cent. increase in venereal diseases by a public educational campaign using all available propaganda methods?
    Mr. E. Brown: Yes, Sir. My Department has already received much help from the Press and the B.B.C., for which I am most grateful. I am asking the responsible local authorities to make more extensive use of the services of the Central Council for Health Education, which include pamphlets, films, and lectures, and to advertise local facilities for treatment by the wider exhibition of posters and otherwise. The campaign will be developed as circumstances permit. Its development and success depend, however, largely on the extent to which the Press and other leaders of public opinion, including hon. Members of this House, give it active and continued support.
    Dr. Summerskill: How many times has the right hon. Gentleman made public pronouncements on this subject?
    Mr. Brown: They would be innumerable.
    Viscountess Astor: Is it not a little late for the Government to resort to this drastic remedy? Would it not have been

    509
    better if they had faced fundamentals at the beginning of the war instead of waiting?

    General Nursing Council Examinations
    Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Minister of Health whether he has now completed his inquiries into the decision of the General Nursing Council to debar persons, without giving any reason, from sitting for examinations set by that council although they have prepared themselves for those examinations; and, if so, with what result?
    Mr. E. Brown: I am still in correspondence with the General Nursing Council in regard to the resolution to which my hon. Friend refers.
    Mr. Davies: In view of the fact that the decision of the General Nursing Council in this case debars young women from entering the nursing profession, will the right hon. Gentleman speed up his inquiries?
    Mr. Brown: I will get a decision as soon as I can.

    Nutritional Anaemia
    Dr. Summerskillasked the Minister of Health whether he has had brought to his notice any evidence of nutritional anaemia in women and children?
    Mr. E. Brown: My attention has been called to an article in the medical Press which stated that evidence of nutritional anaemia had been found among certain groups of women and young children. I have therefore arranged for iron preparations to be available in all day and residential nurseries and in emergency maternity homes: the majority of welfare authorities already provide similar preparations at their centres for expectant mothers and young children found to require them.
    Mrs. Hardie: Would the right hon. Gentleman make those things available for the working population, who are also suffering very badly from the complaint?

    War Workers (Health Conditions)
    Sir Robert Youngasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the proceedings of the British Medical Association Annual Con-
    510
    ference and particularly to the statements made by medical men regarding the health conditions of war workers; and has he any information to give indicating the steps he proposes, to take to verify the causes and remedy the ills of physical and mental exhaustion alleged to be the result of excessive hours of work?
    Mr. E. Brown: I have seen a Press report of the statement referred to, but the Conference has not made any reference to me on the matter. Should they do so, I will certainly consider what action on my part appears to be called for.
    Sir R. Young: Do the right hon. Gentleman's medical advisers agree with the statements made at that conference?
    Mr. Brown: I should like to see them in terms.
    Viscountess Astor: Will the right hon. Gentleman read the report of the Chief Inspector of Factories, and could there be more co-operation between him and his officers?
    Mr. Brown: I understand that is the responsibility of the Minister of Labour.

  POPULATION STATISTICS
  Sir H. Williamsasked the Minister of Health whether he will furnish an estimate of the present number of persons in the United Kingdom of working age, that is to say, between the ages of 14 and 65; the number of persons of old age pension age, that is to say, over the age of 65; and, for comparison, the estimated number in these two groups predicted for the year 1962?
  Mr. E. Brown: Including the figures for Scotland, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has given me, the estimated present numbers of persons in Great Britain, inclusive of persons in the Forces at home and overseas, at the age groups referred to in the Question are 33,443,000 and 4,500,000 respectively. On the basis of the projections adopted for the population forecasts described in the recent White Paper, the projected population of Great Britain at these age groups in 1962 would be approximately 32,700,000 and 6,600,000 respectively. I understand that comparable figures for Northern Ireland are not available.
  Sir H. Williams: I gather that in the future many fewer people will have to keep a great many more.

  HOUSING

    Building Materials and Construction Methods (Committee)
    Mr. Selleyasked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to set up a committee, similar to those appointed in 1919 and 1924 under the chairmanship of Mr. W. Dunn and Sir Ernest Moir, respectively, to inquire and report as to the new materials and methods of construction for the building of houses after the war?
    Mr. E. Brown: Yes, Sir. My Noble Friend the Minister of Works and Planning, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I have conjointly appointed a Committee to investigate the subject interdepartmentally. The Committee have already met. The terms of reference of the Committee are:
    "to consider materials and methods of construction suitable for the building of houses and flats, having regard to efficiency, economy and speed of erection, and to make recommendations for post-war practice in the light of all relevant findings of the Study Committees coordinated by the Directorate of Post-war Building of the Ministry of Works and Planning."
    The Chairman of the Committee is Sir George Burt.

    War Workers (Accommodation)
    Mr. K. C. Morrisonasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that many war workers are finding increasing difficulty in obtaining living accommodation within reasonable distance of their work; and will he consider making it compulsory to notify all vacancies both furnished and unfurnished to the local authority who would be responsible, through their rehousing officers, for allocating accommodation to those most urgent in the national interest?
    Mr. E. Brown: I have received some complaints of the character indicated in the first part of the Question, but, in my opinion, the powers in the matter which I possess under the Defence Regulations for billeting, requisitioning and restricting the influx of population into specified areas are sufficient. I have already considered the question of a provision of general
    512
    application on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend, but it is doubtful whether the advantages would be commensurate with the administrative difficulties and elaborate machinery which it would involve. I can, however, assure my hon. Friend that I shall not hesitate to ask for any further powers which experience may show to be necessary and practicable.
    Mr. Morrison: Will the right hon. Gentleman give attention to specific localities where the situation is steadily becoming worse? The national war effort is being seriously hampered.
    Mr. Brown: I shall be glad to do that.

    Armed Forces (Leave Accommodation)
    Sir John Mellorasked the Minister of Health whether he will instruct billeting authorities to exclude from calculation of available, space rooms reserved for the use, when on leave, of members of the Armed Forces in their own or their parents' homes?
    Mr. E. Brown: I am afraid that pressure on accommodation would make it impossible to issue any general direction of this kind, but I am confident that billeting officers will always be ready to do every-thing in their power to meet the convenience of householders who are expecting members of their family home on leave in the near future.
    Sir J. Mellor: Will the right hon. Gentleman give instructions that such billeting is to be limited to short periods in exceptional emergency and is not to be extended indefinitely?
    Mr. Brown: I have said that I cannot give a general direction of this kind without considering what it means; it would result in the sterilisation of several million rooms.
    Sir J. Mellor: Has not the right hon. Gentleman facilities?

  EVACUATED WOMEN, ILMINSTER
  Mr. Guyasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the complete absence of any social welfare service at Ilminster, Somerset, where there are evacuated women from Poplar, West Ham, Plaistow and other places, together with 100 children; and whether he will take steps to provide this?
  Mr. E. Brown: In the Ilminster Urban District there are seven mothers and 11 children billeted under the Government Evacuation Scheme. Welfare workers employed by the Somerset County Council visit the district, but this small number of evacuated women and children has been absorbed into the life of the locality, and special welfare activities for them are not called for.

  WIMBLEDON BOROUGH ELECTRICAL ENGINEER (PENSION)
  Mr. Naylorasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that Wimbledon Borough Council has decided to pay the electrical engineer of the borough, after 13 years' contributing service, a retiring pension of £2,426 per annum, to take effect in February, 1943; whether he is satisfied that the rate of pension conforms to the Ministry's directions on economy in local government expenditure; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  Mr. E. Brown: My attention has been drawn to this case. On the facts stated I should certainly not regard the rate of pension as consonant with the principles of economy which should be specially present to the minds of local authorities under existing conditions, but I have no power to enforce observance of those principles in a matter on which the statute specifically confers an unfettered discretion upon local authorities.
  Mr. Naylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the two periods of service in Manchester and in London were separated by three years of private practice, and that this officer has been given permission to engage in private practice during his term of office, and will probably do so, and—
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member's Supplementary Question is too long.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Greenwood: Will the Leader of the House state the Business for the next Sitting Days?
The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Stafford Cripps): The Debate on the Address will be continued.
514
First Sitting Day.—The Amendment relating to the Organisation and Training of the Army in the British Isles standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for North Bristol (Mr. Bernays) will be considered. At the express request of the hon. Members interested in this subject, the Debate will take place in Secret Session.
Second Sitting Day.—The Amendment on Equal Compensation standing in the name of the hon. Lady the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate).
Third Sitting Day.—The Amendment relating to Colonial Development standing in the name of the hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir Edward Grigg) will be considered.
Mr. Barr: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that for the open Debate last year six Sitting Days were allotted, and, if I am correct in interpreting what he has said, only five, including to-day, are to be allotted this year? Why should we not have six open Sitting Days when any subject may be raised, instead of five?
Sir S. Cripps: It was felt that by allotting three extra days over and above the total of eight last year the desires of the House would be met, and, as a number of specific questions had been put down by way of Amendments, it was felt that it would be better to group Members who wished to speak on those subjects on special days for the greater convenience and concentration of debate. As a result the six Sitting Days have been allotted for the consideration of those specific matters which hon. Members have expressed their desire to raise by putting Amendments on the Paper.
Mr. Barr: The general body of Members who may not be interested in these matters will not be allowed to raise special questions which they have been entrusted to present. There is a general desire among rank and file back benchers to raise them.
Sir S. Cripps: I gather from inquiries that have been made that hon. Members particularly desire to discuss the questions to which days have been allotted for Amendments, and there is a very general desire that there should be a

515
wide discussion on them, particularly on the Amendment dealing with reconstruction matters, which will be discussed in the following series of Sittings. I think there is still a day of general debate to come. We had better see how it proceeds.
Sir H. Williams: Will there be any opportunity for the Amendment with regard to the Civil Service being discussed?
Sir S. Cripps: That is not a matter for me but for Mr. Speaker, who made a statement yesterday on the Amendments he proposed to call.
Mr. Maxton: According to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement, he is making a very generous allocation of time to the supporters of the Government to give them opportunities of voicing their grievances against the Government. Will any time be available for the Opposition?
Sir S. Cripps: If the hon. Member is referring to his party in the last phrase, that was dealt with yesterday by Mr. Speaker, and it is not a matter with which I am competent to deal. I think that Mr. Speaker in what he said held out prospects that the hon. Member might find an opportunity of raising the question he wants to raise.
Mr. Maxton: I understood from Mr. Speaker that when all other issues had been exhausted and when all the Government supporters had adequately expressed their discontents, he would have no objection to calling the Amendment which my hon. Friends and I have put on the Paper if the Government authorities were prepared to allot the necessary time.
Sir S. Cripps: I think that the hon. Member took an unduly depressed view of what Mr. Speaker said, if I may say so, and I think we had better wait and see how it develops.
Miss Rathbone: If any three malcontents of the Government form themselves into a party, will they receive equally generous treatment for their Amendments?
Sir S. Cripps: Perhaps the hon. Lady will address that question to Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Maxton: I wish to address this question to you, Sir. Is the hon. Lady's expression a legitimate Parliamentary expression? If it is, is it not more applicable
516
to Members who sit in other places than to my hon. Friends and myself?
Sir Percy Hurd: Does the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean that when there is a discussion on planning during the next subsequent series of Sittings there will be a statement by the Paymaster-General?
Sir S. Cripps: I have not announced the Business for the series of Sittings after the next, but it is generally understood that there will then be two days allotted to that subject.
Miss Ward: During the next series of Sittings may we expect the promised statement by the Prime Minister on the manacling of prisoners?
Sir S. Cripps: That question was answered by my right hon. Friend the Dominions Secretary yesterday, and perhaps the hon. Lady will be good enough to look at it. I cannot add to it.
Mr. Granville: As the Debate on postwar reconstruction will take place during the series of Sittings after the next, does that mean that we shall have the Beveridge Report issued before the Debate?
Sir S. Cripps: That has also been dealt with in an answer.
Miss Ward: If we do not have a statement on the manacling of prisoners in the next series of Sittings, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider making a statement in Secret Session, because we have waited a very long time?
Sir S. Cripps: I think that that is a hypothetical question.

PERSONAL STATEMENT
Mr. Gallacher: I rise to express in a few words my regret for the remarks towards the Chair which I made yesterday.
Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member for his statement.

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL
In pursuance of Standing Order No. 80 (4), Mr. SPEAKER has nominated Major Sir Edward Cadogan, Major Sir Cyril Entwistle, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew, Mr. Fred Marshall, Major James Milner, Mr. Price, Sir

517
Robert Smith, Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward, Mr. Charles Williams and Sir Robert Young to be the Chairmen's Panel during this Session.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  KING'S SPEECH

    DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS
    [Fifth Day.]
    Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question—[11 th November]:
    "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:
    Most Gracious Sovereign,
    We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—[Mr. A. G. Walkden.]
    Question again proposed.
    Mr. Hubert Beaumont: When the axe fell yesterday while I was speaking, I was going to offer a bouquet to the Ministry of Pensions and to the Parliamentary Secretary. After a night's reflection I am still disposed to offer that bouquet, because I want to couple with it a little note of warning. The Minister of Pensions is not here, and I am not complaining, for he is normally very diligent in his attendance, and I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to convey to his right hon. Friend that there is an appreciation of what the Ministry has done in the past. It is appreciated that the Ministry has decided within the confines of the Regulations to be generous to those who come before it. The Ministry, however, is living on its past reputation. Reputations are not easily acquired, and they are much more easily lost. I want to suggest that it is about time that the Minister was up and doing in many matters concerning his Department, particularly with reference to the establishment of the appeal tribunals. The country will demand of the Ministry that it shall not continue to plod in the old-fashined way but shall offer-definite evidence of endeavour and bold adventure.
    I am confident that the Minister of Pensions has only to come to the House and ask for greater powers for the House to grant them, because it is determined that the men and women who serve us so well shall be looked after in times of stress and ill-health. It is interesting to note that the principle of appeal tribunals has been accepted. There is, therefore, no occasion to argue whether they should be set up. The Minister for a long time has told us that he was in favour of them. It was assumed that there was certain opposition, but we were assured by the Lord Privy Seal in his speech yesterday that there is no opposition to the principle, that the Government are in favour of them, but that they do not know when they will be able to implement their promise. The country is getting rather impatient of this vexatious delay and wants to know when the tribunals will be set up. Some of the men who have been waiting to go before an appeal tribunal have been waiting not only for months but for years, and they are right when they say, "this year, next year, sometime, never." We are told that the

    553
    difficulty is that of the shortage of doctors. The country will be astounded to hear that we have such a dearth of doctors that we cannot find a sufficient number to do the work that the appeal tribunals would demand. What steps are being taken to secure the doctors? Are the Government going to wait until the doctors emerge from the blue? What steps is the Minister taking to secure the necessary doctors?
    The House would be interested to hear how many tribunals it is proposed to set up. Will there be one in each region? The House would also be interested to hear how many doctors are required. I am informed in some quarters that 26 doctors would be necessary for the purposes of the tribunals. It seems to me fatuous to say that there are not 26 capable doctors available in the country for this work. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) yesterday quoted from "The Lancet." I venture to repeat that quotation. On 24th October, not so very long ago, "The Lancet" said:
    "The number of senior officers of the medical services who have reached the age of retirement would alone provide suitable men for the work, and there are doctors retiring from other services who are also available."
    I think we are justified in asking that this delay shall cease and that desperate attempts, if desperate attempts are necessary, shall be made to secure these doctors. We in this House cannot be content and I am sure the country will not be content to accept the statement that has been offered to us. We have no promise of when it is likely to be implemented. We are simply told that the Government are sympathetic, that the Government approve of the idea but that the Government are unable to secure the doctors.
    I suggest that while this delay continues these men are suffering. They have been invalided out of the Services. Their lives are overcast with anxiety, doubt and distress. There is uncertainty as to their future and the very fact that they are receiving this treatment which they regard as abominable treatment, the very fact they that are being thus neglected, retards their restoration and recuperation. We cannot accept what the Lord Privy Seal said yesterday as the last word. We shall return to the attack and persist until we have got the promise implemented. It is
    554
    necessary that at the earliest possible moment we should secure justice for these men who have served their country. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) in a roving speech yesterday referred to "the little man." I think it will be found that the little man, who is representative of the country, demands justice for those men who, having served the country well, have been invalided out of the Services. The little man will not be content to allow the Government to go on merely promising that, at some time, they will grant these appeal tribunals. If the Minister of Pensions wants to remain in popular favour and to retain public appreciation, it would be well for him and his Department to get stirring and to secure the necessary doctors for this purpose. I do not apologise for having repeated what has been said already in the House on the urgency of this problem. I would only repeat that this is not the last word on the subject, either from this side or the other side of the House. Men and women of all parties in this House are concerned about the well-being and welfare of these men; they are determined that the men shall have a square deal and shall be given the opportunity of going before appeal tribunals.
    There is another matter which I wish to bring to the notice of the House. It is the case of the family in which the son, who has made no contribution to the household expenses except possibly his bare living expenses, goes out to fight. The father and mother have devoted their all to the education of the boy, in the hope of giving him a good start in life. Then the call of war comes, the boy goes and in the vicissitudes of war he makes the great sacrifice. The parents are not only bereft of their boy; they are also deprived of the possibility of some form of help from him in their declining years. I think a father and mother in those circumstances should have some consideration. I think they are entitled to some form of pension—not that a pension can in any way express the loss of their son's life, but it can express in some degree, the gratitude of the country for what that family has contributed. I hope that we shall not continue to enforce the condition about necessary dependency before awarding pensions in cases such as I have mentioned.
    In this House from time to time tributes—not too high tributes for they can never

    555
    be too high—have been paid to the heroism of the Fighting Services. We all marvel at the audacity, the daring, the courage of our modern crusaders of the air, who fly to attack and defeat the enemy. We marvel at the endurance and stoicism of the men of the Navy and the Mercantile Marine and the undaunted gallantry of our soldiers. But we must also give credit to the heroism of their families at home and we do not want any of those families to suffer from any physical want or any mental torture, because their loved ones, who have gone out to battle, have been invalided out of the Fighting Services and are incapable of carrying on in their normal occupations and are suffering as a result of their war effort.
    I do not wish to detain the House long, because I know that many other hon. Members wish to take part in this Debate, but I would like to make a reference to a matter brought up yesterday by the hon. Lady the Member for East Islington (Mrs. Cazalet Keir), namely, the importance of education. I would say, in passing, that education and an educated people are the best guarantees of peace. A nation's status often depends upon its educational standards. We have had that brought vividly to our minds in the last 20 years. We remember the illiteracy of Russia under the Tsarist regime. We know what the educational standards of the Russian people are now, under their own system of society. The Russian people, having thrown off the yoke of Tsarism, have become enlightened and progressive because they have been accorded facilities for education, and they have bravely defended themselves and their country because of their love for the country which has given them that education. We find the same thing in the case of China. Sun Yat Sen, Chiang Kai-shek and other enlightened leaders of China saw that in order to awaken China, it was necessary to educate China, and the education of the young people in China has been in part responsible for the magnificent courage which they have shown for the last six years and are still showing against overwhelming odds. The young people of Russia and the young people of China have shown their faith and proved their courage. They have also proved that "it is better to die standing than to live on one's knees."
    556
    Education fosters a love for an ideal, and it also creates the faith that will realise that ideal. But education in certain forms can be a grave danger and a menace. That has been evidenced in Germany. We have seen how the minds of the children of Germany have been poisoned from their earliest years. It may be that when hostilities cease and when arrangements are being made to ensure that never again shall opportunity be afforded to Germany or any like nation to menace the world, we shall be compelled to have not only a military occupation and policing of portions or the whole of Germany; we may be compelled to have some supervision over educational training in that country as well. We cannot afford to have the minds of the young poisoned. In the consideration of postwar problems education will have to play an important part.
    I have been rather amazed to notice in certain speeches of hon. Members and others who have assumed the role of critics, a tendency to take to themselves credit for having achieved the victories of the Eighth Army. It is amazing to me that they should think that their criticisms, which were made in the Debate on the Vote of Censure in this House, had materially affected the conduct of the operations in Africa. It is surely obvious that the preparations for those operations were made long before that occasion. Had it been possible then to disclose those preparations, the critics would have been answered effectively at the time. One is rather inclined to believe, and I think with a good deal of reason, that ignorance oftentimes goes with cocksureness.
    Mr. Stokes: Is the hon. Member aware that the Prime Minister himself said that the decision to go to North Africa was taken by President Roosevelt?
    Mr. Beaumont: I am not aware of that exact statement, but I am quite prepared to accept it, though I presume that as regards that decision the Prime Minister was not only in consultation with President Roosevelt but was an active partner himself in the decision. In any case I think it is ill-advised for the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), having himself discovered so many "mare's nests" in his life, to attempt to offer any more to this House. The hon. and gallant

    557
    Member for Epsom gave us an interesting speech in which he dealt with the repercussions of the little man. One admires the forthrightness of the hon. and gallant Member, and although one does not agree with him, one always believes there is a possibility of his conversion at some later date. But I submit that he is wrong in his interpretation of the desires of the little man. The little man is representative of the average person you meet, whether in the street, the tram, the train or elsewhere. You will find that the average little man says, "We are not going back to the bad old times of 1939." The average little man is not prepared to go back to a country with a decaying agriculture and a ruined countryside. The little man is not prepared to go back to a period in which he had bad housing, nor to the period of inefficient school-feeding and poor health services. The little man is demanding that as a result of the sacrifices of the war we shall plan a better world, if not for the little man himself, at least for the children and the children's children of the little man.
    Last week in this House the right hon. Member for Chorley (Sir D. Hacking) expressed a desire that the status quo should be maintained, and yesterday the Lord Privy Seal rather tempered his previous statement—I think he did—by giving way to some extent and saying that the status quo could only be altered if there was common agreement.
    The Lord Privy Seal (Sir S. Cripps)The Lord Privy Seal (Sir S. Cripps) indicated dissent.
    Mr. Beaumont: I hope that I- am not misinterpreting what he said. My right hon. and learned Friend gave us a picture of an army of the Rights and the Lefts. They were all to march together, but the pace of the Left was to be retarded by the slowness of the pace of the Right. It may be possible that there will be no pace left in the Right. Does that mean that we are going to have what I may call a stand-still movement?
    Mr. Hannah: It does not.
    Mr. Beaumont: I submit that there will not be great objection to this, providing that when the army moves forward it marches off on its Left foot. The position is that we must all realise that things can never be as they were, that the position
    558
    in 1939 has gone, never to return. The Foreign Secretary, speaking a few weeks ago, said:
    "None of us can now escape from revolutionary changes even if we would. But so far as we are concerned there is only one safe way through the maze of post-war complications. That is a belief in ourselves as a nation, and a belief in our duties and responsibilities as a World Power and to the world at large."
    I wonder how many right hon. and hon. Members would disagree with this:
    "We have got to have equal opportunity for youth and others, jobs for those who can work, security for those who need it, the ending of privileges for the few and the preservation of civil liberties for all."
    I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Privy Seal agrees with those statements, because those are his words. I am wondering if there is any Member of this House who would dare to get up and say that he disapproves of any one of those documents. If there be any Member who dares do so, it will be interesting to witness his courage and to know his answer. But if we accept those principles, then the duty follows to see that they are carried out. We have to plan for the future. We cannot postpone thought for the ideal world until the hour of victory. James Russell Lowell said:
    "We've got to fix this thing for good and all.
    It's no use buildin' wut's agoin' to fall."
    In conclusion, let me say that the brotherhood of blood which now exists between representatives of the Allied nations, that brotherhood of blood which is formed in war-time, should become the brotherhood of love, cementing the peoples of the world in time of peace. We must be united. We are securing unity while the war is on. When the perils are past let us face the problems of the future with unity among the nations of the world. We are working for a world of freedom and peace. Our men and women are giving of their best, they are giving of their lives. It is for this House to determine that when hostilities cease, as far as this country is concerned there shall await these people a new world, a new country, with greater opportunities for their self-expression, with security, with comfort, with health and with happiness. Unless we can make this new world, we shall not be worthy of the men and women who die so that we may be free, who make the supreme sacrifice for

    559
    the preservation of Truth, Justice and Liberty.
    Colonel Cazalet: I listened yesterday with great attention and interest to what the Lord Privy Seal said with reference to pension appeal tribunals. I appreciate the fact that he has taken a personal interest in this matter, but I must confess that I, and I think other hon. Members too, are not entirely satisfied. I must accept his figures—he knows more about it than I do—but if they are as he has stated them, I think this issue is such an important one that the Government should make priority demands upon doctors, if that is the only way to get them, or if the Government do not see their way to do that, it would be worth while to set up a limited number of tribunals to deal with the worst cases, even at the risk, as he said, of offending or disappointing large numbers of other cases. I hope and trust that the Government have not said their last word on this subject, which I think is a vital and important matter. Everything that one says in this Debate must, of course, be dominated by the news. Not only from a military point of view are they events of outstanding importance, but their military importance is only equalled by the psychological effect the news has had, not only upon ourselves, but upon the peoples of the whole world. The only trouble seems to be that people in this country overdo it, when there is good news. They believe the war is going to end in a few months. I have often been asked in the course of the last fortnight when I thought the war would end. The question indicated the attitude of mind of a great number of people. The truth is that the war, in certain ways, is only just beginning. We have just administered a severe defeat in Libya to six German divisions, but until we have administered the same kind of defeat upon a minimum of 100, German divisions, the war will not end. That brief statement is, I think, true and puts in proper perspective what we have to expect in the future.
    Let us now realise that in tactics, weapons and morale our troops have shown themselves not only the equals but the superiors of the enemy, and that inferiority complex has gone for ever which was eating into the heart of the British Army. All honour and glory are due to the generals who
    560
    were in command. Some measure of appreciation and thanks should be made and paid to General Auchinleck, who commanded in Libya for a long time and who was the general in command who stemmed the tide when the Germans were only 60 miles from Alexandria. The hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Astor) told us the story of the Eighth Army. We ail admire the great sincerity of those who fly in the air or go down to the sea in ships, but we have been apt to forget what the Army is doing day by day and night by night. When we hear that there was quiet on the front but that the patrols were active, the latter phase often signifies great feats of courage.
    The reputation of the British Army in this war is going through exactly the same phases as in almost every other war in our history. I was reading the other day Fortescue's "Life of Wellington," in which he told us of the indecision, lack of supplies, incompetent generals and other criticisms that were made of the British Army in the early days of that general. Again, I read of the criticisms that were made of the Army in the opening stages of the Peninsular War, even by the Duke himself. A generation later, in the Crimean War, and 30 years later, in our campaign in Egypt, the same kind of criticism was made in Press, in pulpit and in other ways. After a variety of setbacks, success came our way. Victory was achieved, very largely by the efforts of the much abused British soldier. There is to be a Debate upon the Army, and so I do not want to enter upon details which may then be raised. I would only add a few words on the question of pay and allowances and conditions of service.
    It is no good our trying to compete in matters of pay with our Allies, particularly with the Americans. I was with a naval officer, a lieutenant, the other day. He had served in our Navy in the first two years of the war and had recently been transferred back to his own Navy. Immediately on his transfer, in exactly the same rank, his pay became six times as much as he received when he was serving with us. I took round the House of Commons an American sergeant-major, and I asked him his pay. I found out that he obtained considerably more than is received by a Member of Parliament. I am not suggesting that this is a wrong valuation, but am stating the facts to show how difficult it is to compete in matters of

    561
    pay with our Allies. I know that the Government have taken their decision. It is a pity that they did not make the 6d. into 1s., but it is no good raising that mattter now or asking the Government to reconsider the matter at the present moment.
    There are anomalies and inequalities in these matters of pay and allowances, and many of them have been brought to the Government's notice. I believe they have given them sympathetic consideration. It has always seemed that, although we have many friends in the War Office, such as the Secretary of State for War, the Adjutant-General and others who put the serving man's point of view in fighting our battles, there is always the enemy, the Treasury, making it impossible to do what appears to everybody else the sensible thing. Is it not possible to create some form of Joint Standing Parliamentary Committee by which these questions could be considered and whose advice and opinion would be seriously considered by the Government? Such a Committee would give confidence to the rank and file and officers in the Army that their complaints were given impartial consideration. At the present time, complaints and grievances when put through the proper channel, go on a long journey from the regiment through the battalion, the brigade, the division, and the corps, but in the end they are considered by the very same people who originally proposed the existing conditions. Service Ministers in their battle with the Treasury would, I believe, welcome the support and the advice of such a Committee. In these matters we should use Parliament more. As the war develops, and when the war is over, these matters will be vital.
    I would apply that suggestion to another matter mentioned in the Gracious Speech, Colonial development. How often have we started a Session and heard of the intention to pay particular attention to the Colonies. The day comes for the Debate, but invariably we are sidetracked by some question like the Constitution of British Guiana, or some Palestinian problem, and nothing more happens. A very short time ago £5,000,000 was considered more than all the British Colonies could spend in five or six years. Ministers must be over-
    562
    whelmed by the detail of Colonial administration; why cannot some such standing Joint Parliamentary Committee as I have suggested keep before the attention of Parliament and of Ministers questions affecting Colonial Development, which I believe to be among the most important that we shall have to consider when the war is over? I look upon the Colonial Empire as one vast economic unit, and if it is to be a success, it must be made a going and a paying concern, in the sense that it pays all those who belong to it with a high and an increasing standard of life and the advantages of British civilisation. Where are we to find a market for our export goods when the war is over, if not in the rising standard of life which we want to see throughout the British Colonies and the whole of the British Empire?
    There is one other matter. I know how difficult it is in war-time to draw the line between what is considered contentious legislation and legislation which has a good deal of support. I listened to the Lord Privy Seal in his discursion on the walking and trotting race by which we were all to keep in step and agree upon everything and so on, but I take it that all legislation is an object for criticism, and the more it is criticised in this House before it is passed the better, I believe, the Bill eventually becomes. I do not think the Government should be unduly nervous, just because it is war-time, about introducing and passing legislation they believe to be right. My own point of view is that it is only in war-time we can get certain things done. If we say we must do this afterwards, and we wait, what will happen is that a thousand other problems and vital matters will occupy our minds when passions are unrestrained by the sense of emergency which exists to-day and the things which have been left will not be done.
    I am not referring to legislation about the catering industry. I do not know the details of it. I refer particularly to the Beveridge Report. It is generally accepted, I think, that these proposals include at any rate what may roughly be called an all-in insurance scheme. That has always had great attraction for me. It will be impossible in war-time to put the whole of that Report in the form of legislation, but I hope that the Govern-

