Sitting of 21 October 1942

Preamble
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PERUVIAN CHAMBER OF DEPUTIES (CORDIAL GREETINGS)
Mr. Speaker: I have to inform the House that there has been addressed to this House a Message passed unanimously by the Peruvian Chamber of Deputies, conveying its most cordial greetings and sincerest expressions of solidarity to the House of Commons, and wishing to put on record its admiration and sympathy for the British Commonwealth, which defends so heroically justice and liberty, when the fundamental bases of civilisation are opposed by the gravest threat in history; and that in presenting its Message to the House of Commons the Peruvian Chamber of Deputies ratifies its trust in the preservation of the institutions which guarantee world-wide security, being assured of the victory of humanity over the dissolvent forces of barbarism.
The House will perhaps authorise me to transmit a suitable reply expressing our satisfaction with this cordial message and reciprocating its good wishes.
HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  SUEZ CANAL COMPANY (HEAD OFFICE)
  Mr. Hannahasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can hold out any hope of moving the head office of the Suez Canal Company to some place outside enemy jurisdiction?
  The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): The fact that the Head Office is in occupied France is not of importance since the effective control of the Company no longer rests with the Head Office in Paris, but is wholly in the hands of the London Directors. The enemy cannot therefore exercise any influence over
  1942
  the operations of the Company. The British naval and military authorities in Egypt are responsible for all measures relating to the defence of the Canal itself.
  Mr. Hannah: Do the Government feel that the position of the Company is altogether satisfactory?
  Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, since it is wholly in the hands of the London directors.
  Mr. W. Astor: Is it not a fact that the French employees of the company have given very loyal service?
  Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir.

  BOMBING POLICY
  Mr. Ammonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any agreement between this country and Italy or between this and any other belligerent country as to the avoidance of bombing certain towns and cities?
  Mr. Eden: No, Sir.
  Mr. Ammon: Is there any truth in the rumour that is circulating that there is an agreement that if Cairo is not bombed, Rome will not be bombed?
  Mr. Eden: No, Sir. I think my hon. Friend is probably referring to a statement made in April, 1941, in which His Majesty's Government only stated what they would do in