    563
    ment, if I am right, and the Report does contain some such suggestion, will not be deflected or diverted by vested interests, or arguments that it is too contentious in war-time, from putting it into execution, maybe into practice, at the first available opportunity.
    One final point. We have heard a good deal recently outside this House of criticism of Parliament and Members of Parliament. That is nothing new. There has always been criticism and always will be in free countries. How many of these critics would really like to change the system of government in this country? I quite realise that many would like to change some of us and that they think that if they could take our places it would be a very much better institution. That may well be so, but I believe that our Parliamentary institution has fulfilled a useful and vital function during the war. A great American jurist of distinction, who is a close follower of the OFFICIAL REPORT, closer than many of us, I am afraid, assured me that in his opinion—he noted the instances—in the first two years of war Parliament had influenced the policy of the Government on a greater number of Measures of great importance than in any similar period in pre-war days.
    I have no doubt that we have in this country, in the conduct of the war, made a great many mistakes. I am quite certain we shall make a great many more. It is the duty of Parliament and individual Members, when they see these mistakes, or when they believe these mistakes are going to be made, to criticise them. If they do not do that, they have no right to sit in Parliament at all. I am sure that so long as free Parliamentary criticism continues to exist we shall never, whatever other mistakes we make, make mistakes as great as those of a totalitarian régime such as Hitler's has made, and may be making to-day. In the last few weeks or so what can be described as droves of generals have either resigned or been dismissed in Germany. We have our problems with our Allies. May I add how deeply many of us sympathise with General de Gaulle and the Fighting French in the sequence of events recently in North Africa? I do not wish to pass any comment upon it; I do not know enough about it, but those of us who feel about it as I do should take this opportunity of expressing our views.
    564
    What are our problems compared with Hitler's? Hungary and Rumania straining to get at each other's throats; Bulgaria not at war with Soviet Russia; Finland an unwilling partner: Italy, in spite of the fact that she has been given the great privilege of occupying the Riviera, is also, I believe, every day enjoying to a great degree the privileges of being an occupied country. Our democratic Parliamentary system may be less efficient in preparing for war in peace-time. It may be less efficient in getting certain things done in war-time; but it is incomparably better than any other system in maintaining morale in times of defeat and setbacks. I claim that the fact that, throughout these three years of war, after all the vicissitudes through which we have passed, Parliament has remained free and unfettered shows that as an institution she is worthy not only of survival but to be an architect in the shaping of events and things to come.
    Mr. Clement Davies: I want to pay my own humble tribute, sincere and whole-hearted, to the Prime Minister and to all who have taken part in this great victory in Egypt and North Africa. Without a doubt not only has that been a local triumph, but it is likely to change the whole course of the war. For the first time since the war started the enemy is on the defensive. He has failed now for the second year in succession to attain the object which he set out to achieve against mighty Russia. He has now lost the Battle of Egypt; he is losing the Battle of North Africa. Not for one single moment throughout this war, and even before it, had I any doubt about the ultimate victory. I sincerely believe in the doctrine, so far as a doctrine can be stated in one cryptic phrase, of right being might, and I was certain that if this country exercised to the full the powers it possesses there could not be the slightest doubt about the ultimate result. That is the reason why, in spite of her victories, Germany is weakened instead of gathering strength. In spite of the conquests she has achieved over the arms of the peoples whose lands she now occupies, the people themselves have refused to acknowledge defeat, but prefer to die as free men rather than accept the new order.

    565
    That is why I, like the previous speaker, welcome this victory, not because of the changes it has brought about in North Africa, but because of the new hope it has brought into the lives of those men in the occupied countries who are struggling for liberty. May I say in passing, while referring to that, Let the Government beware lest by any association they do something to diminish that hope or their faith. Let them remember that the might of Europe can throw out Hitler when the chance is given to those people who love liberty as they do who, to-day, are struggling for liberty. I have criticised the Government, not only this Government, but its predecessor. I have said that I had no doubt about the result. My criticism was not directed against the people or its power or ability, but against each Government in turn because of the lack of that leadership and driving power which should be possessed by a Government. Of course, we have done mighty things. We have built ships, naval and mercantile; we have produced aeroplanes and tanks; we have mobilised a large Army, and we have mobilised men and women for industry. But that was not the test. The test was, were we doing all that could be done in this country? If we were doing less, we were failing in our duty, not only to our people and to the people in every other country fighting with us, but to the people who will come after us. Everything that could be thrown into the balance, in men and material, should be thrown in.
    In this very victory we have evidence of what could be done if one had, as one had in this case, a unified strategy. This has been a local unified strategy, but see what it has accomplished. It has been the unified strategy of two out of the four Powers. We had a unified co-ordinated Army, Navy and Air Force, under one command. That, coupled with a sufficient power in materials, from the air and from our guns and our tanks, brought the inevitable victory for us, and defeat for Rommel. Those were the very things we were asking for not only during this year, not only during the Debate on what was known as the Vote of Censure, but in September and October of 1939. Those were the things we were asking for, which brought down the previous Government, in 1940; and it was those very things that we thought were going to be changed, and
    566
    on which new hopes were raised, in May, 1940. It was because those hopes were disappointed that we went on asking for those things. There is no need to apologise; there is nothing to apologise for. It is quite obvious that even yet enough is not being done. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Col. Cazalet) even, indeed, with what the Prime Minister himself has said, that this is only the end of the beginning. There is a long road to travel, a difficult, arduous road, and there are tremendous barriers to overcome. It behoves us to march along that road, putting in all the effort we can. That is why I shall continue to ask for a unified strategy; I shall continue to ask that the policy of this country shall be guided by a few men, untrammelled by ordinary details of everyday work; I shall ask for a Minister of War, under the War Cabinet and under its direction, and for a real Minister of Production, and not a shadow one such as we have to-day, so that our production may be brought forward. In that way, I can see not only the end of the beginning, but the beginning of the end.
    I regret that the Lord Privy Seal is not in his seat at the moment. The most interesting part of these proceedings until the end of yesterday's Sitting had been what was said on the first day, not as part of the Debate but on the procedure of the House. What was said then was repeated yesterday by the Lord Privy Seal when he dealt with the future programme of the Government. That was not only a doleful speech, dolefully delivered, but it was to me one of the most distressing statements ever made from that Box. A change has undoubtedly come over those benches since the events of Egypt and North Africa. I refer not only to changes of the kind described by the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham as occurring outside, where people are thinking that the war will soon be over, but to a noticeable change of attitude with regard to the future. Things are being said now which no one would have dared to whisper during Dunkirk, and which did not even bear thinking of during the whole of 1941. I have heard expressions, public and private, from Members on those benches opposite to the effect that it was all wrong that under our past system you had tremendous riches side by side with poverty, that want in the midst of plenty was intolerable, and that,

    567
    that should no longer exist. I felt then that they were giving utterance to those expressions not because they were reasonable, but out of fear. Now that that fear is departing the old idea is coming back, and those people will be saying when this war is over, "What is the use of talking about planning? Why do people like the Member for Montgomery talk about organisation? We have won the war by our old methods of muddling through, and we want no planning for the future. We will go back to the system which was in existence in 1939."
    Can they go back to that system? For years, in fact since before the last war, with the growing population, our ordinary, visible exports were not enough in value to purchase the imports without which we could not carry on. Since 1920 that gap had grown, until it reached a figure which frightened us all in 1931 and brought down the then Labour Government. It has grown to something like £400,000,000 on certain occasions. That gap between our actual exports and what we had to import in order to continue was made up of two things. It was made up in part of the interest which we received on our investments abroad—that is, the interest we were receiving on the exports which we had been capable of making, leaving a surplus during the, for us, prosperous Victorian years. They were made up in part of the services for which we were getting paid—in the main, mercantile marine services carrying goods. The investments have gone, they have been liquidated, not to come back, and that source of revenue for closing that, gap has gone. It cannot be built again until our ordinary every-day exports are overtopped by what we require in England. What is happening in regard to our mercantile marine service? In the last war we fell from our proud position of carrying two-thirds of the merchandise of the world to a much lower level. Our ships were sunk by the Germans in the last war; they are being sunk to-day. The new snips that we are capable of putting on to the water here to-day are not enough to meet these losses. We have to depend upon America. Who will be carrying when this war is over? Who will be running these services? How is the gap between what we require and what we are exporting to be made up?
    Let me remind the House of one other thing now that I see the Minister of Health
    568
    sitting here. We have 5,000,000 more mouths to feed to-day than we had in the last war, but the ages are very different too. The system which has prevailed has meant that there are 1,000,000 fewer children to-day between the ages of under one and 14 than there were. That is what the system has produced. How are we going to close that gap? Can we do it under the old system? Can anybody doubt but that we can provide for the 45,000,000 in this country? It is nonsense for anybody to ask, "Where is the money coming from?" There is the money, and there is the production. Production can be brought up to meet the needs of consumption. What is happening to-day? Millions of people are engaged upon making war goods—guns, munitions, aeroplanes. These men have to be turned to making consumption goods when the war is over. How are we to do it, and when are we to begin?
    Now I come to the Lord Privy Seal. The picture he brought to my mind as I listened to him yesterday when he was delicately walking the tightrope was that of a sort of Blondin walking across Niagara Falls. When he began to draw his analogy between a man walking quickly and another man walking more slowly I thought that he, as the Leader of the House and the Lord Privy Seal, was rather visualising a sort of coachman driving a pair of horses, one of them high mettled and high spirited and wanting to get on, and the other long in the tooth and a bit over at the knees, with rather a patchy coat. What does he propose to do with that pair? Cruelly curb down the high mettled horse and give a gentle prod, which could not do much harm, to the older animal? That is not the way to drive the carriage of State. That is the sort of thing coming from the Lord Privy Seal, who goes to the Albert Hall and to St. Martin's Church and from the pulpit addresses the youth of this country and puts before them a picture of a new world. In this House he says the time is not yet; we are told, After the war. He does not say that to his audiences outside. These men are fighting for us to-day and looking towards the promised land. What does the Lord Privy Seal give them? The promised land? No. He puts before them the vision of a land of promises. There is a world of difference. It is a different planet. The land of promises is

    569
    not on the same planet as the promised land.
    I was glad to hear the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Chippenham referring to the necessity for doing these things now. I have already called attention to the question in this House. I said that promises made during a war and not implemented during that war are never carried out when that war is over. But a greater authority than I gave utterance to that same statement. The late Mr. Fisher, to whom the youth of this country could never pay a deep enough tribute, stood at that Box during the last war and introduced his Education Bill. I see from his "Life" that when he was asked about it he said, "If I could not have carried it through during the war, it would never have been heard of when the Armistice came." Mr. Rupert Brooke wrote a poem which remains in all our memories asking us to keep faith with the men who are lying in Flanders fields. We broke faith with them once, and in breaking, faith with them we had unemployment, suffering, misery and slums, and we failed to build homes for heroes. We cannot break faith a second time. The moment that the last shot is fired and the bells are ringing on armistice day for peace, you will let out an avalanche of men demanding work. What are your preparations? What are your housing arrangements? What are you going to do to abolish squalor, want and idleness? What are you going to do for the education of these people? You have to do it now. If you do not and you postpone it until after the war, then—I hesitate to use the word, but I am compelled to use it—you will be drifting headlong to a revolution that will sweep us away, because these men will demand a decency of life which we have failed hitherto to provide for them.
    Mr. Hamilton Kerr: The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) has resorted to the pastime of twisting the tail of the Tory lion, and he has painted a picture of vast, sinister, reactionary forces in the Tory Party planning to launch a counter-offensive against the forces of progress. That is not the picture I see. Frankly, I feel that in the country to-day people are a little suspicious of all parties. They fear that there are vested
    570
    interests of the Right as well as vested interests of the Left. I would say that there is a frontier, a dividing line, but it is rather between youth and age. More and more I find an intellectual ferment among young people of this country. They want to come back to a land where the interest of the country will come first, where the country will be devoid of vested interests, but where reforms will be carried out by British traditional methods, according to that long experience gained over centuries of self-government.
    I do not want to argue this point—there are many speakers who wish to talk—but I would like to take up one point which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chippenham (Colonel Cazalet) made. He appealed that the House should look upon the victory in Egypt in its right proportions. Undoubtedly we have gained a great initial victory. Rommel's armoured forces have been routed, and he is retiring fast to his bases. But in Africa we are first and foremost building up a spring-board for the final battle, the attack upon what Hitler calls the "Fortress of Europe." The big fight is yet to come. We really must not go around too much asking ourselves, When is the war going to be over? When I was recently in America I had the chance of talking to a submarine officer who had taken part in operations against the Japanese fleet after Pearl Harbour. Unfortunately, his periscope was sighted, he had to do a crash dive, and presently depth charges started to burst round him. In the tense silence during which every member of the crew-was holding his breath, wondering whether the next crash would mean his last minute, the coloured cook shoved his head out of the galley and said, "Say, Captain, we are certainly giving those Japs a hell of a time, aren't we?" Poor man, he thought that the Japanese depth charges were American torpedoes striking Japanese warships. So I say that we must not delude ourselves too much about the blows we are inflicting on the enemy.
    One point strikes me when one talks to those who were in a responsible position in the last war. Nobody then realised the exact date when the war would end. In March, 1918, Germany launched a great offensive, the Allied Army was almost torn asunder, and various generals, like Pétain, for instance, even wished to retire on Paris and expose

    571
    the Channel ports. But who could have thought that, only some six months later German troops would be retiring on all fronts and that the red flag of revolution would be flying over the dockyard in Kiel? Therefore, I do feel, as other Members have said, that we must not be as unprepared for peace as we were unprepared for this war. I am not one of those who believe in fixed and rigid plans, but I believe in the wisdom of the old military axiom, "No time spent in reconnaissance is ever lost." I believe therefore, that the qualities we shall require to win the peace will be far more testing than those we require to win this war; far greater qualities of heart and character will be needed. If I may, I would like to try to illustrate my point with this simile. Imagine the Grand National winner, having drawn ahead of his competitors, nearing the winning post-He sees the cheering crowds and hopes that within a few seconds he will be in the paddock, surrounded by the congratulations of his friends. But a voice suddenly announces, "Once more round the course before the race is over." Off he goes again, past the canal bend and Becher's Brook in the mud and rain—just slogging on. It will be that quality of slogging on which we shall have to exercise after the war against what will seem to us almost intolerable delays and disappointments.
    One hon. Member opposite said that the first problem will be that the ordinary man will be coming home, and that he will want security, or, in the words of President Roosevelt, "freedom from want." What does that mean? Translated into terms of everyday life, it means the prospect of a job. But he will be afraid, after the experience of the last war, that, after a boom period, he will see a notice on the factory door saying, "Closed until further notice." Likewise, he will dread the prospect of walking the streets in search of a job. I am no economic expert, and I regard economists in much the same reverential way as a native in the Congo regards his witch doctor. I listen to their mumbled incantations with much respect; but it seems to me, in my simplicity, that before the war we had solved the problem of production. We all know that wheat was burned on the prairies of Canada and that coffee was dumped into the Atlantic.
    572
    Why? Because the machinery of exchange was entirely at fault. One nation cannot reform this machinery; two, three or more nations must do it, and the first point I want to make is that I hope that members of the Administration in this country and in the United States of America will consider carefully how to improve the machinery of exchange and finance and avoid that awful rhythm of boom and slump which cursed the world before the war.
    Then there is the question of our national security. In the first place, if we are to have a secure world after the war, Britain, the United States, Russia and China must collaborate. I want to make one point in particular about collaboration between the United States and the British Commonwealth of Nations. If we are to have good relations, we have to remove the causes of friction, and the main causes of friction in the past have been trade wars. There have been rubber, oil and shipping wars. Take the case of shipping, Britain is a great exporting nation, and needs ships to carry goods overseas. Britain is a great naval Power, and naval power needs a merchant marine to support it. In peace-time we can operate our ships more cheaply than America, but when war came and France fell, America realised that the British Navy was the first line of defence of the Monroe doctrine. So America started to help us, and Mr. Kaiser started sending ships off the American coast yards with the utmost speed. That is one type of problem which will face us after the war—America with a large mercantile marine, but unable to operate it as cheaply as we can. Mr. McCormack, in his interesting book, "America and World Mastery," has proved that American-British trade can be made, not antagonistic, but complementary. He points out that the British Commonwealth and Britain, in particular, form America's best market, and that each supplies to the other goods in a quantity that cannot be obtained from other sources. America sends us cotton, tobacco petroleum, machinery and chemicals; while we supply America with rubber, tin, nickel, wool and various materials needed in the processing of iron and steel. I think the time is ripe for us to think carefully about the particular trade problems which may arise after the war and thereby lay a solid foundation for Anglo-American co-operation.

    573
    What about ourselves in relation to Europe? I remember Mr. Baldwin getting up and making his famous statement:
    "Since the day of the air, the old frontiers are gone. When you think of the defence of England, you no longer think of the chalk cliffs of Dover; you think of the Rhine."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th July, 1934; col. 2339, Vol. 292.]
    That was said on 30th July, 1934. Those words seemed fairly revolutionary to some of us at that time, but, in fact, they were merely lagging behind events. When Mr. Chamberlain gave our guarantee to Poland, he might have added "the Vistula," and our present Prime Minister could add to-day, "The Volga." The very air has now tied us to Europe. The British citizen in the 18th and 19th centuries knew, when the country went to war, that a hundred ships of the line stood on guard at Portsmouth, or Dover, or Sheerness. Behind that naval shield the citizen army drilled on its barrack squares. We obtained Allies in Europe by subsidies. But to-day all of us sit down to our evening meal knowing that on the coast of France bombers are tuning up at that very moment which an hour later, will rain bombs on our own heads.
    But if the air ties us to Europe, it ties us equally to the New World. I had an opportunity this summer of flying both ways across the Atlantic in a bomber—ten hours from coast to coast. This fact means something very important to the post-war world. Thus I feel that, while the air ties up both equally to the New World and to the old, it also opens up to us new possibilities in our foreign policy. We are a great European Power, and yet at the same time we speak the natural language—English—of America. Thus we can play a valuable part as the honest broker between the New World and the old, as a minter of the currency of good will, and as a clearing house of ideas and difficulties. We possess one asset for the great post-war world which I think, is too little appreciated both here and abroad. We have far more political experience than any other country. In the British Commonwealth of Nations we find all forms and varieties of government, from the great self-governing Dominions to the rule of the native chieftians in Colonial dependencies. Thus I believe that we can draw upon that rich store of political experience and, above all, contribute politi-574
    cal ideas to the reconstruction of the post-war world.
    I hope this will be our main idea, namely, that unity is absolutely essential between the Allied Powers. The slightest rift, as happened after the last war, the slightest tendency for America, Russia and ourselves to draw apart, and the German machinery will start to work again. We shall be drenched with charming pictures of Tyrolese peasants singing over their beer, and castles perched on romantic crags above the Rhine, and asked to visit the home of the lovable and reformed people of Germany. But as we go there, guide-book in hand, we shall certainly not see other things. We shall not see men with spades, ostensibly to dig up potatoes but really to train for war, or apparently innocent peramulator factories turning out machine-guns, or in the depths of the Black Forest and the Thuringian Forests aeroplane hangars springing up destined to be bases for attacks upon the cities of England. Whatever may happen, I hope we shall cling to the idea of complete and absolute unity. Surely, if any of us, on waking up on that morning when the Rhineland was occupied had heard that units of the French Army and the British Air Force had entered the Rhineland, and from the East Polish units had moved likewise, what should we not have saved ourselves? No Warsaw, no Dunkirk, no fall of France, no Battle of Stalingrad. One whiff of grapeshot on that morning would have saved us from this Walpurgis night of terrors from which we are only just emerging into the first light of another day.
    Mr. George Griffiths: I do not propose to follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hamilton Kerr), because I have not had the experience he has had of going to foreign countries, and so on. Therefore, I hope he will not take offence if I do not follow him. Sitting here during the last few days I have been rather amused in one sense; I have been amused at the volte-face of many of the speakers who have taken part in the Debate on the King's Speech. It reminded me that three weeks or a month ago, one Saturday afternoon, I met a man who said to me, "George, what are you doing down yonder?" I met him a fortnight afterwards, and he had been attending one of the clubs and had just got too much to carry. He was

    575
    only just managing it. He stopped me—I could not get by—and he said to me, "We have got him on the run now, haven't we?" First of all, he had wanted to know what we were doing because things were a bit dark, but when he felt there was a victory, when we were advancing in Libya, he turned round and did not say, "What are you doing down yonder?" but, "We have got them on the run." I have been reminded of that very much this week.
    There was a Motion of Censure in July. The Government were damned to all eternity. We were losing everything. One hon. Member said that the Prime Minister could win every time in Debate but had lost every battle up to then. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) is not here now, but I want to say a word or two about him. I have been here for nine years, and I have seen the hon. Member for Kidderminster suffering from different types of diseases, politically. When I came here first, he had "Chinese-itis" very badly. Then he was made Chairman of the Select Committee on National Expenditure in 1939, and ever since he has had "expenditure-itis" very much. I have been wondering whether the Treasury would get out for us the total amount this Select Committee on National Expenditure has itself spent in ferreting out different things. The hon. Member for Kidderminster has also had another "itis," and that is "censor-itis." He has stood up in the House, and the attitude he has adopted has been, "Now listen—all the House must be quiet, mine is the last word." His was the last word when he spoke in this Debate. I never saw a man in a bigger pickle in all my life than he was on Tuesday last. He wriggled every way. He congratulated the Prime Minister, the Cabinet, the Government, on having won this Egyptian victory, and then he said, "But, you know, you would not have won it if we had not had the Motion of Censure. It was through the Motion of Censure that the Prime Minister went to Egypt to find out about what we said, and he found it was true. Therefore, instead of congratulating the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, what you ought to do in the House is to congratulate us, because we have won the victory, not the Prime Minister."
    576
    That has been the attitude of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Clement Davies). Nobody has been more vicious against the Prime Minister practically ever since he has been in office than the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. To-day he got up and poured his holy unction on top of the Prime Minister and poured his scorn on the Lord Privy Seal. I hope that those prophets who have been proved not correct, but incorrect, will not try to twist on a threepenny bit in future and say, "It is us."
    I would like to say a word or two about the Lord Privy Seal. I am sorry he is not here now, but, like me, he has to have something to eat sometimes. I have been following the Lord Privy Seal a good long while. I followed him very closely in the 1931–1935 Parliament. When I came to the House nearly nine years ago, I sat right behind him, and I shall never forget the fights he and the late George Lansbury put up when we were a very small battalion here. Surrounded by the enemy, every day he fought from this side, and my faith rose. I felt that I could follow Stafford, as we called him then, anywhere. But there is no doubt about it—and everybody has got to admit it—that there is not a man in the House who could walk the tightrope better than the Lord Privy Seal did yesterday. He balanced perfectly. There was the outside right and the outside left, and those outside the right and those outside the left altogether. I asked myself, "Are we listening to the Stafford of the last eight years, or are we listening to a new man?" I was very sorry. I believe, with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, that we have to get more speed on as far as legislation is concerned. If we do not, there is no doubt about it that when the war is over, if we are not prepared, this country will be in a state of chaos and revolution greater than we have ever known before.
    I shall not talk about the war front. I want to talk about the home front. I want to say a few things to the Minister of Health. The Minister of Health has a very important position in the Government. I have been putting Questions to him ever since he has been Minister of Health. [An HON. MEMBER: "And never getting replies."] I have got replies, very polite replies, but the Minister

    577
    of Health has always said, "We are considering this." That is his text, in the pulpit and out of it. He is always considering things.
    I want to direct my remarks to the latter part of the King's Speech, which says:
    "My Ministers will continue to take all measures open to them to promote the health and well-being of My people in war-time by securing the better care of young children, by the prevention of disease, by the treatment of the sick and by the alleviation, where possible, of housing difficulties consequent upon the war."
    One of the most alarming statements of the Minister of Health in his Annual Report is that during the past year 27,000 persons died of tuberculosis. The right hon. Gentleman said the other day, "We are going to tackle tuberculosis." Anyone representing miners in this House knows the curse of this disease, and knows that there is a crowd of men who work on to the very last, knowing that, if they do not, it means starvation. The Minister says that in future when it is diagnosed the Government are prepared to rind finance for the home so that the patient can get into a sanatorium. I believe it is possible to cure tuberculosis if it is caught early. The medical men may not say so, but sometimes you have to face facts. My youngest daughter, who worked in a dirty, filthy office, told me one day that she had tuberculosis. We went straight away to the county medical officer, who found a bed in a certain sanatorium, and she went in on the third day. Now she is a doctor's wife. There is no trace of T.B., and in the near future I am expecting to be a grandfather. If we can catch the disease early enough there is a possibility of the victims being restored, instead of being a burden upon society. The origin of tuberculosis is bad housing, and the right hon. Gentleman must not sit with his feet across the fender. We cannot afford to wait until the war is over. If the home front is wrong, the war front will not be right. If the people at home are unhealthy and cannot produce the stuff for the war, the war will not progress and it will be prolonged.
    I believe that housing conditions to-day are worse than they have ever been. I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for South Poplar (Mr. Guy) say
    578
    we want to re-house the race and not warehouse them. No one knows better than the Minister that people to-day are warehoused. I have had deputations and letters galore from the four local authorities in my division, asking me to press the Minister to obtain permission for them to build houses. The Hemsworth rural authority, in whose area there are five big collieries, have asked to be allowed to put up temporary housing, but the Minister would not allow it. There has been an influx of miners from the Army into the district, which was overcrowded before, and the overcrowding, no doubt, is increasing the tuberculosis. I had a letter the other day from Cudworth about two girls of 20 or 25 who had died of tuberculosis. Twelve months ago they were passed to go into munition factories. They were healthy and apparently strong, but to-day they are in the grave, owing to bad housing and bad ventilation. Can we afford to lose the young lives? I am getting on, and, if I was to pass tomorrow, it would not amount to very much, because I am looking back. These young people are looking forward, and we have to do all we can to save them. I ask the Minister not to take "No" from the War Cabinet, but to insist that there shall be housing. Let him do his very best for these tubercular people, and, if the Government will not grant his request, let him throw his checks in and leave them altogether.
    Another matter to which I wish to direct attention is the fact that there are 300,000 people who have not had due consideration from the Government, and those are the diabetics. The diabetic State-insured person can get his insulin and needles free. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to note, however, that he can only get a note from his doctor for a fortnight's supply. I would like the Minister to look into this and state that these persons can have a month's supply. When the fortnight's supply runs out the diabetic has to go to the clinic again, and he often has to wait four or five hours in a long queue. These people are producing. Some folk think that because a person is diabetic he finishes work, but that is all moonshine. With the great discovery of insulin a man with diabetes can still go on with his work and be a producer. He does not want to be hanging about in a

    579
    queue for long hours, and that would be obviated if he were allowed a month's supply of insulin. The Parliamentary Secretary may say that people who are not State-insured can get insulin from public assistance, but they can only do so if a means test is applied. In the case of tuberculosis cases the State sees that there is no financial difficulty. The State looks after them, and I want the State to look after the diabetics too with as much interest.
    The dependants of men in the Forces can get insulin free, but the dependants of State-insured persons cannot. The Diabetic Association is asking that these should be put in the same position as dependants of men in the Forces. The Association gave evidence before Sir William Beveridge's Committee. I dare not be a prophet. There have been a lot of prophecies about the Beveridge Report, and I wonder sometimes whether the prophets had an advance copy of it, because they prophesy with so much certainty about what will happen. In their evidence the Diabetic Association made a strong claim that the State-insured persons' dependants should have insulin free. Let me mention a case of a woman who lives about five minutes' walk from my home. She is paying 14s. 10d. a week for insulin. Her husband is a surface worker at the pit. The minimum wage for a surface worker is £3 17s. 8d., and his stoppages run to about 4s. 6d. The price of insulin has gone up alarmingly since the war. The Parliamentary Secretary and I have had dialogues about prices two or three times, and she has stated that the prices are so and so, but I have here the actual prices over the counter. The price of hospital-packed insulin was 3s. 9d. when the war began, and it is 4s. 10d. now. That is for people who are almost on the poverty line. The ordinary insulin has gone up from 2s. 10d. to 3s. 10d. Insulin in zinc suspension has increased from 4s. 6d. to 5s. 10d.
    I am pleading with the Minister of Health to be bold, to deal with the housing problem as it ought to be dealt with and to go forward with a scheme and regulations with regard to tuberculosis. Let us send forth a clarion note throughout the country that no person who gets the dread of disease has any need to hang his head and say, "The grave digger has thrown
    580
    his spade at me," but that he will be able to say, "I can conquer with medical aid and live my full life." The diabetic person should be able to do the same. I was going to deal with the question of compensation, which concerns the Home Secretary, but we shall have a chance of dealing with that later.
    I conclude with this personal note. About seven and a half years ago, when I was in the House—I have been here over nine years—I went to Manor House Hospital and saw the physician. He asked me to have an examination, and he made a test of my blood and my sugar. He asked me whether I knew old Sam March. I said that I did, and the doctor said, "He had the same complaint as you, and we kept him alive until he was 75." I said, "If you will do that for me, I will manage the next 10 years myself." My point is that we should look after the diabetics and see that they get this wonderful stuff, insulin, irrespective of their incomes, because it means life and joy and happiness not only for themselves but for their families. I hope that I am not appealing in vain and that the Minister will not sit in his corner during Question time and say, when he is asked about this matter, "We are considering it." We do not want any more consideration-itis. We want activity-itis, without delay.
    Mr. Beattie: I crave the indulgence of this House while I address it for the first time. I regret that I have not the eloquence of the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths), and therefore it is with increasing diffidence that I approach my task. Tribute has already been paid to the Ministry of Food, and rightly so, and tribute has been paid to the magnificent work of the Royal Navy and the Mercantile Marine. They have enabled us to maintain a very wonderful standard of living in the face of world-wide war. But there is another factor. How many people realise that we are very much dependent for many of the material things which we enjoy upon the help of our friends from overseas? When this war is over we cannot expect to have a continuance of that aid, and therefore we shall be thrown back upon our own resources to maintain even the present standard of living, and this means—this is the only solution I can see o—that we must all realise that we shall have to work, and work hard. Let us

    581
    face the fact that the pre-war standard has gone and that it will be difficult to maintain the present standard. One of the great comforts I have is that youth is to have a chance in the future. To my mind there are two degrees of youth. It may be paradoxical, but when a man of 60 or over is comforted by the thought that he is a comparatively young man then I bring in my two degrees of youth to cover the 40's as well as the children and the adolescents. I remember speaking many years ago as one of a lost generation, and my remarks were caught up by the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliott). He was then the Minister of Agriculture, and he gave me a chance. I was given a chance to take part in public life. He put me on to various Government committees. Whether or not I have taken that chance is another matter, but such chances must be available to our men when they come home if they show a desire to help in the welfare of the community. The point is that those in a position to help must not be selfish.
    I welcome the reference to education in the King's Speech, and I trust that the Secretary of State for Scotland will endeavour to make education as wide in scope as possible. It is certain that Britain will need all the well-educated people it is possible to have in the years to come. We must instil into the children and adolescents the necessity for hard work; it should be part of their education now. The education position is sometimes difficult when schools are taken over for other purposes. There is a case in my own constituency now, and though I will not go into the details of it, briefly the facts are these: A school has been closed, and little children have to go considerable distances to attend another school. On cold days mothers are anxious about them, and the children are getting only part-time education, and when later they go on to secondary schools they are backward. I think the Secretary of State for Scotland knows the particular case to which I refer. I hope that he will be successful in finding a solution for the difficulty arising from the occupation of schools for other purposes and leave them available for the education of the children.
    Another point in regard to education is that if in the future the school-leaving age
    582
    is advanced to 16, there shall be no hesitation about using the interval between 14 and 16 years to give a rigid technical education to those boys and girls who are not going into the professions. I know that to-day there are available for them workshop and other facilities for learning a trade, but in my humble opinion the subject is only being played with. Technical education ought to play a very real part in the future of our youth, and I hope the Secretary of State for Scotland will take note of that, because I wish to emphasise my views upon it. I have laid stress upon the task that lies before us. It may well be that we shall have to give up many of the pleasant things which we enjoy to-day, and if we want to get them back, surely it is no great thing that we should be asked really to work for them. In the future there should be no place for the indolent, and every opportunity should be created for those who show determination and enterprise.
    I regret that in the King's Speech no mention was made of housing in Scotland. In many cases the conditions are difficult to defend. I particularly plead for a development of housing, not only for those with families, but also for those young married people many of whom are at present in the Forces. There ought to be houses for them when they come back. I know that the Secretary of State for Scotland is fully aware of the situation, but it will do no harm to let him know that all parties are deeply concerned about it. If I may offer a suggestion regarding housing, it is that there should be some simple specification for certain types of houses, whether built by private enterprise or by municipalities, and that particular attention should be given to securing privacy. However much we may condemn certain of the old tenement houses, it was the fact that when a person got inside and shut the door he did not hear very much from out-side. Those houses were substantially built. In present-day housing schemes one finds four families living in a type of self-contained house each with its own entrance and bit of garden. It is all very pretty; but let me give the House my experience of going into one of those houses. Lots of people know what it is like. There is no privacy. The walls of the house I went into were so thin that there was no doubt that the man and the woman next door were having a row, there was no doubt that the Highland police-

    583
    man upstairs was practising on the chanter, and no doubt about another man playing the gramophone. What privacy is to be found there? If houses could be built to some specification in which particular attention had been paid to the question of privacy it would help the occupants very much. I know that in the matter of housing there is the question of urgency on the one hand and of permanency on the other; and that the task is tremendous, but given good will on all sides, it should surely be possible to find a solution.
    Mr. Sexton: First I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. Beattie) upon his initial entry into our Debates, and I hope from the intelligence displayed in his speech that we shall hear him on many other occasions. I have sat through this Debate for a long time, and I wish to bring Members back to the fact that it is a Debate upon the King's Speech. Right down the ages of our long and glorious history monarchs have at various times made speeches to their people. In circumstances similar to those which exist to-day, many of these Speeches have inspired our people to hold on until they got through difficult days to victory. I wish to examine this Speech to see whether we can see the same elements in it as were in some of those to which I have just referred; in other words, to see whether it is not only a King's Speech but a kingly speech. I believe that implementation of the legislation which it promises will mark it as a right down regular Royal speech. In my analysis of the Speech I find that the first part of it is taken up with addressing the folk of the homeland, the Empire and the United Nations during the war. The second part is a brief reference to the post-war international situation. The third deals with post-war Britain and the programme of the Government to deal with the problems that will then arise. Taking the divisions of the Speech in the order I have outlined, I find that His Majesty refers to the home people as looking forward
    "with unshakable courage…determined to fight on to complete victory, with no thought of parley."
    Our parleys ought to have ended at Munich, when it was found impossible to agree with a crab. Aristophanes wisely said that you cannot make a crab walk
    584
    straight. Our experience of Hitler was that no matter how much we parleyed with him, we could not get him to walk the straight line. As for his Italian colleague, the words attributed to Boadicea by Tennyson rightly apply here:
    "Lo, you precious Roman bantling."
    The Gracious Speech goes on to refer to our Fighting Forces, praising their courage and devotion. They are now facing a very serious situation in this war. I think the words of Henry IV in Shakespeare will aptly apply:
    "Our Navy is addressed, our power collected, And everything lies level to our wish."
    Such can be said of our Forces at the present time. Our Army, Navy and Air Force are as tough as the Britons of old. Not only are the actual Fighting Forces referred to, but our total power to-day, which includes all the miners, quarrymen, factory workers, transport workers and land workers, and also our wonderful Civil Defence workers who protect us in times of blitzes. We must also include in our Forces the women, who have emulated and beaten the records of British women of the past and have emulated, and in some cases beaten, the records of the men of the present.
    Then His Majesty goes on to praise the peoples of the Empire and specially to refer to the comradeship and unity which have been forged. The people of the Dominions readily came to our help. They were not compelled to do so, but they have given of their very best to us to assist the Motherland, as dutiful daughters should do. We are indeed very proud of the assistance we have received from Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. His Majesty refers to the people of the United Nations. What of the magnificent assistance of the United States of America? There has been for a long time an attempt, a groping attempt, in the mists of misunderstanding and lack of understanding, to shake hands across the seas; but groping time has passed away, for ever, we hope, and the grasping time is now come, when we take the hand of our fellow countrymen of the United States of America and stand firm, not only in war but in peace as well.
    What eulogies can we pay to the heroic Russians? Who is able to estimate comprehensively the wonderful steadfastness they show at Stalingrad? We must also

    585
    remember the long-sustained efforts of China, which has withstood for nearly six years the onslaughts of the latest Axis partner, Japan. What of the other small States, too numerous to mention? I call them small in no derogatory sense, for although they may be small in size and population, or even in power, they are large at heart. They are sound in their principles and strong in their convictions, and they are staunch in support of the Allied cause. We hail with gladness the growing assistance we are to receive from France. I have nothing to say about Darlan. He seems to be nobody's baby at present, although he seems to have been temporarily adopted by the United States and this country.
    The next part of the King's Speech refers briefly to the international situation after the war and to its first foundation, the Atlantic Charter. That Charter may have been planned, written and signed on the Atlantic Ocean, but to do full justice to it it must be regarded as world-embracing, in its offer of freedom to all liberty-loving nations. Consultations with Governments of the United Nations are taking place, to prepare for the after-war international situation, and this country will be expected to give a lead. After the war, food, clothing and shelter will be needed in the occupied lands, and there will be a vast problem there, only a domestic problem to each of those nations, but still a vast problem. It will be followed by the vaster problem of the political settlement necessary to a lasting peace.
    Finally, we come to that part of the Gracious Speech which refers to post-war Britain. We know that coming events cast their shadows before them, and we also realise that current events leave their shadows behind them. We have had experience of that during the last war. The gloomy shades of unemployment that came after the last war must not be allowed to appear again. At the present time the young men and young women of this country are forging a bridge from the old world to the new, and forging that bridge with their very bodies. We must not betray them by refusing to cross the bridge from the old to the new, so that the country, home and State they have visualised for so long will really be put into practical reality. As the King's Speech says, not in those words, but in
    586
    unmistakable language, something better is to be done after the war is over. Again I quote Henry IV, who says:
    "Now lords, if heaven doth give successful end
    To this debate that bleedeth at our doors, We will our youth lead on to higher fields."
    Surely that is the meaning which underlies the promises of the King's Speech at the present time. We are going to lead our youth not to battlefields but to those higher fields of peace and contented happiness.
    The problems which will beset this country and Government are all set out in the Speech, the questions of land and of the old age and widowed pensioners. I am glad to note them, because I have been speaking at quite a few meetings in my division lately on that point. The veterans of industry are looking to this Government with gratitude for what they have done and with expectations that they are to do something more for them. By dealing fairly and generously with those old people we will be assisting in solving the problem of unemployment which will arise after the war, because we shall be taking out of industry all those old people and letting the younger and more virile people take their place.
    On education I could talk a long time, as I was engaged in it for so long. I content myself with making one minimum demand on education, that all schools must be as well equipped in buildings, amenities, teachers, playing fields, as approved schools. We have to-day a long black list of what I might call disapproved schools which have been condemned. I cannot ask for less than the kind of schools we are giving to the delinquents for the law-abiding children of our towns and villages. My hon. Friend who has just sat down has referred to the questions of health and housing, on which I say nothing at all. I leave that to other Members or to a later part of the Debate, on reconstruction.
    Finally, the King's Speech concludes with a warning. Henry V. said:
    "Well have we done, thrice-valiant countrymen;
    But all's not done."
    The same idea is expressed in the King's Speech when it says:
    "Our enemies yet remain powerful, and we can look forward to no easy task."

    587
    So we must strive that each man must regard himself as the chief cause of victory, and to achieve this grand consummation each man, and each woman too, must reinforce their every effort, must extend their endurance, and must invigorate their faith. It will not be enough to take the negative side, not to relax. We must take the positive side of increasing our warlike efforts, so that we may attain that great victory to which we are looking forward. When that great victory is won we must prevent in the future this hedge-hopping of war from one generation to the next. I repeat that the full implementation of the King's Speech will ensure the beginning of social and economic justice and become a harbinger of a lasting peace.
    Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: I do not intend to follow the remarks made by the hon. Member who has just sat down into the earlier historical periods with which he was dealing, but I am in entire agreement with him that a return to the Gracious Speech is desirable, and with a great deal of what he says concerning that Speech. I do not think the hon. Member or anybody else would agree with what was said the other day from that side of the House by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sloan) concerning the Gracious Speech. He said that there was nothing in the Gracious Speech that would hold out any hope to the working-class. I would like to comment on that remark, because it was reported rather widely, and I submit that it was a most unrepresentative remark. First of all, I doubt very much that there will be any disagreement with me if I suggest that there is no class whatever in this country at the present time which is not working whole-heartedly in support of the war effort. Secondly, there is no question whatever that there is not a class of any sort in this country which cannot and must not essentially benefit by the swiftest and most vigorous prosecution of the war, and a speedy and victorious conclusion. It is to that end that I think the Gracious Speech can be, and can only be, interpreted—that the Government are doing all that is possible to attain and achieve that end. The more swiftly that end comes the greater will be the blessing to all the people of this country. We have recently heard a remark made from a source which can only be considered most highly authoritative, that although we may not be able to consider the present
    588
    as the beginning of the end, nevertheless it may be taken to be the end of the beginning. I think that remark gave us great confidence and great hope for the future, because there is one thing of which I am perfectly certain, that there will be no middle in this war. Once we start, the end will be very near. There will be no middle period to it as there was in the last war.
    There are two things which appear to me to stand out particularly during the recent events which have taken place in North Africa. That campaign has been referred to by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I do not propose to refer to it myself, but two conclusions, I feel, can be drawn, and are due to be stressed at the present time. The first is the ability which has been displayed by the General Staffs to co-operate both internationally from the point of view of Allies and from the point of view of Services in inter-Service co-operation. On both sides of the House Members have urged a greater integration of the war effort. I submit that the operation which has just taken place has shown that not only integration but co-operation to the point of fusion already exists. The second point which appears to me to stand out is the steadfastness which has been shown by the High Command in refusing to be hustled, in refusing to be diverted from their strategy, from their main effort, by ill-informed criticism, and refusing to be jostled into ill-advised action. That, I submit, is a point from which we can gain great confidence. It would be disastrous for our war effort, disastrous for our country, and a criminal tragedy for our Forces if the direction of this war were allowed to be swerved from its true course by ill-informed criticism, clamour, or demands. Another thing which may be commented upon is the criticism we have heard in the past of the Minister of Defence. One has heard from time to time that the Minister of Defence takes too great power in the military direction of the war. On the other hand, we have heard from time to time that the Government, and particularly the Prime Minister, are open to criticism for not prodding the Minister of Defence sufficiently. It is difficult to see how these two lines of criticism can be resolved. I submit that they cancel each other out.
    The events which have taken place we can recognise as a foretaste of still more

    589
    momentous things to come, but there is a lesson which must be learned. It was asked yesterday why this operation did not take place last July. The answer is very clear. There have been many things to consider—not only the planning of the strategy, but the concentration of the ships, the concentration of supplies and stores, and the concentration of reserves, in this country, with the shipping to bring them here. Another matter is the length of time which is required to plan operations of any sort. We should learn a lesson about that. I am not one who has ever advocated easy optimism. I remember that in September, 1939, I ventured to express the opinion that the war might last from seven to 10 years. After the battle of Britain I became more optimistic, and I reduced my estimate to from five to seven years. I mention that because what I am going to say might be considered premature; but, in view of the lesson we have had, I ask whether steps are already being taken and plans being made to ensure that when the end of the actual fighting comes arrangements will be made for the political and economic regeneration and education of Germany after her final collapse. Many mistakes were made after the last war, many false policies were put in hand. I believe that the great reason was that the matter had not received due consideration, and we were caught unprepared. No one will deny that we entered this war unprepared, and I hope most sincerely that we shall not enter the armistice period unprepared also.
    Another thing to which I wish to refer particularly has rather escaped attention in the Debate, although it was referred to by the Mover of the Address. That is the most important subject of agriculture. We have heard about the position in Scotland, in a very eloquent speech recently, and I hope that that speech may apply to the southern part of the country also. We have heard many industrial and manufacturing points of view, and I hope that the House will bear with an agricultural point of view. In West Sussex we have not, thank God, sustained the devastation which some built up areas have had to suffer, but we have suffered tragedies from time to time. Recently there was the very sad case in which a small boys' school was annihilated at Pet-
    590
    worth. We are rather apt, in the midst of many greater tragedies, to overlook the effect of such occurrences in the rural areas. In a small village the annihilation of a school of that description brings mourning and sorrow into the homes of probably every family. I should like to acknowledge the wonderful assistance given by men of the Forces, who rallied around with spontaneous help to the utmost possible extent.
    There is no doubt in the mind of any person, I think, that fanners have responded to the needs of the war effort in the most tremendous manner. Agriculture entered this war as one of the depressed industries. Farmers were unable, on account of the prices they received, to pay the wages which their labour was entitled to expect. Farmers were unable to put back into the land as much as they took out, and they were unable to earn the amount to which they were entitled as a reward for their services. Farmers had been living on their capital, the capital of their land. By its very nature, agriculture is not an industry which can suddenly turn over to new methods and increase its output, as many of the mechanised, industries can do. Nevertheless, as a result of the efforts of the farmers, production has increased out of all knowledge, and, notwithstanding the drain of skilled labour and the difficulties to which I have referred, the agricultural community has made a very great contribution to the war effort. The country in its urgent need has recognised this fact, and has given agriculture, in consequence, a square deal. Agriculture is looking to the time after the war, and is expecting to continue to receive a square deal then. Indeed, farmers have been promised that they will not be let down again. Farmers are accustomed, of necessity, to plan ahead, not only for one year but sometimes for five or 10 years. They are asking whether the Government, too, are thinking ahead, and what the Government propose to do to enable them to continue to have a square deal after the war.
    I do not think that any farmer will ask for more than that to which the House would consider he is entitled, and that is, that a good farmer should be able to be certain that he could earn sufficient to pay proper wages, to farm his land properly, to earn a proper interest upon his capital

    591
    and to obtain a proper reward for his own efforts. That is not a very great deal to ask. Agriculture is looking to the Government, not for general assurances, but in order to plan ahead, so that it may be certain of its future after the war. In considering this, we should recognise that by their efforts in exceedingly difficult conditions, through very long hours, in very trying circumstances, in many parts of the country suffering in the same way as others from enemy action, farmers have contributed very largely to the excellent health of the nation as it is at present. They have contributed very largely, indirectly, to the war effort as a result of being able to save shipping space for carrying over here munitions of war from abroad and for bringing into this country the raw materials for the home manufacture of these munitions. Finally, as a result of their efforts and of having saved by their own products so much shipping space, they have very largely contributed to the practical vision we-have seen coming into view of the offensive spirit which is now taking place in the war.
    Mr. Driberg: I do not know what the Lord Privy Seal meant exactly yesterday by his allusion to what may be called the three-legged race between Left and Right. To me some of his words seemed to have the calculated ambiguity of the 39 Articles; but whatever he meant; I hope that he was not preparing the way for a surrender by the Government to the powerful interests who are already trying to pre-judge and sabotage in advance the Beveridge Report. There is plenty of evidence that such a campaign is being worked up and is being extensively financed by those interests.
    I am going to deal very briefly with only one move in that campaign. Last week we were surprised to see in the "Daily Telegraph" an interview with Sir William Beveridge. We were surprised for several reasons, first because it was unlikely that Sir William would have given an interview to a single newspaper saying anything in advance about the details of his Report, and secondly because the "Daily Telegraph" was not the most likely place in which to find an interview that was ostensibly friendly to Sir William Beveridge. On the contrary, it is from that quarter that much of the opposition may be expected to come.
    592
    This week in a Supplementary Question an hon. Member picked out the key phrase from that interview, in which it was alleged that Sir William Beveridge had said that his Report would take us "half-way to Moscow." He picked out that phrase and showed clearly that the opposition to the Beveridge Report are going to make as strong a weapon of that phrase as they can. Yesterday the "Daily Telegraph" printed a short and mild disclaimer by Sir William; but last evening I heard some gentlemen outside this House, Conservative opponents of what they think the Beveridge scheme will be, talking about it and using that same phrase "half-way to Moscow," thus showing that they had not seen the disclaimer. And, indeed, such denials and disclaimers very rarely catch up with the damage done by the original misstatement. Therefore I want to state as firmly and to make as widely public as I possibly can my belief that that interview in the "Daily Telegraph" was so gross a distortion of what actually took place as to be almost a complete fake and as dishonest a piece of yellow journalism as has even been perpetrated even by that other great enemy of the British people, Mr. William Randolph Hearst. What actually happened was this. The interview was obtained from Sir William Beveridge on the understanding that it was to be a personal sketch of the man himself and the study in which he works. In the course of the interview there was some desultory conversation between the interviewer and Sir William, which was intended to be off the record, concerning the general subject of unemployment and not concerning Sir William's Report at all. In the course of that conversation Sir William remarked that he admired the way that the Russians had dealt with their unemployment problem. It was during those remarks that the phrase "half way to Moscow" was used, and it was not applied at all by Sir William, or in that conversation by the reporter, to the Beveridge Report.
    It is extremely distasteful to me as a journalist to make this grave allegation against a fellow member of my own profession—and I presume a fellow member of my own union—but I think that it is up to journalists to do what they can to maintain the standards of integrity of their craft, and I am also aware that the gravamen of the charge must probably be laid

    593
    not on the individual reporter, but on the editorial or proprietorial direction which devised this stratagem to entrap Sir William Beveridge. I agree with the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths), who said that we cannot prophesy about the Beveridge Report. We do not know yet what it contains, but some of us hope that it will prove to be a blue print for Freedom from Want. Much will be said for and against this Report when it appears, but I hope that I have said enough to-day to make sure that whatever is said against it no further use will be made of this particularly malodorous red herring.
    Lieutenant Butcher: Many of us, like the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg), are looking forward to the Report from Sir William Beveridge with great interest. It would be wise for all parties in this House not to commit themselves in advance to opposition to it or in support of it, but rather to receive it as a valuable and constructive report on the national future composed by an economist. But equally the House should have sufficient confidence in itself to believe that in its collective wisdom it will be able to accept or to reject in whole or in part, and above all to improve, a system which may be put forward by people who are outside this House. It is in these terms that I welcome the approach in the Gracious Speech to practical measures of reconstruction.
    The hon. and gallant Member for Chichester (Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks) has referred to the great work that has been done by farmers and farming communities, and I would like to ask the Government, Are they looking forward? We have to admit that the critics of this Government, on the wider spheres, have been confounded. A journal started its Sunday edition this week with the phrase "Rommel and the Government critics in full retreat." No more apt phrase has ever been printed. Having seen how the critics on the Imperial front, as it were, have been put to rout, I am sufficiently brave to ask the Government whether they are looking ahead on the home front. I do not intend to speak about the fanning front, because we know the Government are pledged there, but farming is not the only sphere of rural life which should have our interest and support at the present time.
    594
    I want the House to look at the question of rural housing, because it is bound up with the whole future happiness and health of the English countryside. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) properly drew attention to the close relations between the incidence of tuberculosis and bad housing. I was ashamed when I read just before the war of the bad conditions of housing which obtained in my division, where many people work on the land. These things must be put right. Many houses how being occupied are really not fit for decent people to five in, and I am afraid that the position is not improving. For three years no houses have been built in rural areas, and conditions are getting worse. There is no reason why in the near future the Government should not lift the ban on rural housing and allow a start to be made. I am a little concerned when I hear the Minister of Labour talking about the large number of people who will have to be drawn from the building industry for the Armed Forces. I agree that in all probability the Armed Forces need more men, but let us comb and re-comb the many people engaged in office work. What is the position that obtains at the present time? Firms now engaged upon Government work have bigger clerical staffs filling in forms than they did when they were sending out and collecting accounts before the war. Here is a source of labour which has not yet been looked at. To go to the building industry and draw off many men will result in serious trouble.
    Earl Winterton: There is the even more serious point, that at the present time permission cannot be obtained to employ either labour or materials on ordinary repair or rural cottages. We are prevented from doing that by the Ministry of Labour.
    Lieutenant Butcher: I am glad my Noble Friend has pointed that out, and I hope he will add his powerful influence in this House to the efforts being made to impress upon the Government that the first step in the successful prosecution of the war is to maintain proper housing standards for the people of this country. We must have a certain number of builders available to repair whatever damage may be caused by enemy action. We must also have builders to train young men in all branches of the craft. Nobody

    595
    can say how long this war will last but one thing is certain, and it is that the building industry will provide permanent and regular employment in this country for many years to come. The place to learn building is on the job. Interesting schemes have been completed, but what we want to see now is a start being made with rural housing. We know it is not possible, owing to the heavy demand for materials and labour, to make a start with great housing schemes now. That may have to be delayed until after the war, but we know that conditions can be improved in rural areas by building eight to 10 houses in each parish. We believe that labour is available, granted permission, that materials can be found and that old men could turn out and do this job near their homes. I hope we shall regard this as a first step in the war effort. The Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture should support it. After all, we are getting more food from the land than ever before, and the three essentials are machines, fertilisers and, above all, labour. Machines are coming into short supply, and so are fertilisers, although we may get more now as a result of the events in North Africa. But if you are to put men on the land you must have somewhere for them to live and sleep. As I have been through the countryside of England lately, I have thought that at last it is beginning to look as though somebody cared for it. We are proud of it and determined that it shall not drop back to the old neglect and decay. But more important than the land itself are the people who live on it, till it and love it, and we ask the Government that just as they have shown an interest in agriculture, so they should push along with this question of the repair and reconditioning of rural houses and the training of young men in villages to build houses, so that we may be worthy of the people who work on the land.
    Mr. Gallacher: What has been the reaction of the people of this country to the offensive in Egypt and Africa? It has aroused them as nothing else could possibly have done. This is evident from the terrific intensity of production which is now going on in factories and in the new feeling that exists in the Armed Forces. All the talk about being "browned off"—that peculiar term—has
    596
    faded away. If the same kind of offensive action was taken on the home front on the question of reconstruction, you would get the support of the masses of the people of this country beyond the possibility of any doubt. There is something I would like to draw attention to in connection with the offensive in Africa which has not been mentioned: Many tributes have been paid to the Eighth Army, and I join in them, because this has been a remarkable demonstration of skill, daring and courage. Six weeks ago Hitler marched on to a platform in Berlin to make one of his usual speeches. Usually, he marches on alone, but this time he was accompanied by a new field-marshal, Rommel, the Nazi superman. He was lifted high above his fellows. He was a living monument of military genius. The Eighth Army, supported by the men and women in the factories, mines and industries of this country, have knocked the plinth from underneath his feet, and landed Rommel in the gutter. It is very necessary that he should be kept there. The Anglo-American Army, coming in from the other side, will help to complete the job.
    What do the offensive and victory of the Eighth Army demonstrate? They demonstrate that if vigour and initiative are shown, nothing is impossible, all things can be accomplished. This is not the second front that many of us demanded, but while there may be differences of opinion regarding the general strategy that has been developed, nobody can do other than welcome this offensive. It is necessary for me to make a remark on the second front and on the talk about the clamour of fireside critics. Some people have said that this is a second front in Africa. It is not a second front. It is an African front. As a matter of fact, there are two fronts in Africa, that presented by the Eighth Army and that presented by the Army coming from the other side. There is a front in China and a series of fronts in the Pacific.
    The question that faces everyone, whether he be the greatest military critic that ever lived or whether he be the most hopeless fireside critic that ever lived, is, can Hitler and the Nazis be defeated, can the war be won, without another front in Western Europe? There is not an hon. Member, whatever side he sits on, who would dare for one moment to

    597
    suggest that the war can be won without a front in Western Europe and that the whole of the fighting in Europe should be left to the Soviet Union and the Red Army. It is clear to everyone, it is clear to Hitler just as it is to the Prime Minister, that there has to be that front in Western Europe. What I say, and what is said in the Amendment on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) and myself, is that everything possible should be done to speed up the creation of that front in Western Europe. Hon. Members must understand that if preparations for a second front in Europe are not speeded up, our soldiers on the African continent can be put in a very difficult position because of the intensified U-boat and dive-bombing warfare that will be carried on from the Mediterranean seaboard of France. Therefore, we hope that everything possible is being done, and that every consideration is being taken into account, in order to speed up the creation of a second front in Europe.
    There is one thing of which we have to take note in connection with the victory in Africa and the ringing of the bells. Last week I met many people, particularly women, who had been so affected by the terrors of the war and the taking away of their boys. They had the feeling, which was expressed to me in different parts of the country where I happened to be, that somehow or other the worst of the war was over and that there were much easier days ahead. We have to guard against anything of that sort, because clearly, very bitter and very hard days lie before the people of this country. Another thing of which we have to take note is how hon. Members opposite are now talking, as was said by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Clement Davies), in a way in which they would never have dared to talk at the time of Dunkirk. Some of them are getting the idea that if only they can hold off change until the war is over, they can re-establish themselves. The Government must also take note of the fact that some of the pro-Fascist elements in the country are becoming more and more active. They are becoming very active and dangerous, and attention should be given to them and everything done to put a stop to their activities. One thing we must get in order
    598
    to put an end to pro-Fascist activities is unity of the people of this country. The Prime Minister, in his speech, made an earnest appeal for the sinking of political differences and for unity among the people of France. There is as great a need for an understanding of that principle here and for sinking political differences and bringing about me utmost possible unity in order to ensure the speediest, and therefore the least costly, victory in this terrible war.
    If we are to get unity we come back again to the question of reconstruction. Time does not divide itself into separate periods. It is not a case of our working together now to finish the war and then, when the war is finished, starting a new period of time—the period of reconstruction. History does not move in that way. We are paying the price to-day for policies that were pursued in the past, and what we do to-day will determine the character of the future. The Lord Privy Seal should turn words into facts and not simply use words as though they were facts. Let us face now the question of the lines that reconstruction must take. There is no possible hope for progress in this country or in Europe unless we defeat Fascism, but equally there is no possibility of defeating Fascism unless we travel along the road of progress while we are carrying on the fight. That is how to bring in all the people of this country and of Europe.
    I suggest it is possible to make a start with reconstruction not only in this country but in the Empire, and to give a demonstration of the new view we are going to take of things by making a new approach to India. It is absolutely deplorable, in a situation such as we are now facing, that we cannot sink political differences in a way that will allow us to make a bigger, wider and finer appeal to the masses of the people in India. We want to win the Indian people as allies in this great struggle, but if we are to do that we shall have to make an approach to the National Congress. It is no use the Prime Minister saying that the National Congress does not represent the majority of the Indian people. No other body in India has the same power and influence, or represents the masses of the Indian people to such a degree, as the National Congress. Why should we hesitate to face the position and once again meet the leaders of Congress and make the biggest

    599
    effort ever made to solve the problem of India and win the masses of the people of India as allies in this terrific struggle?
    There is another question that can be taken up right away; it is a question that we discussed some time ago, but one that continually burns among us—the pay of the soldiers and the treatment of their dependants. Not a day passes when I, and I am certain other hon. Members, do not get letters from the dependants of soldiers or from the soldiers themselves about the treatment they are getting. Why should there be this pinchbeck attitude towards the dependants of soldiers? Why should there be all this costly procedure of examination, quizzing and one thing and another to discover whether a mother is entitled to 1s., 2s. or 3s.? I have received a letter to-day about one case. After great and elaborate examination it was discovered in calculation that the mother of one of our fighting lads, one of the few, one of the lads in the Royal Air Force, is entitled to 1s. a week from the Government. This is a shameful business, and it does not convince the dependants of soldiers or the soldiers themselves, or the people in the country, that there is any real intention to build a new world. I was interested in what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery about how the lads were betrayed after the last war. During the last war glowing promises were made—much finer promises than we are getting now—because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) had a livelier and more vivid imagination than anyone here has at present. We had the most wonderful promises, but they came to nothing but bitterness and despair for masses of people. It is terrible to look back and contemplate the bitter years that people had to live through when so many fell, incapable of living through them. Hundreds of thousands had to die in poverty, misery and despair.
    Therefore a start should be made now, and we should start right away with the soldiers. The question of the women is always coming up. Why should there be any differentiation between women and men, whether it is payment in industry or compensation for injury? In these directions we can make big advances on the road we mean to travel during the war and when the war is over. I have sug-600
    gested before that soldiers should get 5s. a day, their wives £2 a week, with 10s. 6d. for every child up to 14, and 16s. for children between 14 and 16 still going to school, 25s. for mothers with sons or daughters in the Forces, without a means test of any kind. I appeal to the Prime Minister and the Government, whatever they do in connection with the Beveridge Report, to decide now that this abomination, the means test, shall be removed. We heard to-day of someone at Wimbledon getting a pension of £2,400 a year. I will guarantee that he has any amount of money in the bank and that if he has sons or daughters, they are in good positions. There are thousands of men drawing pensions of £500, £1,000, £2,000 who have never been asked a question about their means, but when it comes to ordinary workers it is, "How many shillings have you in the savings bank?" "How many sons and daughters have you working, and what is their income?" It is a scandal. It is something that we should never tolerate—two types of people. We are fighting the Nazis because we do not believe in the theory of two types of people—those who count and those who do not. You cannot make a start on that basis. Having carried out the great initial task of launching this daring and courageous offensive in Africa with such great success, and with the most inspiring effect on the people of this country, I ask the Government to carry the same courage and daring into the building of a second front in Europe, the same courage and daring into the fight against the evils which oppress our people—into the work of reconstruction. Start now, and the masses of the people will be with you.
    Sir Ralph Glyn: I am sure the House has listened to the hon. Member with great interest. I do not know whether he has made a calculation as to what would be involved in the form of pension that he envisages, but I think no one will disagree with him in one respect. We all receive letters showing the distress in many of the homes of the wives and families of Service men, and a better insurance system for the wives is a matter that ought to be taken up at once, because if employers in civil life have to make their contribution, it is equally right that the Government, employing men in the Service, should make theirs, so that their

    601
    families shall be eligible for the same benefit.
    On one matter which I am very anxious to mention there are many who will not agree with me. There is an Amendment that is to be debated in Secret Session in the next series of Sittings. The terms of the Amendment are that there are no proposals for improving the organisation and training of the Army in the British Isles. I feel that the House has a very great responsibility and duty towards the Fighting Services. This business of having Secret Sessions is inclined to make people outside think that there is something radically wrong. That is not fair on the officers who are put in responsible positions, it is not fair on the commanding officers of units, and it is something the House must consider very seriously. I should have thought there had been ample evidence in the last few days of the fighting efficiency and the training of the three divisions which form the backbone of the Eighth Army. If the organisation was faulty and they were badly trained, they would not have been able to inflict that crushing defeat on Field Marshal Rommel and his troops. There is no greater trial than for troops to be kept at home guarding this country while they see others go overseas to fight, and it is essential that we should back up those in command and give them every possible support. To have a Secret Session, when no one knows, and all kinds of rumours may be spread by mischief makers, is not performing the duty that the House should perform to the Army. Whenever we discuss the Army and the War Office it is nearly always on the lines of complaint. This, that and the other are wrong. I think we ought to realise that in the last few months there has been a complete reorganisation of the War Office system and that there has now been instituted a Secretariat of the Army Council, which has led to decentralisation and has been extremely effective.
    There is another matter which is worth mentioning. The House ought to realise that after the discussion we had about improved pay what was actually done was done by the War Office very expeditiously, and there has now been a sufficient period to enable us to see how it is working. We have to admit that it is not working very well. There is what is called in
    602
    the Army a field allowance, which was invented, I think, in the Crimean War, whereby a barrack officer can put a poker, a table, a wash-basin and a bed in any quarter which is considered furnished and the officer who is so supplied no longer draws field allowance. One can imagine that there has been a tremendous rush by the barrack officers to put these utensils into quarters, and the wretched officers find they are worse off than before. That is a small matter, but it causes a sense of great frustration to the individual who has been drawing the allowance. He may not want the poker, table or bed, for he may have his own field equipment, but he suddenly finds himself mulcted of so many shillings a day. These are the sort of things which are more important for this House to consider than to discuss in Secret Session the training and organisation of the Army. We are responsible in this House for expenditure, and in that field we ought to do all we can to see that these mistakes are corrected. Yesterday the hon. Member for. North Cornwall (Mr. Horabin), in an extremely interesting speech, made some statements which, although made in good faith, were not strictly accurate. If he would read the 18th Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure he would find that some of the statements he made were explained.
    There is one other matter in regard to the Service I would like to mention, because in the Gracious Speech it is stated that the main concentration of the Government must be speedy victory, which is what we all want. The Canadian troops in this country have been here a very long time. They are magnificent men, and they have been highly trained under a most able commander. We ought to recognise that they did not join up, in their view, to protect this country and do nothing else. They have, however, done it most excellently, and now they have seen American troops, well organised, coming here long after they came and going out long before them to come in contact with the enemy. For British troops it is hard enough to remain in this country and to keep their patience, keenness and energy. It is far harder for Canadians who have been divided from their homes all these years and are having to stay in this country because it is considered the right policy. The House

    603
    ought to recognise very fully the magnificent service rendered by the Canadians and the way in which their commanders have kept them exercised and trained. Everyone of us, not only in the House but in the constituencies, ought to go out of our way to make this Christmas and the days to come as happy as they possibly can for these men.
    There is another matter of a kindred kind with regard to the Allied troops in this country, notably the Poles and the Czechs. These are magnificent men. They are now wearing British uniforms, but they keep intact their enthusiasm, language and customs. Some of us were privileged to visit a camp of the Poles in Scotland. There they have brought into the firwoods much of what they were accustomed to in Poland. Incidentally, they make far more use of British rations than even the best A.T.S. cooks can do, and they say that they have never had such food all the time they have served. In a little wood they made a sort of gateway which led to an alley in the woods, and as you looked along it you saw an altar with a Cross and lights. Great reverence is shown by the men. That is the spirit that we have to catch. These men do believe in a crusade. They believe in their faith, they know what they are fighting for, and they patiently wait for the time when they, too, can go overseas. It should be remembered that the Poles have made their contribution not only in the Army, but in the air and at sea. The magnificent record of the Polish ships is something which I hope will be circulated in some form of book at the earliest opportunity.
    I want to ask the House to be good enough to consider one other matter, and that is education. In the Army there has been a most interesting scheme initiated, called A.B.C.A. It is a great experiment, about which there was considerable doubt when it was first initiated. With its booklets, however, it has had an amazing effect in keeping the men interested in and understanding all that is going on and what it is really all about. One of the things that strikes everybody who studies this movement is the pathetic fact that not until men get into the Army and have these problems put before them do they know much or anything about them. I have asked men what makes them interested in these subjects and
    604
    whether they have studied them before, and they tell me that they had never thought about them before they joined the Army. Cannot we learn something from that and make our schools more interesting and places where men and women can learn of those facts and problems which only when they go to the Army are put before them for the first time. I am all for going forward. I recognise that the old world that I knew has gone. The good old days were good for a few people and we have to make the days of the future happier for more people. We shall not do that, however, by disturbing or destroying faith or belief in certain things. I want to see thrift encouraged. I want to support the Beveridge Report all I can—
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the hon. Member aware of the fact that it is the thrifty people who are penalised by the means test?
    Sir R. Glyn: They have been penalised, if you like to put it like that. The point is that in any new order we want to encourage those who are thrifty. We want to encourage enterprise and the desire to get on. The Minister of Health will play a large part, in reconstruction. One thing about which I feel strongly was mentioned by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher) just now. Rural housing is a disgrace to the country. Rain is pouring into the roofs of cottages through no fault of the owners because the men who could repair them have been taken by the Ministry of Labour. Owners cannot get the material or the men to do the repairs, and unless steps are taken urgently the cottages will get beyond repair and the situation will be desperate. The more isolated the farm, the more important it is that the houses on that farm should be good. The Minister, I know, has that matter very much in mind. If men are near a village, they will have other amenities, but it is essential that in isolated districts everything should be done to make their lot comfortable, because otherwise it is obvious that we cannot hope to go forward.
    In the Gracious Speech there is something about education. There are many plans and many theories, but I hope that hon. Members will believe that many of us who do not belong to the Roman Catholic Church do belong to another Church in which we believe as strongly

    605
    as the Roman Catholics believe in theirs; and I hope it will be recognised by everybody that religion must be part and parcel of the school teaching of this Christian land, if it is to be a Christian land, though there are too many people who are indifferent to its being Christian and are quite prepared to see it pagan. If we are fighting for conscience sake and the freedom of conscience, I suppose one of the most precious things we are fighting for is that a parent shall have the right to see that his child is taught the faith in which he himself believes. After a time the child must make up its own mind, but in the initial stages it is the absolute right of the parent, to my mind, to have his child taught the faith in which the parent believes. There is a terrible lack of discipline among children. I do not think it is their fault; it is largely the fault of the system. We must remember that those schools where religion is taught very often have teachers who are much travelled persons, with a knowledge of the world, and can benefit the children by their instruction, but if we always recruit from pupil teachers who have never travelled and have no great experience we shall not provide the children with the equipment they need to face the world under modern conditions. I believe that just as Polish soldiers set up their altars and are not ashamed of doing so, we must set up our altars in all the legislation we prepare, and realise that the one thing that matters is faith and belief, no matter how stupid it may sound to some people. Let the Church concentrate upon giving to all of us that support and help that will make this a Christian land, because without that we shall not leave the world in the way we should after the war.
    Mr. Austin Hopkinson: I think I ought to take up the challenge which was thrown down by an hon. Member earlier in the Debate to-day. He was putting forward his view of a wonderful new world in which there is to be complete freedom from unemployment and complete security from want, and said that no Member would deny that those were ideals which must be put into practice immediately the war is over. I ventured to raise my voice in disagreement, and my reason is that anyone who has thought out these matters, as I have for many years, must know that if we were
    606
    to guarantee everyone freedom from unemployment and freedom from want it could only be in a state of abject slavery. It is utterly impossible to guarantee people against unemployment unless the State can say at what occupation a man must work, where he shall work, for what remuneration he shall work, and with what intensity. In no other circumstances, as it has been found out in Germany and in Russia, is it possible to bring about a security attainable only in a state of complete slavery in which every activity of a man's life is subject to overriding dictatorship. Therefore I say that I felt justified in raising an objection to what was said by that hon. Member.
    But I have risen to-day to ask the House to remember the Debate on the Address a year ago, when, greatly daring, I ventured to try to bring the House for a few minutes to a consideration of what I regard as the major issues in this war. The House then, as always during the last 23 years, treated me with such patience and forbearance that I am tempted to enlarge a little upon the theme which I took upon that occasion. I am encouraged to do so for two reasons: the first is a letter which I received from a young officer in the East during the last few days, and the second some remarks which were made by Field-Marshal Smuts on that historic occasion when he addressed both Houses of Parliament. In the letter to which I have referred, one of a series which I have received from that young officer, there occurs this sentence:
    "We still feel out here that the ultimate battle is being won or lost in England."
    I hope the House will appreciate what underlies that statement. I have taken it out of its context, which perhaps makes the sentence less understandable than it might appear to those who have seen the whole letter. It bears out what I have heard from young officers in all three Services during the present war—that there is a sort of feeling that the real battle is the one being fought at home rather than the hostilities in which they themselves take part. The battle being fought at home is the battle for an England worthy of those who are serving abroad at the present time, but there are features in the present situation which undoubtedly raise the gravest disquiet in the minds of young men of all ranks in our fighting Services.

    607
    Take one example. From the purely economic point of view, what is being prepared for them after the war? I venture to say that one of the things which arouses more disquiet in their minds than anything is that there is a strong movement in this country towards having the life of every man and woman planned out by some superior authority, and there is no doubt they regard that with the utmost distaste. Again, there is a section of the community which we call "big business." Big business has nothing to do with legitimate commerce and industry, nothing whatever; it is a purely parasitic growth, living upon the lifeblood of industry and of the workers. It is obvious that big business, in collusion with the labour boss of the syndicalist type, is preparing a brave new world for these young men when they come home. Many hon. Members will have seen a manifesto by big business recently. What did it mean? It meant that great monopolistic bodies will be set up in each industry, vested with statutory powers whereby they may crush every form of independent industry by making one great monopoly. By collusion with the labour boss they would always have a majority on the council for each industry and, by their statutory powers they could enforce their will upon everybody else. If I may misquote a familiar Latin quotation: "Solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant." That means, that these people would make a monopoly and call it peace.
    That is not the first time we have had to fight against this sort of thing. Many hon. Members will remember the "peace in industry" stunt of the late Lord Melchett some years ago, which was exactly the same thing as is being prepared in this country to-day. The idea was to set up large councils for each industry on which the-big monopolistic firms would always have a majority and, if they could work with the labour boss, as they intended to, would be able to crash out any chance for any of these young men who are now fighting for us abroad to make their own way in life and to contribute in due course their enterprise, energy and brains to the production of the common wealth of the nation. When I started in business 40 years ago it was comparatively easy for a young man who had guts and enterprise to set up for himself, even without money, as I set up for
    608
    myself, and make a success of an industrial concern. To do that is now becoming more and more difficult. If we allow big business and the labour boss between them to close up all the openings for enterprise and brains and energy, we shall betray all these young men in the lowest possible fashion.
    Again, there is no doubt that among those in the Fighting Services there is a feeling that they are being let down in other directions. They are told again and again by Government spokesmen that the war is a crusade. They ask, "A crusade for what?" They are answered that it is for the Christian faith. Unhappily they then ask, "What is the Christian faith?" They want to know to whom they go for guidance on these matters. They ask, "Are we to believe those who preach to us that a high standard of living is an essential preliminary to spiritual progress? Is that the Christian faith?" They do not believe it. To some extent they have read the books which laid down in the earliest days what was the Christian faith, but they cannot see anything there which says that nobody can be good unless possessing an excellent house with three bedrooms, a bathroom, and a little garden in front and behind. There is very grave misgiving among the young people of today as to whether what is officially told them as being the Christian faith has anything at all to do with that faith.
    I am not exaggerating. I have in my pocket a report of what was said by one of the foremost ecclesiastics in this country only last week-end. He is reported to have said:
    "We shall insist that the child is born into a house that is suitable to be the home of a family."
    An Hon. Member: Christ was born in a stable.
    Mr. Hopkinson: Nothing is said about the parents or about anything except the material environment, which is all that is regarded as necessary to make a home. That house may be a magnificent modern house, but it is not a home unless the parents are such that they are capable of making it a home. That child has no more chance in life, and particularly of moral and spiritual progress, in that magnificent house than he would have with other parents in the most miserable hovel

    609
    in the land. I maintain—and I am backed by the vast number of young people that I come across—that that is hot the Christian faith, and it is wrong that those in authority in the Church should put such a form of so-called idealism before the young people.
    Nay, more. What do these ecclesiastics tell us about our duty to our neighbours? They would say that it a man going down the road to Jericho found lying by the wayside some poor fellow who had fallen among thieves, perish the thought that he should put him on his own donkey, and pay the bill out of his own purse at the inn, because that is the old-fashioned idea of private charity. They say, "That is anathema to us progressives of the present day. What he ought to have done was to collect a crowd big enough to form a majority so great as to be able to pursue the priest and the Levite and make them put the man on their donkey and compel them to pay the bill with their two pennies." Mark you, that is the Christian faith which is put before our young people to-day from some of the highest ecclesiastics in the land. The young people will not have it and do not believe it, and they do not want to believe it, because in their hearts they know that the Christian faith is something very different from that.
    In other respects we must do our best for those who are away and who, we hope against hope, will return. In our political life I have always been a revolutionary, and I hope I shall continue to be one to the end of my days. Where I differ from my colleagues above the Gangway is in my interpretation of what a revolution should be. As far as I can gather from them, their idea of a revolution is simply exchanging one tyrant for another, exchanging the tyranny of wealth which exists at the present moment for that of the frozen hell of Socialism. They do not realise that the reason why the rich now have such preponderating power in this country, and practically throughout the world, is the love of money on the part of the poor. As long as the poor love money and worship money and believe that it is the summum bonum of life, so long will the rich man dominate the poor as he does to-day. The young people are beginning to realise it. They realise that revolution does not mean change of tyrants but means a change in our way
    610
    of looking at the problems of the day. It means looking at things from a very different aspect from that from which we look at them at present.
    These young people feel that they are being let down in politics as well, and they are realising what perhaps the wisest man in the world—needless to say I mean Plato—told us many centuries ago—realising that the whole secret of politics boils down to one thing. In his "Republic" Plato sets forth a most elaborate system for the political constitution of a city, worked out skilfully in every detail. And, having done so, he contemplates his work, and almost in despair he says that the conclusion of the whole matter is this, that:

    Or, if I may be allowed to translate, the whole passage:
    "Until philosophers are kings, or the princes and rulers of this world have the spirit of philosophy, so that political power and wisdom meet in one; and until those commoner natures, who follow the former to the exclusion of the latter, are compelled to stand aside; till then, cities will never cease from evil; No, nor the human race as I believe. And never will this, our City of God, behold the light of the sun."
    That is the whole secret of politics. No matter how ingenuous or wise your wisdom, everything depends upon those who are placed in authority and upon the way in which they regard their duties and responsibilities to their fellow citizens.
    Mr. Sloan: What is the good of anything?
    Mr. Hopkinson: I am not such a pessimist as the hon. Gentleman. I have never believed it impossible for men and women to improve. I know that Socialism is the acme of pessimism, because it is the creed of those who believe that material prosperity is the whole of life and that money and nothing else in life is worth while. I have tried to express what I think of the views of the young generation that is growing up, and to them I would say this, if my words go beyond this House, that they must realise that men and women of my age may pride themselves on a little more understanding than our progenitors had of the feelings and aspirations of the young. Young people of the present day believe that the characters in Galsworthy's books are mere caricatures. They say

    611
    that people could not have been like that. I am old enough, as you are also, Sir, to remember when people were actually like those people in Galsworthy, when, as soon as a man reached the age of 50, he immediately acquired all wisdom on every possible subject, and his duty in life was to point out to the unregenerate young man how very superior his senior was and how necessary it was that the young man should follow closely in his footsteps. I say to the young people of to-day that we have got over that, and that men of my age and generation are very much more humble than our predecessors were.
    After all, age after age the rising generation has found built for it very much what the previous generation thought was the best thing for it, without any consultation with the unfortunate generation which was to inhabit the building they erected. The result has been that each generation in its turn has had to spend its whole time in pulling down the Bastille erected for it by its progenitors, and has never had time to build anything substantial for itself. I hope the young people will understand that people of my age do realise that now and all we want to do is this: If you young people will give us some sort of idea as to what sort of building you want to erect, we will clear the site and possibly, if we are spared long enough, we will lay some of the foundations for you, and then you can devote yourselves to building up a world such as you want, which may be completely different from what we think may be good for you. After all, after 60, a man's thoughts begin to turn only to the future—or should so turn. To recall the past is but to revive the memories of his own faults and follies and failures; to look at the present is merely to contemplate their results; but to see young people happy, with the prospect of further happiness, is to realise the past which might have been, and the future which is to be. And that, I say, to men of my generation is the most important thing, and it is well that young people should realise that those are our feelings.
    I wish to dissociate myself and those of my generation from what are called Youth movements with a capital." Y." There is nothing on earth that irritates the young more than Youth with a capital "Y." For there is a tendency for these movements to fall into the hands and under the direc-
    612
    tion of old women, mostly of the male sex. Therefore, on behalf of my generation, as far as I can carry them with me, and in face of the demands from the youth of to-day, I repudiate Youth movements, lock, stock, and barrel. They need not be considered to be more than a temporary pimple on the body politic.
    I wish to refer to a passage from the speech of Field Marshal Smuts, on the occasion of which I have reminded the House. He, with a modesty to which, unhappily, I myself cannot lay claim, did little more than hint at what he meant. Hon. Members perhaps will remember the passage in which he drew attention to what is really the aim of this War. He referred to the idea of the Superman, and more particularly the German idea of the Superman. That so definitely links up with what I ventured to say to the House a year ago that I think I may be pardoned if I recall it for the benefit of Members. I take it that the House agrees with me that the essential feature of this war is that it is a biological struggle, which is going to decide the future development of the whole of the human race for thousands of years to come. It may well decide whether the present human race is to be the progenitor of what is to come afterwards, or whether it is to die out and some other branch of the animal kingdom go forward in its place. [Laughter.] Hon. Members should not laugh. This is very serious. It has some meaning, if hon. Members will only think a bit. As Field Marshal Smuts pointed out, there is before the world today an idea of the Superman, the German idea, but what he did not say, although I believe he had it in mind, is that there is a completely different idea of the Superman, which has been before the eyes of the world for at least 2,000 years. The struggle is between the two ideas of the Superman, the German idea and what we believe to be our own idea.
    Hitherto, the whole of animal and human development has been instigated and driven forward by one urge only, the urge for material security, which has developed the human race from its non-human ancestors through untold ages. In all progress that has been made, both physical and intellectual, the spur has been all the time the desire for material security. Man has now reached the point when, if that same motive continues to prevail, degeneration must inevitably be the fate of the whole race.

    613
    It is obvious, as the experience of Europe has shown, that the most complete material security can be obtained only by the sacrifice of everything that makes men different from the animal race. Material security, as Russia, Germany and Italy have proved, means the complete destruction of liberty and of the individual mind, the deliberate making of a mass mind, eliminating the individual, and to that extent degrading men to the position from which they have gradually been emerging for ages and ages. The ideal of Nazism and Communism, as it is practised to-day, is the ideal of the beehive, where every individual has a certain material function in the community, and must carry out that function, and then the dictators can guarantee him a standard of material security. To what end? To the end of eternal death. The Superman of our enemies to-day is the man who in other countries has made himself the leader, who has had yielded to him the whole of the liberties and the possibilities of progress of the people, and who in return has guaranteed them this material security. That Superman is the quintessence of self-assertion in material things. He crushes the weak, he boasts, he bullies and marches triumphant to nowhere but to eternal death.
    There is another form of Superman, and it is that ideal which I think lies in the mind of all that which is best in our nation at the present day. His ideal is undoubtedly that message of our race, and there are few people who can bring themselves, as I am doing to-day, to speak of things of such immense depth and intimate interest to everyone of us. It is only a crisis like this that can induce one of us to break through that reticence which nature and training and custom have hallowed, and, dragging his very soul from its solitude, expose it, it may be, to sneers. That is my excuse for saying this: that the Superman whom this nation may ultimately produce and who will justify our nation for ever is the exact opposite of the Superman of the Germans of the present day. The Superman which we wish the human race to develop in the time to come is he who is "despised and rejected," who goes forward ultimately to crucifixion and becomes that Son of Man, who is the end to which the whole creation moves.
    Mr. Hannah: Everybody is propounding some scheme for spending our post-war income, but to me a much more important point appears to be that there should be a post-war income. No reconstruction could ever alter the fact that this nation must remain dependent upon foreign trade for its prosperity, indeed, for its very existence. We must manage somehow or other to get markets in order to take the place of those that have been destroyed by the war. I do not doubt that there will be a boom just after the war is finished. Trade will probably be good, perhaps for a fairly considerable time, but after that we cannot look without profound anxiety upon what is then in store for the world. If I may say it without presumption, I feel a very real pride in a fellow Wykehamist, the Lord Privy Seal, saying that we should all work together, with party more or less submerged, for the general good. It is far pleasanter, in the first place, to co-operate with those who have been elected under another label than to fight with them. I find a great deal with which to agree in the speech recently made by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), with whom I once had the privilege of speaking on the same platform in the Potteries. I do not see any very great difficulty about the parties working together. Is not the greatest tradition of this House after all that the Left shall plan and the Right shall carry out the plan? It may be perhaps that the Left are better thinkers and the Right more practical men of affairs, but however that may be, we must realise in all seriousness that the problems that lie ahead are far too big for any section of the State, for any single party or any single thinker. We have to face a very great world problem, the greatest that has ever confronted mankind.
    "We are the first that ever burst Into an unknown sea."
    I was once in the United States at a conference at one of the Western universities, where there was given one of the best addresses I had ever heard on this subject, by a person who began by telling us that a professor of economics was expected to say what everybody knows in language that nobody could understand. Undoubtedly, there is something in that. After all, economics is a rather vague sort of thing. Nobody knows exactly what it is.
    Mr. MacLaren: Yes, they do.
    Mr. Hannah: Well, those who think they do are, perhaps, rather to be envied. If we survey the world at the present time, we cannot help being impressed by the fact that those who were our principal customers in the days before the war are getting more and more industrialised. We do not complain; it is a good thing that Canada, South Africa, Australia, our Dominions, and many other lands are learning to do for themselves what formerly we did for them. But I think I may be excused for feeling the gravest responsibility in my mind, representing, as I do, an area that has always been dependent to a large extent on foreign markets. The greatest thing we must do after the war is to keep our vast industries busy. Everything depends upon that. Different constituencies have very different problems. We have heard a good deal about the housing difficulty, and it demands sympathy. At the same time—and I say it with great pride—that problem is not far away from being solved in the area which I represent. If this war had not taken place, Bilston would by this time have practically finished the great work of clearing out the slums and rehousing the population. We are not satisfied, but we are very proud of the lead the Black Country has given to Britain in that particular respect.
    But far more important is that somehow or other we must arrange for the future trade of the world. Sometimes I see England in danger of suffering something like the fate of Austria—a land far too small to keep its vast industries busy or to support its enormous cities. We have an opportunity of doing one of the greatest tasks of all time, and I ask the Government to make a serious attempt, in co-operation with the United States of America, Russia and our other Allies and other nations, too, to try to organise the whole trade of the earth. First, let private enterprise have its fullest scope. Let all the trade that can possibly be arranged in the old way be carried on. But there will be a large remnant. Raw materials must be shared equally and fairly among all nations of the world; every country must be given the opportunity of living in a satisfactory way. I cannot help thinking that we might be able, using the British and American foreign consular services, or some newly formed organisa-
    616
    tions, to make a complete survey of the world, to try to get an idea of what is wanted in every country, of what every country can produce, and somehow or other to bring them together in a manner that would cure unemployment and give to the whole world at any rate the outlines of a really satisfactory means of livelihood. We all realise that it is extremely difficult. The future, if exceedingly dark, at any rate does give us enormous opportunities. The world is plastic to-day as perhaps it has never been before, and it is probably true that what we do after this war will dominate the life of mankind for a very considerable time to come. I would hardly talk about thousands of years. After all, history cannot be planned. Nobody can really know exactly how long the edifice he is building will be allowed to stand. But I do feel that world trade must be planned. Before we arrange to improve our social services—and nobody is more enthusiastic about that than I am—we must make sure that they can be paid for. We must have the income with which we are to carry out these most necessary works.
    Mr. Montague: Who are "we"?
    Mr. Hannah: We are the English nation. We are the people of the world. We, particularly, are Members of the House of Commons, of all parties. I hope we shall never again emphasise our differences. I hope we shall set an example to the entire world by getting rid of merely making debating points against each other. I hope we shall be able to co-operate to take advantage of this enormous opportunity so to regulate the trade of the world that the future may give to every nation reasonable opportunities of showing what it can best contribute to the world. I do hope the Government are trying in every possible way to provide for the future trade of the world.
    Mr. Richards: I am sure the House was profoundly impressed-by the speech of the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson), because of its wonderful combination of an intimate knowledge of economic life, looked at from the point of view of a great employer who has had to struggle along in a world that is not always kind to the individual employer, and a most interesting disquisition as to the objectives

    617
    which the House and the country ought to have in mind when taming their attention to the very important question of reconstruction. I feel, as I believe the whole House feels, that the great success that was achieved in Africa a few days ago has turned the attention of the country, quite naturally, to the problems that will follow immediately the war is won. A great deal of the Debate has centred on some of those problems. There is, however, one matter in connection with the battle in North Africa and its significance that I would like to emphasise. As is well known, our transport has had to go right round the Cape, and there was great difficulty in securing sufficient transport for an operation involving so many thousands of miles.
    Even before the war there were, I believe, two schools of strategists in this country. One school pointed out that it would be impossible to hold the Mediterranean if we had not control of both sides. That school advocated even the abandonment of Malta. I am sure we are very proud that it did not get its way, for some reason or other. Malta has been one of the determining factors in the struggle for the conquest of North Africa, and we are particularly proud of the great contribution that it has made. But an inland sea affords splendid opportunities for the operations of submarines, and I was interested to note, in a report on the havoc wrought by submarines during the last war, that the Mediterranean was, from a naval point of view, our blackest distressed area in the great war, when Italy was not opposed to us but was our Ally. To the very end we never succeeded in scotching the U-boat menace, and our shipping losses there through submarine attacks were proportionately far heavier than in any other war zone. Out of a total of nearly 13,000,000 tons of British, Allied and neutral merchant shipping destroyed by the enemy throughout the war, 5,000,000 tons were destroyed in the Mediterranean. Consequently, it is a victory not merely from the point of view of getting North Africa under our control, as we hope may be the case very shortly, but it undoubtedly means a considerable check on the activities of the submarine in that sea.
    We are particularly glad that the Government have indicated that they are going to do something about education.
    618
    This is one of the thorniest questions that any Government can tackle, and I am sure we wish them well. Some speeches that we have heard to-day have laid emphasis upon the importance of the training of character. I do not know that we all agree about its being an essentially Christian character. I take it that there are differences of opinion. I regard the Christian character as the finest the world has ever known, but I recognise that there are fellow Members who take rather a different view. I think, however, that we should all be agreed that character is the fundamentally important thing as far as the future of the country is concerned, and I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Mossley that the future of the country does not depend upon the amount of wealth that it produces but upon the character of the men and women it is going to produce in the future. The foundation of the character of men and women is increasingly being laid in our schools. The great increase that has taken place in nursery schools and the increase that will take place in future means that the child for a greater number of years of its life is taken away from the influences of home. Consequently the influence of the school becomes a dominant factor. We are glad to learn that the Board of Education is negotiating with the parties to this difficult question, and we sincerely hope that some agreement will be come to.
    I would like to suggest to the President that he should not expect complete agreement. We ought to work in this matter, as we already work on some other matters in this country, on a percentage basis. If the President achieves a large measure of agreement I suggest that he should go on and consider the question of putting our educational system for the first time on a national basis. It is scandalous that at this time of day we should be purchasing education, so to speak, from various associations or bodies that are not primarily concerned with the question of education at all. The provision of schools, for example, is the concern of some ecclesiastical body or other. That is not the position in which we ought to be at the present time. I do not want to exaggerate or to say anything about the character of these schools. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) knows the quality of some of them in the rural

    619
    areas. If we can get away from that condition of things it will be a considerable achievement.
    The other question to which I understand some attention is to be paid is that of the land and its future use. This is a particularly thorny question, and I am afraid that it will lead us into considerable controversy, because both in the case of education very unfortunately and in the case of land there are deep vested interests. There is no doubt, for example, about the survival of a kind of feudalism in the more rural parts of the country. We ought to face up to it and make up our minds that once again the land should belong to the people. We have all been tremendously impressed by the struggle which has been put up by the Russian peasants. The explanation is that they are fighting for their own land. How many of our men can come back and say, "I have fought for this bit of land which is mine"? There cannot be that consciousness in our country when we find the landowner dominating large areas of the rural parts and making even the improvement and extension of cities and towns an impossibility. I hope that the Government, when they consider this question, will be bold in their outlook because, as the Lord Privy Seal suggested yesterday, there is a considerable body of opinion in the country in favour, not of the joint march that he spoke of, but of a determined step forward being taken here and now for the participation of all in the peace to which we are looking forward. It is important that the Government should deal with these questions immediately because there are other questions on the horizon which will dominate for a long time the thoughts and discussion of this House.
    There is the difficult question of Europe. We shall have to do something to rehabilitate Europe, physically, morally and politically. Europe is the seething pot which periodically boils over into war, and it will be the duty, and the privilege too, of this generation to try to get over that difficulty. It is tragic to think that in a Continent with common traditions, in a Continent that has inherited from the same sources the Christian religion and the tradition of Greek philosophy—which the hon. Member for Mossley combined so beautifully in his speech—it is tragic that we who have been nourished in these rich
    620
    traditions of the spirit should find ourselves at war with one another every 30 or 40 years. It will be the responsibility of the Government to try to get over that difficulty, and we shall have to see that Europe is put on its feet.
    There will be an even greater problem, and one more intimately connected with us, and that is the problem of the Empire. Let us never forget that the wars in Europe in the last 300 years had their origins in the scramble for empire If we glance at the history of Europe since the time of the Reformation, we shall find that almost every war has been determined by the desire of some nation or other to secure for itself an adequate empire. It is the claim that Germany is making at the moment. Starting with Spain when she conquered America we come to the time when we found ourselves at war with Holland, and in another generation or two we were at war with France, and latterly we have been at war with Germany. We shall have to face the question of Empire in a way in which we have never faced it before. It has been remarked that our Empire was founded in a fit of absence of mind by the people of this country. We shall have to get rid of absent-mindedness, we shall have to think about the Empire and we shall have to justify its existence, particularly to our Allies.
    It is obvious that the Empire has grown to such an extent that we ourselves are not able to defend it in the modern world. Were it not for America, were it not for Russia, it is obvious that the Empire might have been completely lost to us. We have lost very considerable areas of it. We hope they may be returned to us, but I think we shall have to stand at the bar of humanity to justify our claims to those territories that are to be restored to us, as also to the territories that we have managed to preserve. I do not think there is anything to be ashamed of in this, because if I understand the principles upon which we have been working recently in the history of our Empire, there is every encouragement for us. After all, behind the Empire there is a great and a noble tradition. I am not an Imperialist in the narrow sense of the term, and I am entirely against an Empire which is used for the exploitation of subject or other races, but when we find an Empire which gives an equal opportunity

    621
    to other nations, as the British Empire does, and when in addition we lay down that our ultimate object is to train the people of those countries to the practice of self-government, I feel that we have a great deal to say on behalf of the principles that have underlined the administration of the Empire during the last 50 or 60 years. I am certain that that will be one of the questions which will be discussed again and again, and we shall occasionally hear an echo of it in this House when peace returns.
    The Debate followed the even tenour of its way until we came to the speech of the Lord Privy Seal, which has caused concern to some of us. I realise the difficulties with which he is faced, but I really did feel that there was an echo of the Coalition argument and of the coupon election about it. We ought to avoid that at all costs. That kind of argument which was used in 1918 at the end of the last war was one of the greatest disasters that this country ever experienced. It led to the political eclipse of possibly the greatest political genius of our generation. That was a tragedy in itself. In addition to being a great political genius and a wizard, as people used to speak of him, he was one of the greatest social reformers we have ever had. The Lord Privy Seal is much more inspiring and invigorating when he is accompanying the Primate than when he is substituting for the Prime Minister. I seemed to hear in his speech the appeal, which I well remember hearing, made by Mr. Ramsay Mac-Donald to have what he called a State Council. Mr. MacDonald had it, and he became Prime Minister of that State Council. Although he talked about going up and up and up, he was going down and down and down, and he soon found himself in the limbo of political extinction. I do not think much consolation is to be found that way.
    Our salvation, as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery so eloquently put it, must lie in men of deep conviction forging their way and demanding reforms that this country, after this tremendous struggle, is entitled to have. I pin my faith in the men of real valour who really care for things. A great many men on both sides of this House are determined that they will carry their views forward, however strong the opposition may be.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): I have for many years held the conviction that if order is heaven's first law, variety is its second. That conviction has been confirmed to-day by the course of the Debate. I am sure that I shall have the sympathy and indulgence of the House. No Minister could deal with all the points; indeed, it would take almost the whole War Cabinet and all other Ministers normally of Cabinet rank to reply to the various points that have been raised. I shall say something about my own problems. Fortunately, issues have been raised, one particularly, that I think the House may be interested to hear about from the Minister who is here, namely, housing. It was raised by five or six Members, but I must say a word or two about the general Debate first. While I undoubtedly would have hon. Members' sympathy if, in half-an-hour, I attempted to reply to all the varied points that have been raised, I ought to be congratulated upon having done duty for the Government on the bench for nearly the whole of one of the most interesting and helpful Debates I have ever listened to in the whole of my Parliamentary life.
    As a matter of fact, the Debate was marked not merely by several speeches of outstanding ability, but by one memorable speech. One may agree with or differ from the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson), but Members who did not hear his speech are to be commiserated with. I personally do not think there is quite that clear dichotomy between those who want collectively to organise and those who want what is vital in individual enterprise. Nevertheless, when there are those who talk wholly in collective terms, it is well to have an astringent and, to-day, a lovely voice raised so that we may be called back to the fact that the Gospel has an element of the full belly in it but the whole Gospel is not the Gospel of the full belly. That does not lead me to agree that every Christian man ought not to work for conditions in which men and women should be able to live their lives as we ourselves would ideally like to live our own lives.
    Since I, like the hon. Member, am 61 past, as they say in Scotland, perhaps I may be allowed for a moment to look forward to the future as well as to look back to the past. A good many speeches have been concerned with a Debate that will

    623
    take place on two days, and therefore the House will not expect me to make any pronouncement about the problems involved in what we term comprehensively reconstruction. It is an interesting term, for we used to begin with reformation. Then we went on to talk about revolution, and it is interesting that I have only heard the word "revolution" mentioned once in this Debate, and this was not in a material but in a spiritual sense.
    Mr. Granville: Twice.
    Mr. Brown: Not only once but twice; I beg pardon of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). He did raise it, in the other connotation. If I may be allowed to put this in my own way, I would say that it would be a false view of the effort to win the war that did not realise that unless at the same time we are bending our efforts to win the peace, we shall not truly win the war. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), in his vigorous and interesting speech, talked about North Africa, encouragingly from our point of view, and raised the question of ringing the bells, and hon. Members have spoken about the difference between Left and Right. I would put it this way. I think it will not be difficult to get agreement about Left and Right, though, myself, I am always rather dubious about abstractions and metaphors. They are tricky things. For instance, it may be said by an old military man in the ranks that if the left and right are in alignment and the pace of the left is greater than that of the right, the result will be a right wheel. That is where metaphors in the end, if taken to their logical and literal conclusion, will always lead one.
    Therefore, I am quite sure that the Lord Privy Seal wished to have his metaphors regarded, indeed as he expressed them, not as suspected by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Richards) and one or two other Members, as referring to reconstruction at all. What he was referring to was the period now, when we are mostly agreed in this House, with the exception of a small handful of people, that it is vitally necessary for the winning of the war that we should have the maximum amount of unity among all parties in the House. Therefore, I do not think there is any contradiction in any Member of the Government expressing his faith outside in any company he wishes according to his
    624
    deepest convictions, and he ought not to be expected to express himself, when he is carrying responsibilities of an important nature, in precisely the same terms as he does when he is freer to talk in other circumstances about the ideas that every man is entitled to cherish in his heart and mind. Indeed, it may be possible that the ideals cherished and beautifully expressed outside this House might not come to pass if the dry-as-dust and heavy and difficult work in this House were not done by loyal and courageous gentlemen who work one with another, although they do not always in every detail agree with one another. I hope the House will not be misled by this element in the Debate. I said, long before the Labour party came into the Government, quite early in the war, that we could not win this war unless all parties were sharing responsibility. I think we must all bear that in mind in the days ahead.
    That does not mean that, except when we are making Government pronouncements, we need always express ourselves formally, with precisely the same phraseology; and when we are doing our duty in this House, we need not use the microscope and suspect that things that happened 25 years ago are brewing again to-day. It is not enough to have the bells ring on one Sunday in one country; what we have to do all of us is so to work, so to think, so to plan, so to sacrifice, and so to act that we shall help the bells to ring in every country in Europe, and in the world. While we are able to talk in this delightful fashion, everyone expressing his own opinion, both on the Government benches and opposite, the United Nations are speaking to two groups, one consisting of men who are free to speak their minds, without undue regard to the views of others, while the other is under the heel of the oppressor; so that when we pray, as we do every day, for all prisoners and captives, we utter that prayer with deeper poignancy than ever we have done before. We ought not to let hasty thoughts and suspicions break the unity which, in my judgment, and, I think, in the judgment of this House, is vital to the carrying out of that desire to make the bells ring everywhere.
    Let me turn to some of the speeches which have been made. The hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. H. Beaumont) raised the pensions issue. I

    625
    do not propose to go any further into that except to say that I will bring to the notice of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions the particular point about sons and daughters who do not contribute to their parents, and so I will any detailed points affecting any of my other colleagues in the Government.
    It was interesting to notice that four successive times in this Debate the House said what the country wished it to say, a sincere word of thanks and appreciation for the services of the fighting men and the men of the Merchant Service; for it is not merely machines which do the job: it is men. That wants saying now. Therefore, I was glad to hear my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chippenham (Colonel Cazalet) say a special word for the Army, for those of us who used to belong to what we called, in our old barrack-room way, the "P.B.I." had a warming of the blood at the thought of the Army coming once more into its own.
    You cannot win this war without a great cost in life and treasure. I do not think it is true, as has been suggested, that the country is not aware of this. You may meet individuals who say that they think the war is going to be quickly won, but I do not think that is the general opinion. You cannot have a country mobilised to the extent that ours is, with millions of men and women in the Fighting Services, spread out over the seven seas and taking their parts in five continents, and have any casual or light thinking about the cost of this war before it is done. It is so easy to talk. I remember being down in West Wales some months ago, when things were very quiet, and a man said to me, "They do not know there is a war oh down here." I had, as it happened, just been talking to a farmer who had had four children. One was in the Air Force, one had been killed in the Navy, the third was in the Army, and the fourth, a girl, was left at home. Because it was quiet there in the country, because things looked peaceful and prosperous, because it was well out of the way of air attack, a casual observer might think that they did not know that there was a war on. But such a suggestion does harm. Our people measured their task. They went into the war, and they know that before we bring
    626
    this modern tyrant down there will be a terrific cost in blood and treasure to pay.
    It is our duty to do one thing more, not merely to think in terms of the future, not merely to say what we think ought to be elements in our system and not merely to do as we have done to-day. In a number of very interesting speeches we have heard of world forces, world economics, world finance, world trade, world exchange and the relation to industry of modern and new machinery. It is not enough to do that. It is our duty also to point out that it will cost as much in brain power and in effort to win the peace in terms of reconstruction as it is costing in effort now, though happily it will not then cost blood and life. In my judgment, and I am sure in the judgment of the House as a whole, we ought to learn the lesson of the last war referred to by the hon. Member for Wrexham, and not to consider this war well won unless the peace is well won too.
    I must come to my own tasks. Several Members have raised problems which I ought not to evade. Housing, in my judgment, will not merely be one of the great post-war tasks, but it is a task which is of immense importance now. I am grateful to hon. Members like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Lieutenant Butcher), who referred to the question of rural housing, and I welcome this opportunity of saying a word or two on how my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I view it. The matter was also raised by the hon. Member for Cath-cart (Mr. Beattie) in an admirable maiden speech, by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery, who never fails to raise housing, as indeed he is bound to do when he considers the problem that I was surveying in Wales last week, namely, that of tuberculosis; and in that very happy and vigorous speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hems-worth (Mr. G. Griffiths). I have spent a good deal of time since I have been Minister of Health outside "in the field "—not in the great cities alone; in small towns and little villages too—and I know from personal observation, as a result of my visits to widely different areas, the bad housing conditions under which people are living. They are conditions which we would not and ought not to tolerate in peace-time. Every Member

    627
    of the House will share my anxiety that something should be done to alleviate these conditions as quickly and effectively as possible.
    Before the war houses were being built at the rate of 350,000 a year. During the three years of war it has been possible to bring into use only 135,000 houses. The majority of these were under construction when the war began. This number has been offset by dwellings destroyed or irretrievably damaged by enemy action. Before the war slums were being swept away at the rate of 60,000 dwellings a year, a very remarkable performance. Incidentally, I hope that when we are considering the future we shall not leave out of account the large social reforms that this generation has seen accomplished. There are two remarkable things. First, the 25 years' wonderful progress in social services. As a matter of fact, we have seen part of the dividend in the standard of health and life of our people, especially the young people, in this war period. Second—and this is the answer to those who suspect the Government of being lackadaisical about social reform—it would show a remarkable result if you prepared a list of all the things which have been done in the social field since the war began. [Interruption.] I am sorry I cannot give way; I have confined myself to half-an-hour, and I must get on. I have to go to Manchester tonight, "in the field." I am staying near Manchester, and I intend to go into the field outside, to Bootle and then on to Darwen. But that is all in a week-end's work.
    Since the war began few slum dwellings have been demolished. The position in some areas has been such that we have had to authorise local authorities, by Defence Regulation powers, to issue licences to enable slum houses to be re-occupied. As a result many people—I give the low estimate of 100,000 families—are continuing to live in houses which, three years ago, were legally condemned as unfit for human habitation. This is a grim fact. A few houses, including those which have been licensed, have had the minimum necessary repairs done to them. Also, before the war a large number of houses were being regularly kept in good repair, but they would not have been in good repair had this work not been regularly done. During the war we have had
    628
    to concentrate on first-aid repair of houses damaged by enemy action, because, as I pointed out last week, some 2,750,000 houses have been damaged, apart from damage to glass. This is the background against which we have had to face a large-scale movement of the population and a splitting-up of families, and this has multiplied the demand for accommodation. One of the greatest mistakes that economists and statisticians made in the period before the end of the last war was to underestimate the larger number of families in relation to the total population as compared with 25 years previously. I am bearing that in mind.
    In face of the need for directing all our effort to war production, it has been necessary to make the utmost use of existing accommodation. We have moved people under official evacuation schemes and have billeted them or accommodated them by requisitioning houses of one kind or another. Transferred workers have been similarly housed, and although some relief has been given by the Production Departments in special cases by the provision of hostels and married quarters, they are no substitute for a house. The pressure on accommodation in rural areas has been particularly intense, not merely because of the introduction of factory workers, but also because of the increased number of agricultural workers, men and women, in the rural areas. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is concerned about that problem in terms of his programme for the forthcoming year. On the whole, we have found it possible, thanks to the building of 4,000,000 houses between the two wars, to deal with these major movements of population without incurring serious trouble. But in some districts there is now serious overcrowding, and this is aggravated by different families being compelled to share the same house. It is not an easy thing for two different families to share the same house. We have managed so far, but the situation must become steadily more difficult unless new houses are built and existing houses are kept in tolerable repair.
    Mr. Boothby: It is worse in Scotland.
    Mr. Brown: I was just about to say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have our

    629
    Housing Advisory Committees and we have sub-committees hard at work on the technical aspects of the problem so that we can be ready for whatever is coming. Let me call the attention of the House to one particular problem which ought to have priority in the use of building labour and materials as soon as they are available. It is this. There are many houses which, although not war damaged, are becoming dilapidated and unoccupiable because of lack of ordinary maintenance. Although local authorities have ample powers under the Housing and Public Health Acts to ensure repairs to working-class houses, the difficulty of securing labour and material makes the powers often unenforceable. I am already receiving representations from local authorities concerned with this problem, emphasising their difficulty in getting essential work, such as roof-repairs and water-supply, which are necessary for the health and comfort of the tenants, carried out to houses. They say that willing owners are unable to obtain the necessary labour and materials and that unwilling owners, where serious nuisances exist, hide behind the difficulty.
    The crux of the problem is labour and material. Much labour which might have been available for the ordinary repair of houses has been utilised in the gigantic task of first-aid repairs to war-damaged houses. The bulk of the labour which is now left after the demands for manpower from the Services is engaged on what I have described in answer to Questions as strategic necessities—camps, aerodromes and Service hospitals. For some months to come it will be difficult, if not impossible, to find additional labour for other purposes. When conditions permit, the question of whether an increasing number of men cannot be made available for the repair and maintenance of houses, without impairing war production and the efficiency of the Armed Forces, will become eligible for consideration. Already, in consultation with my colleagues, I am examining the possibilities of labour and material being made available for the extended repair of empty houses in order to bring them back into use, and I still cherish the hope that even before the war ends, we may be able to make a start on a modest programme of building new houses.
    630
    Eighteen months ago I reconstituted the Housing Advisory Committee. It is a very strong and powerful Advisory Committee. We have, as I have said, sub-committees hard at work, in consul-sultation with all concerned, on particular aspects—technical problems of types and designs methods and material—and the conditions in which both local authority housing on the one hand, and private enterprise housing on the other, can successfully operate to the maximum, so that we may really be ready to start when the war ends, on a big and ambitious programme. We are busy working out estimates of a programme for the first 10 to 20 years after the war, but I am bound to say that if we are to get a good start on that programme we must run in the machine. We must make a limited start inside the nucleus of building labour available, in order to provide the opportunity for training apprentices. Whatever we may do in training elsewhere—and I know a good deal about that as a result of my experience as Minister of Labour—there is no better place for training apprentices in house building than on the job itself. That is what I meant when I spoke about running in the machine.
    Our immediate problem is only a part of our long-term problem. I realise the many difficulties, immediate as well as future, confronting all those who have so much at heart this great health service, for housing is primarily a health service. It is a local government service. It is bound up with all the other local government services. The fact that that note has been so strongly struck will give me greater confidence and renew my resolve, and that of the Secretary of State for Scotland, that the offensive against the evils of bad housing shall not be delayed one day longer than vital war needs demand.
    I was interested in one passage especially in the speech of the hon. Member for Mossley. He talked about planners and planning, and, when he wanted his definition of the philosopher statesman, he came back to the greatest planner of all time—Plato, the philosopher. But it has been pointed out that Plato made one great mistake. He had no use for the poet. We want not merely the plans but the poet, and I am sure this House will rally again that feeling of unity in all ranks to win the war and then to carry on to win the peace.
    Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Is the right hon. Gentleman considering converting empty shops in the provinces for immediate use, in view of the great housing shortage through the influx of munition workers? Some could be converted, and I wonder whether he is seriously examining that problem.
    Mr. Brown: That is one of the problems that I am concerned with. While I am on my feet, may I say, in reply to the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths), that a circular on insulin is being sent to local authorities, and I will give him particulars after the Debate.
    Mr. Stokes: My heart really warms towards you, Sir. I have sat here for some five days listening to practically every speech, and I was regretfully thinking that my egg would be addled. Now the opportunity is offered me of bringing it to life and to full fruition. We have heard a very stirring speech from the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson). I would have given a lot of money to follow him directly, for the theme that he struck was surely one which moved the feelings, and the right feelings, of all of us. That is not to say that we should necessarily agree entirely with his philosophy or his point of view or with his method of conducting affairs, but it struck me that the Debate could have continued almost indefinitely on that footing, with advantage to the whole country. I was struck by his fear of planning. I entirely agree with him about that, and I would call attention to the findings of a great Chinese philosopher, Lao-tze, who at the end of a long life was asked to write down his deliberations. He said:
    "Nations should be governed as we cook small fish, without much business."
    I felt sympathy with the hon. Member in his fear that, in this desire to plan with economy and success, we should turn people into robots and forget that the chief object of life is to live a free life and to feel, when we come to the end of it, that we have exerted those God-given gifts which exist in every man for the purpose for which God created each one of us. I do not agree with him quite so much on
    632
    his method of dealing with the situation. He seemed to me to envisage a life of what I may call Christian squalor which is not inevitable with Christianity. I can sympathise with his feelings about the Archbishop of Canterbury, with whom I personally to a considerable extent agree. He played about with the interference of the clerics in our political life. I would say at once that I see a difference between the functions of the cleric and the politician. The cleric's function is to teach the truth and philosophy of life, and the function of the politician is to remove the economic barriers to that philosophy.
    It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed upon the next Sitting Day.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
  Sir Irving Albery, Mr. Benson, Sir Edmund Brocklebank, Captain Crook-shank, Major Sir George Davies, Mr. Douglas, Mr. Ness Edwards, Lieut.-Colonel Elliot, Mr. D. O. Evans, Mr. Glenvil Hall, Sir John Mellor, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton-Pownall, Sir Frank Sanderson, Sir Robert Smith and Mr. Henderson Stewart nominated Members of the Committee of Public Accounts.—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]

  SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS
  Resolved,
  "That the Orders made by the Secretary of State far the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to—

  (1) the Parish of Sible Hedingham in the Rural District of Halstead,

  (2) the Rural District of Hungerford, and

  (3) the Urban District of Bishop's Stort-ford,

  copies of which were presented to this House on the 17th November, be approved."—[Mr. Peake.]

  ADJOURNMENT
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir J. Edmondson.]
PUBLIC HEALTH
  Diphtheria (Immunisation)
  Diphtheria (Immunisation)
  Nursing Profession
  Nursing Profession
  HOUSING SCHEMES (PREPARATION)
  HOUSING SCHEMES (PREPARATION)
  INSURANCE PRACTITIONERS (CAPITATION FEE)
  INSURANCE PRACTITIONERS (CAPITATION FEE)
  PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (DISABILITY PENSIONS)
  PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (DISABILITY PENSIONS)
  CIVIL SERVICE (OFFICIAL HEADSHIP)
  CIVIL SERVICE (OFFICIAL HEADSHIP)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Australian Stock (Conversion)
  Australian Stock (Conversion)
  UNITED STATES (BRITISH OFFICIALS, SALARIES)
  UNITED STATES (BRITISH OFFICIALS, SALARIES)
  BEVERIDGE REPORT (PRICE)
  BEVERIDGE REPORT (PRICE)
  GENERAL VON THOMA
  GENERAL VON THOMA
AGRICULTURE
  Sewage Sludge (Composts)
  Sewage Sludge (Composts)
  Tractors
  Tractors
  Home-Grown Grain (Drying)
  Home-Grown Grain (Drying)
  CHANNEL ISLANDS
  CHANNEL ISLANDS
NATIONAL WAR EFFORT
  War-Disabled Persons (Employment)
  War-Disabled Persons (Employment)
  Work Direction (Prosecution, Govan)
  Work Direction (Prosecution, Govan)
  Women (Care of Invalid Relatives)
  Women (Care of Invalid Relatives)
  Interviewers' Panels (Women)
  Interviewers' Panels (Women)
  Unemployed Women and Girls
  Unemployed Women and Girls
  Factory Conditions (Chief Inspector's Report)
  Factory Conditions (Chief Inspector's Report)
  Royal Ordnance Factory (Part-Time Women Workers)
  Royal Ordnance Factory (Part-Time Women Workers)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  British Restaurant, Little Amwell
  British Restaurant, Little Amwell
  Restaurants (Cafeteria System)
  Restaurants (Cafeteria System)
  Vegetables (Prices)
  Vegetables (Prices)
  Sugar (Soft Drink Industry)
  Sugar (Soft Drink Industry)
  American Flour
  American Flour
  Milk Marketing Board (Resignation)
  Milk Marketing Board (Resignation)
  Fish (Prices and Minimum Size)
  Fish (Prices and Minimum Size)
  ALCOHOLIC LIQUORS (RESTRICTIONS)
  ALCOHOLIC LIQUORS (RESTRICTIONS)
  ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS)
  ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS)
FUEL AND POWER
  Coal Output and Man-Power
  Coal Output and Man-Power
  Coal (Synthetic Rubber and Plastics)
  Coal (Synthetic Rubber and Plastics)
  Coal Industry (Mechanisation Officers)
  Coal Industry (Mechanisation Officers)
  Pit Horses (Feeding Stuffs)
  Pit Horses (Feeding Stuffs)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Paint Concentration Scheme
  Paint Concentration Scheme
  Torch Batteries
  Torch Batteries
BRITISH ARMY
  Canvas Accommodation (Winter)
  Canvas Accommodation (Winter)
  Soldiers (Agricultural Work)
  Soldiers (Agricultural Work)
  Family Allowances
  Family Allowances
  Cadet Force (Free Uniform and Equipment)
  Cadet Force (Free Uniform and Equipment)
  ROAD ACCIDENTS
  ROAD ACCIDENTS
  INDIA (SITUATION)
  INDIA (SITUATION)
  AIR TRAINING CORPS (FREE UNIFORM AND EQUIPMENT)
  AIR TRAINING CORPS (FREE UNIFORM AND EQUIPMENT)
  PHYSICAL TRAINING EQUIPMENT
  PHYSICAL TRAINING EQUIPMENT
POST OFFICE
  Temporary Staff (Resignations)
  Temporary Staff (Resignations)
  War-Disabled Men (Employment)
  War-Disabled Men (Employment)
MILITARY SERVICE
  Reinstatement in Civil Employment
  Reinstatement in Civil Employment
  Medical Examinations (Failure to Attend)
  Medical Examinations (Failure to Attend)
  "CATHOLIC HERALD" (ARTICLE)
  "CATHOLIC HERALD" (ARTICLE)
  FIRE PREVENTION
  FIRE PREVENTION
CIVIL DEFENCE
  Vehicles (Lifts)
  Vehicles (Lifts)
  Evacuation (Animals, Welfare)
  Evacuation (Animals, Welfare)
  North-West Regional Commissioner
  North-West Regional Commissioner
  Chatham (Visitors Ban)
  Chatham (Visitors Ban)
WEST AFRICA
  Nigeria (Colliery)
  Nigeria (Colliery)
  Anti-Malaria Measures
  Anti-Malaria Measures
WEST INDIES
  Trade Union Legislation
  Trade Union Legislation
  Petrol Certificates, Jamaica
  Petrol Certificates, Jamaica
  Jamaica Utilities, Ltd. (House Union)
  Jamaica Utilities, Ltd. (House Union)
  Trade Unions, Jamaica
  Trade Unions, Jamaica
  Constitution
  Constitution
  COLONIES (BRITISH GOVERNMENT POLICY)
  COLONIES (BRITISH GOVERNMENT POLICY)
  CEYLON (DETAINEES)
  CEYLON (DETAINEES)
Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

PLANNING AND RECONSTRUCTION
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion moved yesterday by Lord Latham—namely, That there be laid before the House Papers relating to the preparatory steps to be taken now in order that actual planning and reconstruction may be commenced immediately after the cessation of hostilities.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, we do not very often blow our own trumpet in this country and certainly not in your Lordships' House, but a remark was made to me last night by a very prominent member of one of our Allied Governments and I feel it not inappropriate to repeat it to your Lordships. He said that he and some of his colleagues had been discussing this matter and they could not understand how it was that in your Lordships' House, which most people would consider the very centre of the landed interests of the country, we should be most forward in pressing His Majesty's Government to get on with legislation for greater planning and control of undeveloped land. They said they could only explain it to themselves by the fact that in this country those who own land are more devoted to the land itself than to any private or individual rights they may have in the land. That, coming from a member of one of our Allied Governments, I think is a very great tribute to your Lordships' House.
When we read these Reports of the Uthwatt and Scott Committees and when we go through again the report of the debate we had the other day and the beginning of this debate yesterday, what must impress us most is the intense complication of the subject. That is bound to be true the moment we begin to try and deal with the land system of this country. We are faced from the beginning with the knowledge that there is not going to be any solution that will be easy or simple or satisfactory to everyone. The only point, so far as I can
144
see, on which we really are agreed, is that things cannot be allowed to drift on as they were and that we cannot possibly face the conclusion of hostilities without plans prepared and foundations well and truly laid. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, will say "There is the old gospel that something must be done, and when a sufficient number of people go about saying that something must be done you may be pretty sure that something silly is going to be done." For all that, there is general agreement in your Lordships' House on that point, and no one put the matter more clearly than my noble friend Lord Portal yesterday. We must all feel that the noble Lord should be congratulated on the speech that he made to us. To say the least, he made a very good show of a not very strong case, but he did convince us (and that is why we were pleased with his speech), that even though his brief may not be up to much his heart is in the right place and he himself genuinely wants to get on with the job.
The position, indeed, is obvious to us all, whether we think ahead in terms of the necessity for the rebuilding and reconstruction of bombed areas or the much wider question of rehousing the whole population. We know perfectly well that we were something like 2,000,000 houses short before the war; we know that on the average we lose 1,00,000 a year through sheer deterioration, and that no building has gone on for the last three years. We know, too, that we have to face the colossal problem of demobilization of the Services and the equally large problem of the demobolization of our war industrial workers, dispersed as they are in factories located, many of them, quite unsuitably for peace-time activities. Behind that is the question of the location of our industry and the location of our population. The fundamental question we have to tackle is whether we intend in future to coop up millions of our people in the restricted areas of the towns or whether we intend to help them to spread out over the great unpopulated areas of the country. Behind that again stands the great question of what we are going to do with our countryside, what is going to be our agricultural policy, and what are going to be the conditions for the use of our sadly limited and frequently decreasing stores of agricultural land. Those are the questions we have to face and those are the

145
reasons why some action has to be taken by the Government here and now to deal with the problem, if not before the conclusion of hostilities, at any rate at the end.
Very strong opinions have been expressed in your Lordships' House about delays. I myself expressed them during the last debate. I am not sure, thinking it over and having heard what my noble friend Lord Portal said yesterday, that it was entirely fair to the Government to complain that they had not put a considered policy before us. It is true that these Reports have not been out very long. But I do not want to be understood for that reason as saying that the time has not come now for the Government to lay before us their considered proposals. Let us look for a moment at the Uthwatt Report. The main point in that Report is the question of development rights. The reason why that has to be stressed is perfectly obvious. We know that in the past the main hindrance to tackling the planning of land and land usage has been the prohibitive cost likely to face all planning authorities. What are our alternatives? They seem to me to be three. One is to do nothing, and I think there is pretty general agreement that that is an impossible conclusion to any discussion on this subject secondly, we have Uthwatt recommendations; and thirdly, there is complete nationalization of the land. There seems on the whole to be fairly considerable agreement that we do not want to tackle the matter in that drastic manner, at any rate for the moment. We are therefore taken back to the Uthwatt Report, to which hitherto no one has put any alternative.
It is true that Lord Latham—who I am sorry is not in his place at the moment and so cannot hear my reference to him—put forward yesterday an alternative proposal, but I think a moment's examination will show that it does not begin to meet the real problem, the problem of floating value attached to development rights. His proposals amount to very little more than the strengthening and extension of existing powers of control, and because it is obvious that with each area that you bring under control and prohibition to that extent you increase the value of land that is not controlled, you are therefore further intensifying your problem by piecemeal treatment. That
146
leaves us with the Uthwatt recommendations. Lord Latham, the Earl of Radnor, Viscount Bledisloe and Lord Brocket all put a number of extremely strong arguments relating to difficulties connected with the implementation of the Uthwatt, recommendations. Many of those points, it seems to me, would belong rather to the Committee stage of a Bill than to a debate like this, at a moment before we have even got on to the Second Reading of a Bill. I am sure a great many of those points could in fact be dealt with at that stage; but nevertheless there remains a strong hard core of points against the recommendations.
I do not want to go into details of the case either for or against, because the matter has been argued so fully in the Report and so fully in your Lordships' House yesterday. One could only argue it out by repetition. And so we come back to these two points: Is there an alternative giving us a simple, easy remedy of this immensely complicated problem, or indeed any alternative at all? In both cases the answer must be in the negative. Therefore I should say strongly that in default of any recornmendation—and such a recommendation is not being put forward yet—the Government would be wise to adopt the Report of the Uthwatt Committee and prepare to implement their recommendations. There is one other difficulty that has been introduced in these debates and that is the difficulty connected with the proper machinery of administration. On that it is clear that there is very considerable disagreement between different members of your Lordships' House. I took part in the discussion a fortnight ago and then adopted the view of the noble Lord; Lord Balfour of Burleigh. I still adhere to that view; and I feel with the growing powers and the placing of completely new functions upon the Government, we have got to be prepared to have flexible minds and to develop new technique. This point of view has frequently been put forward strongly by the Labour Party. For all that, I cannot feel that this is a fundamental problem that ought to hold up consideration of this question or the taking of decisions.
When all is said and done, if you state the case for either extreme apparently there is very considerable disagreement on principle. Lord Latham and Viscount

147
Samuel both said yesterday that they thought there was room for a Commission carrying out certain limited functions connected with planning. Lord Balfour of Burleigh has admitted from the beginning the need for ultimate Ministerial control. I cannot believe that it is not perfectly simple and possible to arrive at a compromise on that point. I feel that so important is it that we should make progress with the implementation of policy on this matter that if a decision were taken by the Government and direction given on the lines suggested from the opposite Bench, I would be perfectly prepared to accept that decision. It is a very important point for Committee, but nevertheless it has come down very much to the scale of a Committee point.
On other matters with which the Report deals, I do not think, really, that at this stage it would be right to bother your Lordships. Lord Portal spoke yesterday about various measures for the easing up of procedure for the public purchase of land and other matters of a like nature. There seemed to be general agreement on these points and I do not think it is necessary to say anything about them now. That leaves the subjects of the difficulties connected with development rights and the setting up of machinery. Though it is clear, from consideration which I have given to them, that these topics raise considerable difficulties, none of them, I believe, are insuperable. I think, therefore, that it is now up to His Majesty's Government to submit proposals to Parliament in order that Parliament may get down to the detailed working of the scheme and to giving such assistance as it can to His Majesty's Government to make that scheme a workable proposition.
We come now to the Scott Report which, put very shortly, sets out to deal with the question of how to make use of our agricultural land. The more I have read that Report the more I have felt—possibly because of the terms of reference—that important as it is, valuable as it is, nevertheless in some ways perhaps the Committee have not appreciated the true magnitude and scope of this problem with which we are faced. I find myself in strong and fundamental disagreement with Professor Dennison and his Minority Report, but I think that the detailed reasons for that disagreement would
148
belong rather to a debate on agricultural policy than to anything which can be said to-day. His point is, of course, that there is room in this country only for a very small agriculture, an agriculture consistent with the strictest application of what are, we hope, the long-forgotten principles of Manchester Liberalism. His stand would be perfectly logical if in fact there were to be no planned international trade in the future, and if in fact no industry in the country were to receive any assistance at all. Some of these people talk as though agriculture was the only industry which during the last ten years had received any assistance at all, whereas up to 1932, although agriculture remained our largest industry, it had received almost no assistance at all, while many other industries, such as the motor car industry, had been receiving the help of a very high tariff. Such an argument shows a complete lack of contact with reality—I will not say with truth.
I do find myself in agreement with Professor Dennison, however, on one or two small, but, I think, important points. I feel that there is an atmosphere about the Scott Report which is a little too preservative. There is a little too much talk in the Report of traditional farming. I do not know what the Scott Committee mean by "traditional farming." The traditions of our farming are that it is intensely adjustable and flexible, as has been shown in the last few years. I disagree also with the Committee's suggestion that industry should be kept away from the countryside. I do not like this idea of our countryside as a museum piece which has to be preserved. The fact is that neither Professor Dennison nor, I think, the authors of the Scott Report entirely realize the change, and in fact the revolution, which has taken place in the last few years in our agricultural industry. The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, put the facts before us yesterday, and I shall not repeat them; but it should be borne in mind that during the last two or three years the farmers of this country, with virtually the same amount of skilled labour as before, have increased production by between 30 and 40 per cent. We must also remember that this country has the most highly mechanized agriculture in the world. Moreover, no other industry has carried out for itself such a satisfactory scheme of self-planning for increased production in war-time. Even

149
before the war, while other industries were talking about how to rationalize their systems of distribution, the agricultural industry was quietly going ahead with its own Marketing Act and setting up its own Milk Board, Pig Board, Hops Board and Potato Board. I hope it will be realized, therefore, to a greater extent than Professor Dennison and the authors of the Scott Report appear to realize it, that in future the agricultural industry is not going to the country cap in hand as a sort of poor country cousin, but is going to be regarded as an industry which has provided a great contribution to the war effort through its own efficiency, and which, if given an equal chance with the other industries in this country, can stand on its own feet.
On the question of keeping industry out of the countryside, my noble friend Lord Latham used a phrase about the towns "being kept in a strait-jacket." That would be the worst possible policy from the point of view of agriculture itself. Especially in a country like this, the real hope of agriculture lies in a working together and an understanding between the towns and the countryside. It is perfectly true that a great deal of the spreading out into the countryside of the towns of late years has been highly unsatisfactory, because there has been no plan or considered policy on which it has been carried out; but that should not be allowed to prejudice us against the principle that agriculture must be considered, in terms of planning and the use of land, as a part of the whole country, and that we should welcome industry into the countryside. I was glad to hear my noble friend Lord Portal say yesterday that we should welcome the holidaymakers also. He spoke of the camps on which he and I worked some years ago. I was particularly pleased to hear him say that there is a survey going on at this moment of all the camps in the countryside, which are there for other purposes, but which may be utilized for our children in the future. If only in future years every child of school age could have a fortnight, three weeks or a month in the country every year, then, quite apart from the good effect on their health, think what it would mean in terms of mutual understanding between these completely separated units which we have at the moment, the town and the countryside.
150
Those are the two points on which I venture to disagree with the Scott Report; but on the fundamental and major part of the Report, which lays it down that the development of our agricultural land must be controlled, and controlled with special reference to the fact that our reserves of good agricultural land are strictly limited in this country, I am in agreement. We can import more cotton; we can import more of the raw materials of our iron and steel industry; but we cannot import more land. That is the raw material which is limited, and we must control its development. Indeed, I go further than that; I think that we should control its sale. I have been working fairly intimately in the countryside lately, and I am not sure that we have quite realized what is the type of person who in some cases is buying land at the moment—whether to avoid Excess Profits Duty or not, I do not know; I do not know what the motives are. I do not like the type of man who is buying land at the moment, however, because I think that he has no feeling of responsibility at all, and I see no justification for our private landowning system unless it is based essentially on a sense of trusteeship.
I hope also that the management of the land will be controlled. At the present moment we are turning out some farmers who are not farming it properly. I cannot believe that any good landlord would resent feeling that his estate was open to public inspection, and that, if he was not looking after it properly, either he should receive orders to do so or he should be turned out and somebody else should do it for him. To say that is to enter into the realms of agricultural policy, however, on which I hope that at some later date we may usefully have a debate. I trust that the main recommendations of the Scott Report will receive, and I gather from the noble Lord, Lord Portal, that they will receive, sympathetic consideration and active implementation by His Majesty's Government.
We are discussing to-day the very foundations of our future economic life. We are discussing the basic problem of how and where our people are to live and work, and how far it is going to be possible to go back on the divorce which took place during the last generation between town and country, confining

151
millions of people to ill-planned, crowded, airless and sunless acres, while the misuse or under-use of vast areas of our heritage in the countryside went on. That is the problem which faces us, and it is for us to solve it, and to solve it in time, before our sons come back from the war, so as to have laid at least some of the foundations which will be necessary to enable them to carry on the life of this country.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, the Motion before the House to-day is one of very wide scope, and in the remarks that I wish to make I propose to limit myself almost entirely to the Report of Mr. Justice Uthwatt. I would like to add my tribute to those that have already been paid to that Report. Not only is it a masterly analysis of the history of the very difficult subject with which it deals, but in my opinion it presents to the Government a coherent and balanced policy which can be accepted as a whole. In my opinion it is really a handbook on reconstruction, and the tenor of my remarks is to ask the Government to consider whether the wisest course will not be to accept that Report and act upon it in complete acceptance of the whole of the scheme which is outlined. Let me remind your Lordships of the background against which this Report has to be discussed. The background is the acceptance by the Government of the principle of national planning. What that means can be summed up in one quite short sentence. It means that it is essential that there should exist means by which the requirements of agriculture, transport, public services, and defence, as well as housing, industrial location, town siting and other matters, can be given proper weight and considered as a whole. That definition is in the Uthwatt Report, and it is subsequent to the various Government pronouncements that we have had about planning, but I do not think it could be denied—at least I think it would not be denied—that that represents the Government's view of what national planning means on the largest scale.
That involves as the first necessity the control of the use of land, and when the Government propose to take complete control of the use of land they at once touch closely three great vested interests. The first great vested interest which they touch is that of the owners of land.
152
I wish to be quite clear that I make a distinction between the owners of land and landowners. I accept the definition of landowners given by my noble friend Lord Bledisloe yesterday. A landowner in that sense is a man who has perhaps inherited an estate which has been in his family for many generations, and of which he regards himself as a trustee for the national interest. That is what I mean by a landowner. An owner of land is different. He may be a person who comes under the invidious name of a land speculator; but no ingenuity could distinguish really the title of a landowner and an owner of land. As an instance, I had occasion to sell some furniture by auction a day or two ago, because I had to empty my London house and did not want to store the furniture. It realized, I need hardly tell your Lordships, very exorbitant prices. Do I thereby become a speculator in furniture? I really do not think so. If I do I do not think that it is in any way an immoral procedure. The owners of land often find themselves, through no fault of their own, in the same position. There are others who are not perhaps quite so virtuous. But this control of land is to fall on the virtuous and the immoral alike.
I think we landowners have to admit that, whatever merits we may claim for ourselves—those of us who take our responsibilities seriously—the road to the hell of the development with which we are faced in this country is paved with the profits of land speculators. Control therefore must be accepted, and I feel quite confident that landowners as a class, when they are convinced that that control is necessary in the national interest, will accept it with a good grace. And I think it will have some compensations. The first will be the great benefit which it will bestow upon agriculture. The second will be the enormous advantage in the safeguarding of amenities; and when my noble friend Lord Radnor described himself yesterday as instinctively an anti-planner I cannot help thinking that he perhaps forgot those two considerations. Because, as your Lordships know, nobody has got a more live and real interest in agriculture and in amenities than the noble Earl. I therefore do not accept his definition of himself as an anti-planner. I think the noble Earl also has misread this scheme a little bit, because he was very apprehensive about what he called the public

153
development which was going to take place. If I read the Uthwatt proposals aright, private initiative will remain in development, and that, to my mind, is one of the great advantages that it has over complete, outright nationalization. I do not believe, in fact, that in a great many cases the passing of this arrangement into law would seriously affect a very great number of agricultural estates. I believe we should still continue in effective enjoyment and trusteeship of our estates practically to the same extent as we do to-day.
And in that connexion I must make just one reference to a pamphlet which has been sent to me, and no doubt to others of your Lordships, which purports to be a summary of the main recommendations of the Uthwatt Committee, with some criticisms. This is one of the criticisms:
"Any builder who wishes to put up some houses, or an industrialist who wants to build a new factory will be able to ask the State to take away the parklands and grounds, or the choicest pieces of a farm or an estate, without regard to the value of the land for farming or the amenity of the district. The owner will not be able to prevent this."
I think that is a mischievous misrepresentation, and I suggest to any of your Lordships who may have read this summary that he should not depend upon it, and the criticisms, in order to form an opinion of this great scheme. The Uthwatt Report must be read itself, and then if you read that pamphlet you will see—
LORD WEDGWOOD: By whom was that pamphlet sent cut?
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: It is issued by the Land Union.
LORD WEDGWOOD: I thought so.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: In that connexion may I say one word about global value? Nobody in this House has disputed the fact that the bargain, if it is made, must be fair both to buyer and to seller. Nor can it be disputed that the aggregate of the valuations, taken individually, would greatly exceed what would be a fair global value to the purchaser. There are some elements of similarity between this and the Coal Act. In the case of coal the limiting value was the potential output of coal for a period of years: in this case it is the potential building development. I think there the
154
analogy ceases, and I do not propose to push it further; but I cannot myself resist the conclusion—and I have not heard anybody else do it either—that some reduction would be necessary on the full valuation of each individual portion, because that would disregard the floating and the shifting value, if the acquisition is to take place.
I would just like to say there that the only criticism I have to make on the Majority Report is that I do not quite follow their argument about the elimination of public demand. I think the Minority Report of Mr. Barr is nearer the truth there. That is a minor question, because Mr. Barr makes it perfectly clear that he is in favour of the acquisition. Mr. Barr says:
"There can be no two opinions that national planning is fundamental to make the best use of our land for the good of the community—control must be absolute—but that does not justify unfair or selective treatment. Apart from that I am in favour of the acquisition of the development right by fair compensation being paid."
The Committee are therefore unanimous on this scheme, subject to the difference of opinion about compensation. Before landowners reject this scheme I think they would do well to consider the alternative, assuming, as I believe, control has got to come.
I greatly regret that the noble Lord, Lord Latham, is not here because I have to comment on what he had to say yesterday. He made quite clear what in his opinion the alternative was. First of all, he said, he would impose control without compensation except where, he added, there was manifest injustice. I am afraid that the noble Lord's view of whether there was manifest injustice might not be the same as the view taken by landowners. Then there was to be rating of site values and then there was to be nationalization. I can quite imagine the noble Lord opposite (Lord Latham), if he were sentencing the land to these penalties, adding, with his bland smile, that the sentences shall not be concurrent but consecutive. After You have had a measure of control without compensation, then the rating of site values, and then the nationalization, there will not be much left of the landowner or of agriculture; but judging from what the noble Lord said about tied houses, which indicated the extent of his knowledge of the

155
countryside, that might not be a consideration which would cause him any great grief.
The second great vested interest which is concerned in this scheme is that of the local authorities. The local authorities come into it because what we are talking about is national planning, which means, if the Government accept, as I think they do, some of the principles agreed in the Barlow Report, control of industrial location. That means control of the distribution of the industrial population. There, at once, you have an issue which affects very closely and vitally the interests of the great urban local authorities.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: And county.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: But particularly urban authorities in the aspects of which I am speaking. How can these urban authorities be expected to take a perfectly impartial and disinterested view of these proposals? Of course these local authorities, attaching importance as they must do, without any natural wickedness, to rateable value, must be apprehensive of national control. National control may involve very considerable changes. Take the Port of Hull. Supposing it was decided that it was unwise to have Hull as a very large port in the future. I have not the least idea whether that would be a good thing or not: but you cannot expect the city authorities of Hull gleefully and gladly to acquiesce in the cutting down of their port to one of diminutive importance. The sphere of the local authorities in town and country planning is the administration of the Acts, not the settlement of national principles of economic, industrial, and agricultural reconstruction. Let them be supreme in their own sphere, and the role they have to play is most important, but Heaven help us if national policies are to be decided through the spectacles of the local authorities.
Let me remind your Lordships of the remedy proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Latham. His recommendation for reconstruction was the rating of site values. I am afraid I must write down the noble Lord, in the word of my noble friend Lord Radnor, as an "anti-planner." I was suspicious when I saw the terms of his Motion. He refers to "preparatory steps" being taken now in
156
order that "actual planning and reconstruction may be commenced immediately after the cessation of hostilities." Who ever heard of planning being deferred until after the cessation of hostilities? What is the good of that? Surely we must plan now in order that reconstruction may begin on the cessation of hostilities. That made me, as I say, a little suspicious. As I listened to the noble Lord, my suspicions deepened when I heard him advocate the rating of site values as preparatory to reconstruction. Then I knew I was face to face with a real anti-planner. The rating of site values is a futile and dangerous remedy from that point of view.
LORD WEDGWOOD: Oh!
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I thought the noble Lord might disagree. It is a remedy that is designed to bring sites into development—very important from the point of view of rateable value—but look what it has done to New York. Where are the open spaces in New York? That, I am credibly informed, is a direct result of a system of rating site values. How very different to the levy which is proposed by Mr. justice Uthwatt is the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Latham—the rating of the annual site value, whatever it may be. Mr. Justice Uthwatt's proposal is a levy on the realized increment once every five years—a very different thing, and designed to avoid the very dangers in which Lord Latham's proposal would involve us.
The third vested interest—this may surprise your Lordships—is the Civil Service, the great bureaucracy which reigns supreme in Whitehall. Most civil servants, in my experience, are anti-planners, the reason being that planning involves interference with Departmental routine. Every civil servant wishes his own Department to be perfect, and believes it can do things better than any other Department. We have had sufficient evidence in the last eighteen months of the difficulty of getting transfer of any powers at all from one Department to another to make us realize the impossibility of having a Planning Department which would have powers to interfere with other Departments. For that reason I greatly prefer to a Department the machinery which is recommended by Mr. Justice Uthwatt. That is ground which we traversed a few weeks ago and which I cannot go over again

157
to-day, but I should like to say to those who are interested from the point of view of land, that the Uthwatt machinery seems to me to have great advantages from that point of view over that of a Department. I believe that a Commission would be found to be an admirable tribunal, and one to which landowners could look with even greater confidence than that with which they regarded the Ministry of Health.
In conclusion, may I say one word about the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Portal? I welcome that speech, and I thank the noble Lord for it. I thank him for the decisions which he announced. But I hope it will not be disrespectful if I say that in comparison with the scope and importance of the issues before the House the decisions which were announced were really rather in the nature of chicken food. I understand that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, who is going to wind up to-day, is not expected to give us any definite decision of Government policy. We shall have, no doubt, one of those speeches from the noble and learned Viscount in which the House delights. We shall have a balanced consideration of all the pros and cons delivered with the utmost grace and with, perhaps, a classical tag or two, but finally, at the end of it, we shall be exactly as wise as we were at the beginning. I venture to doubt whether there will even emerge from the noble Viscount's peroration a mouse of the magnitude of that which did creep forth from the concluding remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Snell, a month ago.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): It was my mouse.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Whether it was the Lord Chancellor's mouse or not, it came out from under the skirt of the noble Lord, Lord Snell. I can only hope that another mouse or something larger will emerge from the robes of the Lord Chancellor this afternoon; but I have been led to doubt that. The Reports were only issued last August and September. I think we in this House understand that, but I think I can say this, that the House will be content with that once more and only once more. Moreover, I do not believe that the country will be content with it even once more. There is a tremendous volume of
158
opinion in the country, which wants to see the Government get on with this question of machinery for reconstruction. Therefore my plea to the Government is this. This matter is one of great controversy, but I do not believe that it is controversy on ordinary Party lines which would be barred by the declaration that was made the other day by the Lord Privy Seal in another place. I believe there is controversy here which cuts right across Parties and classes, and is a matter in which the Government ought to give a lead, and I believe the lead will be found in adopting the whole Uthwatt Report. I ask for the Uthwatt, the whole Uthwatt and, in its scope, nothing but the Uthwatt, and I believe if the Government do that they will have laid the foundations for a real beginning of reconstruction. I think the country is waiting for a lead. I think the people are saying: Are we to be governed by the vested interests or are we to be governed in the interests of the common man? I want to see the Government lay the foundations for a victory in the field of reconstruction for the benefit of the common man which will be as great as the victory which the common man is winning to-day on the field of battle and which in God's good time will be final and complete.
LORD WEDGWOOD: My Lords, I owe to the father of the noble Lord who has just spoken my firm foundations in free trade and the rating of land values, and I shall certainly not argue against his speech. Indeed, if we are to have a dictator I would as soon have him as any other; but I have no intention of substituting for our present system any dictatorship. These two Reports remind me irresistibly of a play of Galsworthy's called The Skin Game. Noble Lords will remember that in it a country gentleman finds that a cad, an industrialist from the north, is going to put up a factory that will spoil the view from his drawing-room windows, and thereafter an unsuspected skeleton in the cupboard of the man from the north enables the country gentleman to save the view from his drawing-room windows, only to discover that he has ceased to be a gentleman and become himself a cad. We are all, myself included, anxious to save the views from our drawing-room windows; but there are other considerations.

159
We are familiar with that view, but not so familiar with Marx's "iron law of wages": So long as there are two men after one job and those two men have no alternative except to get that job or starve, so long will they continue to undercut each other's offer for wages, and wages will tend to sink universally to subsistence level. That is not an Act of Parliament, it is a natural law. We cannot pass an Act of Parliament to put an end to the iron law of wages. The only thing you can do is to prevent the postulates for that law, so that there shall be an alternative open to mankind. At the present time we are in the blessed position when there are two jobs for every man, and there has never been a more popular war. The principal dread of our people is that when the war comes to an end there will no longer be two jobs for every man and that unemployment will come back and the exploitation of the proletariat will be reproduced.
I recall that, after that picnic in South Africa which we used to call a war before we discovered what war really was, I remained in that country as the dictator of over 10,000 square miles. Then, at Ermelo, I was faced with an unemployment problem, because discharged men from our Army came into the town looking for a job. There was no Poor Law in South Africa and no dole. If you could not get work then you must go to prison, and we had blown up the gaol! Fortunately, the Boers of old had been more intelligent than our rulers in the years past, and around all the towns in South Africa there were large areas of unenclosed public lands. Round my town there were more than nine thousand acres of public lands, so I solved the problem of unemployment in a way I shall presently indicate. Every one was on rations for three months after that war, as they will be after this war. I said to the ex-Service men: "You can have three acres of the town lands, you can work in that coal seam in the side of the hill, you can work that brickfield"—an old disused brickfield—"get on with the good work." They started to work. They fenced in their acres with wire from the blockhouse line, and solved their housing problems for themselves with 40 lb. biscuit tins and corrugated iron. There were no shovels, so I got up a consignment of
160
shovels and picks. So they produced vegetables and coal and bricks. We in the town got a plentiful supply of what we wanted and those men reaped for themselves the full reward of their labour. They were not robbed by a landlord or a capitalist or by the State.
But there were two sequels to that. Presently I had a deputation from the builders and the manufacturers in the town complaining that it was impossible to reconstruct civilization while the wages for unskilled labour remained at the rate they had reached, and what was I going to do about it. It did not seem to me to come within the dictator's sphere of activities. What had happened was that I had thrown open the town lands not only to ex-Service men but to any man, and no man would remain working for a master in that town for less than he would get working for himself on the free lands as a free man. In course of time, I came home, and that happy place where we had smashed the iron law of wages reverted to type. They looked out of their drawing-room windows in the town and they saw the disreputable shanties which had been put up. They decided that the town lands must be used for grazing and not for agriculture, so there were no more free holdings there. Then they leased the coal mine to a Johannesburg syndicate, which did not work it, but supplied them with coal from other pits—at a price. Then they leased the brick fields and the pug mill to somebody. He was a capitalist, but in any case he was good enough to employ some of those who had once been free men. So they got back to the "admirable" system which we enjoy in this country and elsewhere. That is an example of how it is possible to avoid unemployment by throwing open nature to the use of man, and it shows that it is not only agriculture that requires land in order to produce goods.
The problem that is faced by the Uthwatt Committee and by us to-day is the same in principle but far more difficult to tackle. We are anxious, all of us, to preserve that view from the drawing-room windows. Some people are anxious to prevent ribbon development and these townspeople settling in the country. The whole of English history has been one long story of those who could getting away from the towns and going to live outside. My own forbears for a hundred years used to ride in to the works at Stoke-

161
On-Trent, seven miles each way, from where they were living in the country. Then the railways came along and not only the wealthy manufacturers but the professional classes came out into the country and settled outside the towns in pleasant surroundings. Then came the bicycles and motor cars, and ever since 1900, particularly since the last war, all the managerial class, the £300 a year class, tried to get out into the country. They built these houses which you hate. Now the working classes, who are certainly in the £300 a year class, are also beginning to want to get out. The shopkeeper looks forward to a chance some day of retiring from business and settling in the country, keeping a few fowls, breeding a few pigeons or rabbits, and having the grandchildren out from the town on Sunday afternoon. You cannot stop that.
The Uthwatt Report is like King Canute's courtiers telling him to drive back the waves of the sea. The use of land is not solely for agriculture. It is also for recreation, and the people who want recreation most are the people who have to live in the towns. The noble Lord, Lord Portal, spoke the other day about reviving the old English country inn. You know that old inn, with the oldest inhabitant sitting on a bench at the door with his pint of beer, smoking his clay pipe. Do you really think these "pubs" still exist for the benefit of the agricultural community? Go to Stoke-on-Trent and see. It is long since the agricultural labourer has been able to afford a pint of beer. You see instead beautiful reproductions of Elizabethan manor houses, with quarter-acre car parks attached, crowded on Sunday evenings with cars which have brought out the townspeople. I wonder if that forms part of the planning of England, whether it is proposed to develop this or stop it. Why are there these places? They are there because people want them enough to pay the price for using the land. I dislike them, but if people want them, if they are economically advantageous to the community, let us have a little realism in our minds and see that land is put to its best economic use, which is measured by what the users are prepared to pay.
There are many uses for land. All production, all useful work that you can
162
conceive, is taking some part in the conversion of land and raw materials into finished articles. Useful productive work turns agricultural land into ham sandwiches, mines and coal turn iron into bicycles and sewing machines; it turns land into houses, even into public-houses. Every form of productive work must begin by the application of labour to land. Yet in this Report it is actually proposed to pay millions of pounds to landlords, in order that they may not sell, not do exactly what they ought to do if they want to be good citizens. The good citizen is the man who allows raw materials to be used; the bad citizen is the man who keeps people unemployed, refusing to let them have access to that raw material which is essential to all production. If you allow people to start work in the primary trades, building, agriculture, mining, quarrying, they in turn will pass on the job of completing production to all the other trades in the community including the distributive trade and the retailing trade. But if you dam the stream of production at the source, not only will primary workers be out of work but everybody else will be deprived of his proper work. Yet it is proposed to pay to the owners of undeveloped land large sums so that they may not sell that land, so that they may keep the land in inferior use. I wish I could make your Lordships see it as clearly as it appears to me !
What is the actual position? You have, on one side of a high brick wall, men able and anxious to work, and on the other side the raw material without which he cannot start work. The height of that wall measures its price. By this proposal you are going to make that wall a little higher and more difficult to get over. Why not pull a few bricks off the top of that wall, make land cheaper and let people get over the wall so that men who want to work can do so? Town planning is worth nothing and country planning is worth nothing unless you face up to the fact that your first and final duty is to throw open, not to seclude, the land of England so that the people of England can work it and develop it. I do not know how we can defeat this terrific vested interest of agricultural land owning. They have beaten us all the time. They have got rid of

163
all rates on agricultural land, they have now the Uthwatt's endowment almost in pocket, and now they are demanding that Death Duties on agricultural land shall be abolished. There is no end to it. If you abolish Death Duties to-morrow—I know the noble Lord opposite would like to do so—that would immediately send up land prices. We shall all rush to put some of our money in such land in order to save Death Duties.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: There is absolutely nothing that would stimulate enterprise in rural areas more than the abolition of Death Duties on agricultural land.
LORD WEDGWOOD: Stimulate enterprise ! It would stimulate investment in agricultural land. Do you call that enterprise? I wish noble Lords would remember that there are two people interested in every bit of agricultural land—the farmer who farms the land and gets all he can out of the land, and the landlord who farms the farmer and gets all he can out of the farmer. Whenever you mention agricultural land everybody gets so sentimental, so "gooey." So they do on this side of the House when anyone mentions "the State." Your Lordships have been debating which authority should dictate the use of land. I wish noble Lords beside me would remember that it is possible to conceive that "the State" is not the friend of the working-class but the friend of the vested interests. The "State" which is being invoked by Lord Balfour of Burleigh seems, in his case, to be some body rather like the Uthwatt Committee—a lot of lawyers and surveyors, with no politicians among them, deciding how and where we are all to live in future. The State has many incarnations. That is his conception of the State.
Lord Samuel, on the other hand, says: "Oh no, we will not have any bureaucrats doing these things; we will have them done by county councils and town councils. These local authorities must decide how they are to live." That is his conception of the State. My Lords, I know my own county council very well, and if such bodies are to be "the State" then our second state will be worse than our first. County
164
councils, normally, have had towns extracted from their electorate, and they represent the purely obscurantist farming industry. Or suppose you leave this to the city councils, make them "the State." Well, city councils are human beings. Do you think the local council would have allowed my particular firm to leave Stoke-on-Trent if they could have stopped it doing so? Of course they will not wish any of their ratepayers to settle in the country if they can prevent it. Their main interest is in keeping their population, getting fresh industries, keeping the rates down, keeping the people packed in the towns. No change there. Believe me, "the State" is no servant but a dangerous master. The only check upon "the State" is this House and the other place.
VISCOUNT SANKEY: My Lords, your Lordships must be grateful to the noble Lord who has initiated this debate, for the suggestions which have been discussed are momentous and far-reaching. It would be impossible to survey them all at a single sitting, but no doubt other opportunities to consider them will be forthcoming. Permit me to-day to deal with one matter only. Now assuming, and only assuming, that Parliament decides to adopt the recommendations as to the utilization of land contained in these two Reports, it is obvious that their working out must be entrusted to some authority or authorities. These authorities will have to make a great number of decisions and reach a great number of conclusions, and the important point at once emerges, what authorities should be entrusted with the task and what procedure should be adopted.
The questions which will arise before them are quite different from those which arise in an ordinary court of law. There the contest is between individuals whose rights and liabilities are determined by their own contracts or torts as affected by Statute or by the principles of Common Law or Equity. But the type of case which will arise under the new legislation, will not be a contest between individuals, but rather a contest between the State and an individual or between the State and a group of individuals, and to this type, apparently, different principles are to be applied. The good of the community, or the will of the community, will be the major consideration. The

165
Uthwatt Report frankly acknowledges this. Permit me one quotation only. It is from paragraph 17. It states:
"We assume that it [national planning] will be directed to ensuring that the best use is made of land with a view to securing economic efficiency for the community and well-being for the individual …."
Then this Report goes on to say:
"… it will be recognized that this involves the subordination to the public good of the personal interests and wishes of landowners."
It is clear from that statement that people's rights, as at present existing, may be severely restricted or even entirely taken away. In time of war rights must be surrendered, and they have been willingly surrendered, but it is to be hoped that in time of peace, first, that the rights of individuals to free speech and criticism will be respected; and, second, that an opportunity will be given to show cause before the authority why any plan which affects them should be reconsidered or modified. It is open to doubt whether these two things are adequately provided for in the Uthwatt Report. People will put up with a good deal if they have an opportunity of being heard, but plans proposed and passed in secret may give rise to widespread discontent.
Assuming, therefore, that many of the recommendations of the Report will be implemented by legislation, the machinery and the procedure by which they are carried out will become of major importance. "Whatever is best administered is best." That there must be some central authority is beyond argument, but in a movement which is in a large measure to alter and regulate our national life, it is devoutly to be wished that Parliament in some degree will retain its control, and will not hand over national planning to the uncriticized discretion of a single Minister, or a Committee of Ministers, or a Commission, or any central or local authority. Still less should Parliament permit a procedure by which decisions can be reached behind a smoke screen of officials, who, impartial and efficient as they undoubtedly are, are inexperienced in such matters, and hampered by a system which is entirely unfitted for such a task. If we are to be planned, let us be planned in the light. We do not countenance a State in which planning and control are centralized in a few hands, and where the fundamental distinction in society is between the few who
166
control and plan and the many who are controlled and planned.
Parliament, by its Private Bill legislation, has dealt effectively and to the general satisfaction with schemes and situations where large public interests are involved and individual rights have from time to time to be restricted. Let us consider how far that can be adapted to meet the problems which will confront us when peace is declared. I am far from saying that every individual should be entitled to appear before a Committee to object. Certainly not; but possibly some sort of representative order could be made, enabling groups of individuals, or at any rate some great local authorities—as has been mentioned already in the course of this debate—to appear to take objection. Would it not be possible and desirable that the Ministerial order and the scheme itself should have to come before a Committee for criticism, debate and approval? It is not sufficient that a scheme should lie for some specified period on the table of this House. Such a Committee could not examine every detail, but Parliament itself would have an opportunity of seeing whether the scheme should go forward either as a whole or with some modifications. We shall win this war; but, having done so, do not let us lose our freedom. If we are too much governed, we shall forget how to govern ourselves.
LORD BINGLEY: My Lords, I do not propose, in the few remarks which I wish to offer to your Lordships, to deal at all in detail with the urban side of the problem; I propose to deal rather with the rural side, with which I am more familiar, and mainly with the Scott Report. In the Scott Report there are two different lines of thought, which appear in the Report itself and in the Minority Report. There is first of all the view of those who hold that the agricultural industry must have priority in many respects in all country areas, and that other industries should come second. Those who know the bad times that the agricultural industry has been through must have some sympathy with the idea that it should have a better time in the future. On the other hand, there are those who hold that the countryside should be the playground, the health resort, the lung and the sanatorium of our great towns and their crowded populations; and anybody who has considered the hideous conditions in which some of

167
our town populations have been living must necessarily have considerable sympathy with that idea.
The truth, as happens in most cases, lies between the two extremes, and there is no doubt a certain amount of truth in each of them. But it cannot be denied that a vast amount of really good agricultural land has been prevented from being used for food production, and the denying of the use of such land for that purpose should be limited as far as is possible without undue hardship. It has needed a world war to prove to us how dangerous it is for this country to depend very largely on foreign supplies of food. If it had not been for the wonderful performance of that wizard, Lord Woolton, and his power of distributing inadequate supplies without the general mass of the population feeling at all seriously that they are short of food, we should have been very near the starvation line, and should have realized more fully than we do how necessary it is that this country should be a better food-producing unit than it has been in the past.
The Scott Report is very comprehensive. If I wished to criticize it at all, I should be inclined to say that there is almost too much in it; one can hardly see the wood for the trees. But it is a charming document. It embodies the ideals which we should all like to see become realities in the agricultural industry and in the countryside. Many of its recommendations are already being carried out where local authorities are efficient, and, where they are not efficient, machinery can easily be devised to make them more so. We have power to do a great many of the things that the Scott Report recommends. But, when the Scott Committee talk of a five-year plan, what I hope will happen is that out of all their recommendations we shall concentrate on several which are of infinite importance and absolutely vital to those who live in the country. They are mostly things which can be dealt with at an early stage and put through, if sufficient energy is devoted to the task.
Nobody can deny that the better supply of water and of electric power in our rural districts may make all the difference to the comfort and happiness of those who live there. It is terrible to think that in thousands of cases there are still farm
168
labourers' cottages without an adequate water supply, and where the water has to be carried some distance, through snow and mud and in darkness, from a spring or well. When the unfortunate man comes home from his work, wet and tired, that water has to be manhandled into the house and heated in a copper before he can have a hot bath, which you and I would not consider in such circumstances to be a luxury, but rather a necessity. It is also hard that he should have to get up by the dim light of an oil lamp, and spend the early hours of the morning and the long dark hours of the night with only that to depend on for light. All these things were tolerable once, but now they are out of date; we have got beyond them. There was a time when everybody expected hardship, but now the rural population, as Lord Portal has said, travel about more, and they know what conditions are like elsewhere, to a far greater extent than was the case a hundred years ago. We must try to bring their conditions of life more into consonance with what they see elsewhere.
The objection has been raised that these things cannot be provided in remote districts without considerable cost. Of course they cannot, and that is what has prevented anything being done in the past; but, when the nation has deliberately allowed the stagnation and the depression of the agricultural industry which has been the characteristic of that industry for so many years, do you tell me that it is not now going to do something to try to overcome the troubles which it has caused? In order to be able to feed and clothe the population cheaply—something very desirable in itself—the agricultural industry has been neglected for very many years. What has been the result? Not the travesty of agricultural history which my old friend Lord Wedgwood has just presented to us. The miserable wages which agricultural labourers have had to be paid in the past were not due to any innate wickedness on the part of those administering the land, but to the very inadequate prices which farmers were able to get for their produce, which made it impossible for them to pay more. In the same way, taxation has been very hard on the agricultural industry, and, whatever the noble Lord may say about Death Duties, I do not think he can deny that years ago, when those spacious farm-

169
houses and (by the standards of the time) those comfortable, solidly-built cottages, of which we now see the very ancient remains and sometimes the ruins, were built they were built by this very class which my noble friend now denounces. In those days they had the means to do it; it was before their capital was taken from them by Death Duties, and when they still had the possibility of carrying out proper repairs and renewals.
LORD WEDGWOOD: If the noble Lord asks me I should say that they had farm houses which were decent as a matter of supply and demand. There were not so many tenant farmers after them, and therefore they had to supply good accommodation.
LORD BINGLEY: The noble Lord, I am afraid, is not very well versed in the history of this question. I think he knows more about the history of the pottery industry, which has made such a mess of some of the rural parts of Staffordshire. The provision of good farm buildings in the past is a fact which might easily have been reproduced now if the economic conditions had not been so greatly changed. We have been told that the agricultural industry wishes to treat the other industries as poor relations. Surely in view of what I have been saying, and what everybody knows—the fact that the agricultural industry has been kept depressed for so many years—the true position is exactly the opposite. It is not a case of our considering other industries as poor relations; it is that other industries have pushed down the agricultural industry for many years into a state of depression, which we hope will never return.
I think we must all agree that access to the land of the country ought to be more easy for the urban population. We desire to see them enjoying themselves in the country. Our only desire is that when they do they should behave themselves in the way the country people expect to do themselves. They will learn in time. A great many of them are new to the situation; they do not realize the mischief that can be done by small acts of carelessness. A farmer near me complained to me that one day he found all his cows on the road, and a charming young woman who had left the gate open, when reproached, said she thought the poor cows had had enough to eat and wanted to go home.
170
That sort of thing will very soon pass. There is no doubt that properly regulated holiday camps will more and more become an asset of very great value, and will be a means of improving the health of our urban population. It ought to be possible also for the urban population to roam about the country, and footpaths ought to be better marked, because there are many beautiful places where damage is done because people do not know which way to go. That is a matter which can easily be improved. But in order that people may enjoy the country you must leave a certain proportion of amenities which they can enjoy, and I commend the whole spirit of the Scott Report, which says that so far as possible, without detriment to the rest of the population, the amenities of agricultural land should be preserved.
With regard to the Central Planning Authority, personally I have a very strong feeling that that is long overdue. But it must not be a bureaucratic and tyrannical authority, taking the initiative and dragooning everybody into doing things which it thinks are good for them. It should be advisory, sympathetic, helpful, and only in the last resort compulsory. But I agree that in some cases—many cases possibly—compulsion will be necessary. And, above all, the authority should be responsible to Parliament. It should be possible for its actions to be questioned and criticized in the only place where really effective criticism can be made, and that is in the Houses of Parliament. Subject to that, I think development can be worked out very largely by the local authorities. There are some that are less efficient than others. There are some to whom the primary interest seems, to be keeping down the cost of the plans. All that can be corrected and can be improved, but I think that some form of central authority is necessary; and though there are a great many of these plans—some are actually in operation in a small way, though of course they have not been continued during the war—there are a certain number of local authorities which, if they knew that there was a central authority in the background to help them, would go much further in the future than they have been able to do in the past.
In conclusion, I hope that as a result of all this we shall get a really settled

171
order in the future, but I also agree that we must start to think about planning before the time comes when there will be a desperate need to reconstruct. Plans take a long time to work out, and unless we have them ready a time may come like a thief in the night when suddenly we shall find ourselves up against the real problem, the men coming back from the Army, nothing ready for them, nothing for them to do. Therefore I hope that the Government will seriously proceed on the lines of Lord Portal's speech yesterday to try to develop their plans as soon as possible and have them ready when the time comes.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, I must apologize to your Lordships first of all for not having been present here yesterday. It was physically impossible for me to be here, but, having read every word of yesterday's debate in the Official Report, which reached me commendably early this morning in spite of the war, I agree entirely with what the noble Earl said at the beginning of our discussion this afternoon, when he paid a high tribute to the technical knowledge, the information, and the general standard of the contributions made to yesterday's debate. In fact, my sole fear on reading through the debate was that where there were so many experts, and they differed on so many points, the very expert knowledge and the strong views might prevent that rapidity of progress which I have come here to advocate. I speak as representing a city which has been completely "blitzed," and there are others in the country in the same condition. When I walk round the streets of Plymouth now and look round acres of flattened-out rubble I close my eyes and picture to myself what the city used to look like. I remember its narrow and tortuous streets. Now Hitler has given Plymouth an opportunity of, starting afresh with a clean slate, and we are anxious that we should not lose that advantage which has come out of so much tragedy.
The noble Lord, Lord Reith, came down to Plymouth very soon after the attacks, and he convinced a city council where the majority is Conservative that it was in our interest that a public body—whether Plymouth itself or some other public body—should acquire the whole of the freehold of the damaged areas. I was glad to read
172
in the Official Report that the noble Lord, Lord Portal, implemented that promise. I only hope that he will not delay in bringing in legislation which will ensure that the whole of the land in the damaged areas—which is what we have in mind—can be acquired. We appointed a world authority, Professor Abercrombie, to replan the future of Plymouth. Plymouth is bounded on three sides by water, and a large number of the people who work in Plymouth live in the adjacent areas to a greater extent to-clay than they did before the war, and obviously we depend a great deal for our amenities upon the way in which the adjoining areas are developed. So the city of Plymouth suggested, with due deference to their free and independent status, to the adjoining rural district areas that it would be to their interest, as it was to our interest, to appoint the same gentleman to plan. I am glad to say that Cornwall, after thinking about it for some time, decided to appoint Professor Abercrombie to plan their area. Not so our neighbours on the other side. After reading our very polite suggestion—no attempt at dictation—the Rural District Council of Plympton said they had a Charter long before Plymouth had a parish pump, and they were jolly well going to appoint a different planner! It is quite impossible to have the best scheme of planning when you have that sort of quite unnecessary jealousy and rivalry.
There are two things which I wish to impress upon the noble Lord. One is the need for a stand-still order to prevent building. I shall give the noble Lord cases which have recently come before our special works committee, and I shall send them to him in greater detail to show what is happening, in spite of the enactments at present in existence to prevent new vested interests being created. Let me give three cases. One refers to the proprietor of a cooked meat shop. He came along with plans for erecting a building which complied entirely with the by-laws and, as the noble Lord realizes, shops which are associated with the sale of meat come very high on the list of priorities. The site on which he wanted to build was obviously going to be a thoroughfare or in an area where a thoroughfare probably was going to be put. Let me take the second case. Again, all the conditions of the by-laws were complied with. The proposal came forward for the erection of a shop. In that case those who wanted

173
this permission had a site not very far round the corner. The third case was the most difficult of all. A lease had expired—again it was a food shop—and the owner of the property was proposing to put up the rent to an undue figure in the opinion of the tenant. The tenant then came before the committee of the municipality and asked permission to erect a temporary shop on his own site. The building had been destroyed by fire. If that permission were granted there would be numerous other requests, and however much you lay down conditions that the building is to be pulled down in three or six months, or whatever the term may be, the noble Lord knows enough about local authorities to know that they are unwilling to inflict what can be represented as hardship on individuals. So there would be delay and retardation of the whole of the rebuilding of important areas.
I hope the noble and learned Viscount, when he replies to the discussion, will be able to repeat and to re-emphasize the very excellent statement made in another place yesterday by the Lord Privy Seal. There has been a certain amount of agitation as to whether or not the Government are entitled to proceed with controversial legislation in time of war. We almost lost the war because, in Erne of peace, before the war started, we failed to introduce controversial legislation—conscription, A.R.P. services, control of industry for the manufacture of munitions, and so on. Let us see to it that we do not make the same mistake in war-time and thereby risk losing the peace. It is difficult, however vivid one's imagination may be, to picture what the state of Europe and the world will be when the "Cease fire" sounds. Let your Lordships picture to yourselves the condition of the Continent of Europe—chacs, no Government, nobody to set up a Government. The attention of the Legislature—this House and another place—will be required to try and solve these vast problems. Or look round the world. Look at the Pacific, India, Malay, the Philippines—all these represent problems depending for their solution on the best brains of the country, and the best brains, I am glad to say, are included in the two Houses of Parliament. They will have to concentrate on solving these problems.
174
Take our own country and consider the vast problems which will have to be faced on demobilization—the tens of thousands of men and women coming out of the Armed Forces and out of industry. We shall also be faced either with an immediate Election, or the prospect of an immediate Election, and all the opportunities an Election provides for misrepresentation, particularly on the small controversial points. The dangers I foresee, unless we agree to pass essential controversial legislation, are congestion in Parliament, a sense of frustration, a general disgust growing in the hearts of the people, a feeling that democracy has failed. Democracy has not failed in the past and let us see it does not fail in the future. I would like once again to say how much many of us welcomed the speech of the Lord Privy Seal in another place, and I hope the noble and learned Viscount will be able to announce that at no distant date the Government will bring in legislation even though it is bound to be controversial. Some people are bound to object to it, for it is obvious from this debate that we cannot expect to get unanimity.
There is another matter which ought to be dealt with. Preliminary steps have not yet been taken by the Government to see whether, and to what extent, there ought to be reform of local government. I hope the Government will, at no distant date, announce the appointment of another Uthwatt Committee or ask some impartial body to look into this question of areas and the powers of local authorities, because there you are dealing with essential machinery which must be passed now if we are to be in a position to tackle the various problems which will come before us when the war ends. I hope that the noble Lord (Lord Portal) will be ready to deal with the measures which affect him in particular, if necessary, by several Bills. If he waits until he can bring forward one comprehensive Bill dealing with all points, there will be such an interminable delay and the Bill will be so over-weighted and so controversial that we shall not be able to deal with certain fundamentals which to-day should be dealt with.
I remember a statement made by a member of the War Cabinet in the last war. He referred to the fact that on numerous occasions matters of controversy between Departments and Ministers had been referred to him for decision. He

175
said that, looking back, he believed that many of his decisions had been wrong but that, collectively, it was right to have given the decisions. There was a debate in your Lordships' House not very long ago in which two alternative proposals for the central authority were advocated by my noble friend Lord Reith and my noble friend Lord Samuel. The Government took the worst course when they indicated they were not in a position to adopt either. My own personal opinion is that Lord Reith's is the right proposal, but let us get ahead and get a central authority. The worst thing of all is to try and get complete agreement.
LORD PORTAL: The Government did not say that they would not adopt either proposal.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I do not want to misrepresent my noble friend. Let me put it this way—he was unable to express any opinion. I hope the noble Lord will deal with these matters with boldness and vigour, and I do wish to impress upon him the sense of urgency. I hope there will be individual members of your Lordships' House belonging to the different Parties or sitting on the Cross Benches who will say two things to the Government—"Deal with these matters as soon as possible, and when you introduce your Bill" (which, after all, will represent the combined efforts of representatives of three Parties) "we will give you the necessary majority in the Lobby." It is no good urging Government action and then turning down the results of their deliberations. When the time comes for dealing with this or with other proposals we shall all of us have to sacrifice certain things—some of our opinions, some of our views, some of our privileges, some of our property, some of our rights. I am perfectly certain that the members of your Lordships' House will be as prepared to make these sacrifices in the national interests as they have shown themselves willing to sacrifice their own persons or to sacrifice their own sons when it is necessary in the national interest. If we do that, if we take that line, we shall have made a contribution towards the winning of the peace.
LORD GEDDES: My Lords, I have listened with extraordinary interest to the debate through all yesterday and to-day and I feel, in common, I am sure, with
176
all your Lordships, that the level of the debate has been extraordinarily high. But there has been one side of this problem of planning which I have not heard referred to directly. Perhaps my experience in the course of the war is a little special. What has been brought forcibly to my notice by my experience of the last three years has been the unhealthiness and the still continuing unhealthiness of the common human crop, much the most important crop of the country, in fact the crop which is to be the country. In the days just when war was started, when evacuation was going on, I saw thousands of children, received them, and felt very like the old woman who lived in a shoe because arrangements had to be made for them at very short notice. One saw exactly what the physical condition of those children was, what their clothing condition was, what their mental condition was, what their manners were. Then, later in the war now still going on, I was in the north-west, and there, in the most densely populated parts of the country over a huge area, I saw conditions under which our people were living and under which the future citizens were growing up.
With all that in my mind, when I came to read the Scott Report I really felt shocked. It was so obvious that something other than reconstruction was in the mind, perhaps, of the majority. There was preservation, it seemed to me, rather than a vigorous going forward to the future, a future which we still have ahead of us, a future in which we shall have our young population—that is to say, the young men and the young women who are to be mothers and fathers, or who are, perhaps, now the mothers and fathers of young children. We shall have to get them into conditions of life, of space, and of amenity where they can bring up healthy young people; where they are not so crowded and congested that they get hidden away and lost, and are insulated from the influences of civilization which ought to be bearing upon them and moulding them. It seems to me that the future development of the population distribution in this country must involve the building of new towns of a new type. It cannot be done overnight. I believe it must be done over a long period if we are to have a really healthy human England. Of course we always use this term "England" in two or three senses; for the land,

177
for the people as they live and for the actions of the State. The England that matters is the England of the people. That seems to me to have got rather left cut of this debate so far as any actual expression of the fact is concerned. I know it has been behind everything that has been said, but it has not been brought into the foreground.
Now what is the vision that one has of a future England? Most of our people are now herded together. If we were certain that there were to be such masses of people always in these places where the herds are, we would need most vigorous reconstruction there, and that would only be the case if there were some definite reason tying industry to those spots. Many of the industries were started where they are now because of local advantages which have long since passed away and now it is merely tradition that the industries should be there. We have got these great agglomerations and we have got another thing that is not referred to anywhere, I think, in the Scott Report—namely, the very rapid change that is going on in the age position of our population. We have got an ageing population because we have got many people preserved by medical science from that very prolific period, the seventies and the eighties. Whether or not we have old people in such numbers, there cannot be so many of the same ages as there will be in the next few years, because they have not been born, but we may have more people of an older age, and that, too, is a factor which has to be considered in any planning that is to be done.
And so I put this question to myself when I read the Scott Report: Have the Committee really envisaged the fact that the young people of the country, always precious, are more precious than ever? Have they envisaged the fact fully and explicity that these young people have got be given a very much better environment than they have had in the years before the war if they are to develop into what they can develop into? And have the Committee thought of how to deal with the problems of an ageing population? If we are to have industry, as we must have, for we are an industrial country and cannot get away from it, and if we are to have industry prosperous, we must have healthy workers in the industries; and if we are to have healthy workers they have got to come from
178
homes in a healthy environment. Our industries have been eating the country population ever since the beginning of the industrial revolution. People have gone from the country to the towns. That cannot go on indefinitely. My home is in the country and I know the sort of conditions that exist around us—they are typical—in connexion with the human stocks. We must bring back the population from the towns and bring the young people into the country.
How is that to be done? It must be done not only by agriculture but by industry of all sorts. With electricity, which creates no local nuisance, we are able to provide with power factories in the country which are not an eye-sore. They will make the country different because around them there will be people who work in them. That will mean that there will be a change in the small country towns and in the villages, but it will be a desirable change. For fifteen years, from 1924 to 1939, I was engaged, as some of your Lordships may be aware, in perhaps as big a development of creating new centres for life and work as any member of your Lordships' House. I was concerned, and still am, with the copper belt in Northern Rhodesia. There in a place which was just savage wild we have been able to create new towns surrounding new industries, for Europeans and for Africans, and to provide them with centres of interest and life and energy in what we call great clubs, but which are really large community centres for providing opportunities for social gatherings, for games, for lectures, for dances, in fact for all the life that goes to make people happy and contented in their leisure hours.
It seems to me that we have ahead of us a great opportunity in this country to build new towns—small towns, not great towns—and new villages on lines something like those which I have tried briefly to sketch to you. In that way, and only in that way I believe, shall we be able to get life back into the country because these small towns and villages will themselves be a help to agriculture. I know it will be a different England, but the conditions that made the England with which we are familiar to-day—I am speaking geographically—the England that we all love so much, were economic conditions that have passed. New eco-

179
nomic conditions will compel change. What we have to consider to-day is what is the best machinery to bring about an adequate study and an adequate discussion and ventilation of the problems that lie ahead of us. I believe that all this planning has got to be under a Minister of high rank and influence. He must be responsible to Parliament. Behind him there must be a highly expert staff, the sort of staff which is envisaged in the proposed Commission—not the department that is going to carry out the actual development. We want a general staff of national organization which will include a very strong representation from the medical side, because after all the profession that is most closely concerned with the physical life of the people is the medical profession, and that is the human problem that we can all be most interested in.
My noble friend Viscount Astor raised a moment ago the question of some redistribution of power among local authorities. I think all of us who have been thinking a good deal, as I have been, about this problem of population distribution, must feel that many of the local authorities as they exist to-day have a vested interest in over-population. It is a most pernicious thing that it should be so. Therefore it seems to me that there ought to be established in connexion with planning a redistribution of local power among what I may call Regional Councils. I am not suggesting that Regional Commissioners, the nominated officials appointed for war purposes, should be continued. If anybody suggested that to me, I should say: God forbid. But there should be Regional Councils to relieve the centre which is going to be very busy, as Viscount Astor has pointed out, with many problems concerned with the detailed study and detailed decisions in connexion with national planning. That I think is essential. Below these there would remain county councils and so on, but that any authority should be concerned directly to exercise and able to exercise a veto on proposals as to how the population is to be distributed in a more health-giving way I think is wrong.
I feel sure that everyone who has listened to this debate has a clearer mind about what is wanted than before. I think we have found that we all really mean the
180
same thing, although some throw a little more emphasis here and others a little more emphasis there. But there is almost universal agreement—I believe it to be completely universal agreement—that we have got to get this Central Planning Authority. After so many brilliant speeches on the subject I do not want to say anything in detail on the financial side. I would only stress my fundamental agreement with the proposals of the Uthwatt Committee. I think they are extremely helpful, and I think as the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, said, that you cannot possibly get universal agreement on everything, but that you will get something much worse if you do not agree. Therefore I think we ought to make it quite plain, as has been said by other noble Lords, to the Government that they should adopt the Uthwatt Report, perhaps with minor modifications, but without destroying or weakening its essential principles. With the creation of a general staff of planning I think we can look forward to the future with the certainty that we will not be quite unprepared when peace breaks out.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I will not detain you more than a few minutes, but I should be grateful if you will allow me to make a few observations on the all-important subject of communications which have only been briefly referred to in this extremely interesting debate. My noble friend Lord Latham is very much to be congratulated on focusing our attention on these vital problems. We have all listened very closely to the debate which has gone on for two days, but in that debate and in the previous debate on a similar subject raised by my noble friend Lord Reith, too little has been said of the question of communications. I hope that on some future occasion the noble Lord who controls these matters with such distinction will give us his views on them and some idea of the plans he has for the future.
I feel that your Lordships will accept the fact that psychological and economic planning cannot be divorced from physical planning. Physical planning is a technical operation which must follow certain first principles. Such a plan, I suggest, consists at the outset in making marks on a map to indicate the location of buildings, whatever function they may eventually have to fulfil. These marks

181
will be grouped when certain functions are best operated in locations which should be near in time to one another. Physical nearness is often not possible, but the same effect can almost always be got by providing an equivalent—that is, nearness in time. This nearness in time is determined by the road, which must therefore be recognised as amongst the fundamentals of planning. No house, farm, factory, field, harbour, bridge or the all-important aerodrome can be used or operated at all unless it can be reached by road.
Roads, therefore, are also essential to the working of any plan because they provide to-day the most flexible, prompt, convenient and far-reaching mode of transport. But for the immense taxation—latterly £63,000,000 per annum in addition to the payment of road upkeep—they would, for many classes of carriage, prove to be the cheapest. It is to be deplored that their use has been attended by a great toll of accidents, but I suggest that for this there are two reasons, the simplicity of which, perhaps, has led to their being overlooked. In the first place, no attempt has been made in this country, so far, to provide absolute segregation from one another of the two types of road traffic which are utterly incompatible—to wit "through" traffic and "service" traffic, of which the latter, of course, includes pedestrian traffic. The second reason I suggest is that, whereas one category of traffic units, to wit, the 3,000,000 motor vehicles, has been subjected to some 2,000 mandatory regulations, the major number of traffic units, the 30,000,000 pedestrians, have been subjected to no guidance by any habit-forming rule of conduct—after the fashion of the "show your helm" rule of the sea—which would lead to their intended next move being foreseeable.
I leave this second matter aside to revert to the former which is of more direct and, I think, of cardinal importance to every part of the projected physical plan. I mean the provision of segregation by means of "through" roads for non-stop "through" traffic. I suggest that the only known method of segregation is by means of the motorway. As your Lordships will remember, this was first developed by the Axis Powers and was displayed in being in Germany to a Parliamentary Committee of both
182
Houses consisting of 250 persons, in, I think, the year 1938. It is, I suggest, by no means a bad thing to learn from experience, even when the experience is that of our enemy. Perhaps your Lordships may remember that when, in 1935, Hitler was asked by the British chairman of a visiting automobile organization: "What is your purpose in making these thousands of miles of motorways?" the answer was instant: "I am making these Autobahnen in order that it may be possible to develop industry in those places that are best for industry, and not be limited to those places where there happens to be a railway station." His ultimate purpose was, no doubt, war, but his proximate purpose was to allow of the most efficient planning of industry and agriculture. He thus freed the planners in their choice of location for the industrial population in a way they never have been freed in this country.
If, at the same time, Hitler neglected (as he certainly did) his railway system, in this he was wrong, but that does not vitiate the fundamental usefulness of a clever road system. It was found that with average speeds as high as fifty-five miles per hour the fuel and tyre consumption per mile run, instead of rising as was anticipated by some, was reduced by 30 per cent. It was also found, by contrasting the number of accidents on 100 miles of these high-speed motorways with the number on the corresponding 100 miles of mixed traffic roads between the same two places, that the accidents were reduced by 83 per cent. on the motorways.
If I were to be asked where these safe routes for segregated traffic could be run in this country, my reply would be: "Wherever it is desirable to relieve a line of towns, villages and hamlets from the dangers of mixed traffic roads, while yet ensuring that the inhabitants are not cut off from the rest of the life of the community." That is where these motorways, I suggest, are most desirable. Their routes, of course, must be decided on a proper survey of these facts whilst yet utilizing only such land as is not otherwise valuable. In this connexion the facts brought to life by the traffic manager of one of the greatest manufacturing concerns in this country (Mr. F. Smith, of Lever Brothers), while they may have been noted by some of your

183
Lordships are, perhaps, not widely known. They show that out of the 39,300 towns, townlets and villages of this country, no fewer than 31,500 have no railway station. We have 20,000 miles of railway routes, and 120,000 miles of roads. I do not suggest that stations should be provided everywhere, or that it would be possible to pay for them; none the less, the effect of this isolation, taken together with our bad road layout, is obviously related to, if it is not actually the cause of, the undesirable concentration of our industries and our industrial population which was referred to in such detail by my noble friend who preceded me in this debate.
The undoubted need for an improvement in our road communications is fully admitted by the very fact that in 1937, under the Trunk Road Act, 4,500 miles of our tortuous road network were handed over to a central authority to widen, straighten and adapt to trunk traffic, at a cost which was subsequently estimated to be £240,000,000. This procedure would have attracted our trunk traffic into the midst of our mixed traffic, and would certainly have disastrous consequences so far as concerns the children, the aged, the harried pedestrian, the cattle and all other traffic that necessarily uses the roads on to which every farm, field and village house door unavoidably opens and delivers its victims. Such a road scheme is the ultimate negation of sane planning. The suggestion has recently been made in your Lordships' House by the most reverend and noble Lord, Lord Lang of Lambeth, that our past efforts at planning have been attended by progressive deterioration of beauty and by further ribbon development. That seems to me to be largely ascribable to the neglect of the road problem. If the Minister had exercised the power given to him to forbid access to the new by-pass roads and to the approach roads to towns, no single house or factory would have been built to front on to any of these great roads, and there would therefore have been no ribbon development. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, when he comes to give us the views of His Majesty's Government on these matters, may see fit to give us some guidance in this respect.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, earlier in the debate to-day my
184
noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, who himself made so powerful and interesting a contribution to our debate, offered to the House an abbreviated sketch of what I was about to say, and pointed out, as of course is the fact, that although at Lord Portal's request I am saying a few words at the end of the discussion, I could not be expected to come forward now in order to make additional Government pronouncements on this subject. That is perfectly true; and it was not, therefore, altogether unnatural that my noble friend should have added, with complete good humour, that at the end of my speech the House would be just as wise as it was at the beginning. I must confess that, if I might choose my role, I would sooner be engaged in explaining the clauses of a Bill on this subject and endeavouring to explain why I thought that they could be justified and in meeting concrete criticisms on concrete points; but perhaps I may be allowed to say that one cannot always choose one's role or the occasions when one may take the course that one prefers.
While what my noble friend said may very well be true—and I certainly do not mind his saying it, and am greatly obliged to some of your Lordships for re-assembling to hear my closing words—there is another thing which is quite certain, and that is that, if we take this two days' debate as a whole, we may say that all of us will go away a good deal wiser than we were at the beginning. This has been a very remarkable debate. It offers a very good example of the value of discussion in this House of topics of public policy of first-class importance. I am not surprised that my noble friend Lord Astor, who had to acquaint himself with what was said on the first day by reading it in the Official Report, should have been struck, as I think any of us who have been here throughout have been struck, with the real value of the contributions which it has been possible for noble Lords who have taken part to make.
While these speeches are speeches of great weight and authority, it really cannot be said that all the speakers arrive at the same conclusion. If the Government looked to this debate to provide them with what the French call a directive, they will find only finger-posts which seem to me to point in several contradictory directions. The noble Lord, Lord Latham, in his detailed and analytical

185
speech, to which I must return, and about which I have one or two modest observations to offer, did not accept either the Uthwatt Report or the Scott Report as pointing out the true method of advance. He warned us that he was not speaking for his Party. The speaker from the Front Bench of the Labour Party (Lord Wedgwood), who entered no such reservation, was the only noble Lord on the left of the Woolsack who contributed anything orally from that Bench. I am bound to say that I did not precisely follow the relevance of his recollections, but I gathered from occasional phrases, which I hastily jotted down, that he was not in favour of the Uthwatt Report. He referred to it at one illuminating moment as "this wretched Report," and advanced the proposition, particularly attractive to those of us who are not members of the Socialist Party, that the State is a very dangerous thing. That is the condition of opinion so far as it has found expression in that quarter of the House.
My noble friend Lord Radnor, following Lord Latham, explained that he had expected the noble Lord who moved the Motion to bless the Uthwatt Report, and declared himself somewhat embarrassed to find that from the Labour Benches his own objections were anticipated. I did not myself think that it cramped the noble Earl's style at all, or at any rate he recovered from it, because I should like to extract two sentences from his most interesting speech. First of all, he thought that the suggestions in the Uthwatt Report "will be found to be quite unworkable," and secondly, he described one of the principal recommendations of that Report as "absurd" because, he said, it proposed to give "power to a public body to purchase land compulsorily from a private individual in order to relet it to another private individual for development, and presumably to let to that third party for the benefit of his own pocket." I should dearly like to indulge myself in this interesting scrap. There are a lot of things I am prepared to say at the proper time, but this at least is a moment when my lips are sealed.
I feel that I surely shall be doing what is right by the general course of the debate if I remind your Lordships of the very important and impressive contribution made yesterday by the most reverend Pre-
186
late the Archbishop of York. He is a man who, as your Lordships know, has really spent a great deal of his life in making himself at first hand personally and really acquainted with what you may call the rural problem, and his speech seemed to me, if I may presume to say so, an admirable example of an informed contribution made by a prominent ecclesiastic on a social and economic problem which he thoroughly understands. He put in his plea for a strong, effective central authority. He made what, to me at least, seems a most sensible remark, that whatever the Scott Committee may be supposed to entertain as an ideal, there must be dispersal of industry into the country.
I remember that in the days long ago when I was in the House of Commons as member for Walthamstow, just outside London, and when I used to expound, as I did nightly, the merits of the Lloyd George Budget, I called attention one evening to the fact that this spread-over into the country was an inevitable consequence of the development of our native land, and that it was perhaps worth while when you had taken your ticket at Liverpool Street in order to travel to Waltham-stow, to notice and reflect upon the names of the intervening railway stations. There was Bishopsgate. No doubt in ancient times it was the point in the walled City of London where the town ended and the country began. Then you came to Bethnal Green, which is not quite so green as it used to be. Then you came to Cambridge Heath, where in the good old days the highwaymen used to stop the travellers from Cambridge. Next came London Fields—there are not many fields there now. And lastly you came to Hackney Downs, which again at present are largely covered by bricks and mortar. Nothing that you can do will alter the fact, in a country like ours, that there will be this spreading from industrial centres into some wider area. The real question is not whether there should be such a spreading: it must be so; but the real question is, is it possible to devise regulations and conditions under which that may be done in orderly fashion for the general benefit of the community? That is the point which the Archbishop made, and it is one which I thought was worth recalling to your Lordships just now.
Then we came to the pair of brethren, the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel and the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh,

187
each of whom is an enthusiastic planner and a strong supporter of the Uthwatt Report—with the striking difference that my noble friend close to me is a determined opponent of the Commission which the Uthwatt Report recommends, while Lord Balfour of Burleigh, as I understand, favours the other view. I am not saying at all that that is unnatural, but since admittedly one of the very first things now to be declared is the Government's policy on this very question, the Central Planning Authority's nature and functions, the mere fact of that contrast does show, as Lord De La Warr said in his speech early this afternoon, that this question is one of the most intense complication, not capable of a simple or a concrete solution, which is bound to involve a great many points and provisions one way or the other which will not be universally accepted.
And here I would like to take up a reference, I may say an appeal, made to me by my noble friend Lord Astor, who has evidently been spending the morning in reading the debates in both Houses, when he asked for an assurance that, notwithstanding these difficulties—and they are very great—that would not be regarded as a reason why legislation as prompt as possible on this sort of subject should not be pursued. He asked in effect that the Government should in this House repeat the assurance that was given to the other, and that is quite right, for I conceive that your Lordships are entitled to similar treatment on such a matter. I will not delay, but I will simply say categorically that the assurance that the Lord Privy Seal there gave is one upon which undoubtedly both Houses of Parliament may rely.
I will read, if I may, a few of the words which he used. He reminded the House that he had earlier said this:
"It will be generally agreed that, as a first consideration, our deliberations must be concentrated upon matters or measures which are vitally connected with the effective prosecution of the war; nevertheless, we have now reached a stage at which it may be necessary for Parliament to consider legislation arising from or out of conditions created by the war on which there is a general measure of agreement."
The right honourable gentleman, my colleague the Lord Privy Seal, went on to expand this in the course of his speech. He said:
188
"As was pointed out in the gracious Speech, the Government have instituted a number of inquiries into the sort of action it may be necessary to take in order to deal with the perplexities of peace,"
and it will be in your Lordships' recollection that there was a reference in the gracious Speech to both the Uthwatt and the Scott Reports. The right honourable gentleman went on:
"and the Government statement which I have cited contemplates that, in the course of this Session, it may be necessary to introduce legislation, additional to that required for dealing with the immediate war situation, which additional legislation will relate to actual conditions of difficulty that have been created by the war, with a view to easing conditions when the war is over."
I think your Lordships may take it that the Government are not going to set up the fact that this topic raises difficulties and controversies as a final and conclusive reason for denying the possibility of further action.
I should like now without delaying any longer to return to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Latham. As I have said, he stated the case as he saw it against the proposals of these two Committees, proposals which are designed to promote orderly planning, and my noble friend felt it right to indicate what he thought was a preferable mode of action. I am speaking quite summarily, because it is too late in the day to go into precise detail, but I state it fairly, I hope, when I say that his view was that the right line was quite different, the right line was nationalization, and the right line was the rating of site values. I desire to submit to the House, without seeking to conduct controversy at this hour, that whatever may be said for either of these proposals, they are not really contributions to planning at all.
Take the second one first. The point was made in anticipation of what I intended to say by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh. The rating of site values, to the general principle of which I have never expressed objection, because I believe some such system has behind it much that is just and fair, has amongst other things the purpose of compelling, or at any rate doing all you can to force, the owner of a site to develop it to its fullest possible extent. I gathered from one of the interstices of the oration by my noble friend Lord Wedgwood that he desired to convey the same thought to the

189
House. The whole idea is that here you have people who are not putting the land they own to the best possible use. The best use is the developed use. If it is undeveloped, but is ripe for development, it ought to be developed. If it is partly developed, but is ripe for complete development, it ought to be completely developed. And in order to assist the landowner in his duty, let us clap on a rate or tax upon the site value of the land, and that will make him build a hotel on the top of it, or whatever other thing is the maximum way of developing his land. That is what it is. One would not say there is not a very great deal in theory, and it may be in more than theory, to be said for that view, but I respectfully beg to point out that that conception is in precise and flat contradiction of the conception involved in planning?
The object of planning is to secure that people should not, except by leave, develop their property to the highest possible degree. If a man does want to put houses on his site, he is not to be allowed to put houses up unless he gets the leave of the proper authority. The Archbishop of York said in his speech yesterday that there are areas in the north of London which would make some of the best market gardens in tile world and which, in the days when everybody growing vegetables in the suburbs brought their stuff to Covent Garden, produced much food, but which to-day are covered with houses. If your instrument is the weapon of the rating of site value, that is a very good way of compelling these areas to be covered with houses. On the other hand, the Archbishop of York and others, in this debate, after having, quite rightly, attached importance to regular and controlled planning, contemplate that there should not be such a development save under direction. Therefore I submit, with great respect to my noble friend, that whatever he may say in favour of the rating of site values, it has nothing in the world to do with any possible contribution to town or country planning.
I am afraid I take the same view about nationalization. Putting aside the perfectly enormous range of such an operation, which I should have thought is quite inconceivable in the course of the war; putting aside all the formidable questions that arise about compensation, which I gather Lord Latham would, to a large
190
extent, avoid by the process of not paying compensation unless he was convinced manifest injustice had been done—putting aside all that, when the State had acquired the land, is planning any further on? Not at all Planning is not a question of ownership; it is a question of control and management. Take an example very well known to your Lordships at this moment—the county agricultural committees. In many counties these committees are giving directions that such and such a crop shall be planted, such and such a field shall be ploughed up, and they are exercising a most effective control over agricultural areas. That is a form of management, a form of planning. Does anybody suggest that powers are required that they should own the farms which they direct? Not in the least.
The ownership of the land is not in itself a factor on the way to planning, as long as you have got adequate legislative power for the purpose of giving the necessary directions and control. I therefore submit to my noble friend Lord Latham that, whether he is right or not in his strong denunciation of the Uthwatt and Scott Reports, it is a mistake to suppose that there is a happy alternative round the corner, and that all you have got to do is to nationalize the land, put a rate on site values, and then you will be well on the way to achieve your purpose. I do not think so. Though I must say it would require a very long examination to satisfy every reasonable man that every recommendation in the Uthwatt Report is right, there is good common sense in the view that Lord Samuel and Lord Geddes expressed to-day, that if it is decided that we must take action on this subject, and take it promptly, it is a mistake to suppose we may still hesitate among a large number of alternatives, because I fancy that these Committees have addressed themselves to the heart of the matter and have exposed, with all their difficulties, what in substance is involved if the thing is going to be done.
The only other observation I have to make is this, because I do not desire to delay the House, and my noble friend will no doubt wish to say a word before he withdraws his Motion. I think it is a pity that the discussion on this tremendously difficult and important matter should, every now and then, evoke from an enthusiastic planner the reproach of

191
Procrastination. I hope I have as honest a wish to see desirable changes in the law promptly made as any man, but really, if you consider what is involved, I see no ground whatever for impeaching the Government as though they were guilty in this matter of undue delay. It is very natural to say so, because it is one way of getting things done, just as every schoolmaster is tempted to tell a pupil that if he has not finished his lesson in five minutes he will be kept in for an hour. Admittedly, this is one of the most complex and difficult questions that could be conceived. My noble friend Lord Geddes just now, going in for the whole Report, said we ought to get legislation adopting it all. No one knows better than my noble friend that that is not the way to legislate. We cannot just let the Uthwatt Report become "Exhibit A." it involves an enormous amount of detailed and careful consideration, clause by clause. I am very glad indeed to think it is not suggested that we cannot legislate about anything unless we legislate about everything. There are some things that come first, but it is bound to be a most tremendous business, and while, of course, that is a good reason for urging that there should be no waste of time, I must associate myself with what my noble friend Lord Portal said, and repeat that I cannot accept the statement that there is any undue delay.
My noble friend Lord Samuel, in the only part of his speech which did not exhibit that restraint which he usually shows, found it a matter of surprise, if not of grievance, that in the King's Speech there was no announcement that legislation on this subject was about to be introduced. Is the suggestion that the Government in these circumstances should announce legislation first and plan the legislation afterwards? That seems to me a most dangerous view. I think I remember a Government before the war which in the King's Speech announced that proposals would be made to deal with the problem of unemployment, and at the time the Session came to an end (not entirely owing to the Government's fault), the fact was that unemployment was much worse than it had been at the beginning. I really think in a matter of this importance and complexity it is only right for the Government to have reached a conclusion as to what they propose to
192
do, on perhaps a large number of the most difficult questions, before they announce that there is going to be legislation.
Such a matter surely is one which would hardly be dealt with by any Government without the deliberate and mature consideration of the most important Ministers and members of the War Cabinet. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the date of the Report of the Uthwatt Committee. I am speaking of the Final Report. It was published on the 1oth September. I do not know that it appears from the document but it is the fact that it was only received in the previous month is there really any ground for saying there has been any procrastination or any ground for reproach because the Government between the 1oth of September and the present date have not been able to reach those conclusions which we all hope it may be possible for the Government to announce very shortly? The 1oth September was the day on which British troops first landed in Madagascar, it was in the week in which very heavy fighting was going on at Stalingrad and appeals of all sorts were being made to us, it was just at the time when the enemy had carried out a major offensive in Egypt against the Eighth Army, and the Eighth Army to their eternal glory had just held them up. Can any noble Lord or any citizen say in those circumstances what procrastination or what delay has occurred because the War Cabinet were not in a position to authorize legislation about planning? it would almost appear from what I have stated as though the War Cabinet had had something else to do. The same reflection occurs and must occur to all of us to-day in regard to some of the rather light-hearted clamour on the subject of the Second Front. It is just possible that the War Cabinet even to-day may be necessarily involved in the most continuous labour upon even more immediate objects in those circumstances I do think I may fairly claim that on the statement of Lord Portal the Government should not be regarded in this matter as having been wilfully or negligently wanting in diligence.
There is one quotation with which I will conclude. I am not sure it is not the same quotation that in part was referred to by one of your Lordships. I would say that anybody who endeavours

193
at this moment to form a fair and just judgment of the situation is entitled to ask the Government whether they do or do not accept what is the basis of the Uthwatt Report printed on page II and in paragraph 17. I will venture to read the words. This Committee said:
"The first assumption we have made is that national planning is intended to be a reality and a permanent feature of the administration of the internal affairs of this country. We assume that it will be directed to ensuring that the best use is made of land with a view to securing economic efficiency for the community and well-being for the individual, and that it will be recognized that this involves the subordination to the public good of the personal interests and wishes of landowners. Unreserved acceptance of this conception of planning is vital to a successful reconstruction policy, for every aspect of a nation's activity is ultimately dependent on land."
My Lords, I am not perhaps saying anything very new, but I am none the less stating what is important when I conclude by assuring your Lordships that that assumption is the assumption on which Government policy is based.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, at this late hour I will confine myself to just a few remarks. I would say first of all, having been informed that certain animadversions were made as to my late arrival at your Lordships' House to-day, that it was due entirely to circumstances beyond my control and ought not to be taken as indicating any discourtesy or any lack of respect for your Lordships' House. The fact is I had a public appointment which had been arranged before I knew that this debate would go over till to-day, and it was impossible for me not to keep in part that appointment. I have listened with some surprise, if I may say so, to the interpretation given by the noble Lord on the Woolsack to my speech yesterday. I can find no authority in what I said for the statement that I offered, as an alternative to the proposals of the Uthwatt Committee, nationalization. I only introduced a reference to nationalization, with which I said in principle I agreed, as I do, in contrast to the piecemeal nationalization which would issue from the operation of the development rights scheme, but nowhere did I put forward nationalization as a contribution at this stage to the solution of planning problems.
Nor did I put forward the rating of site values as a solution of the problem. What
194
I did was to express a preference for the rating of site values to the proposal in the Uthwatt Report for a periodic levy upon an increase in values, and, if I may say so, a fair representation of what I said is this, that the problem of planning consists of three factors: one, the control of development; another, payment of fair compensation; and the third, catching increases in value which arise from betterment or from general community influences. Now the members of the Uthwatt Committee were not appointed to consider primarily planning. The reference to the Uthwatt Committee, as I understand it, was to consider the problems of compensation and betterment in so far as they related to planning. I offered as an alternative to the proposals of the Uthwatt Committe of (a) the development rights scheme, and (b) the periodic levy, the following: (1) control over the development of all land with the reservations as to compensation which the noble Viscount on the Woolsack has correctly repeated; (2) the rating of site values which, in my view, would solve the problem of compensation and betterment in a fairer, more efficient and more desirable way than would the periodic levy.
Those were my submissions and I hope that I developed them sufficiently accurately to make them understandable at all events to most of your Lordships. The relation of the rating of site values to planning is very close. One of the problems of planning is that there is not sufficient land for planning at places where it ought to exist, and to the extent that the application of the principle of rating site values fosters development it would be a contribution to planning and development. The purpose behind my Motion was to urge upon the Government the consideration of these important problems. After the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Portal, and the supplementation that was made by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, having their assurance that the Government are giving urgent attention to these problems, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned.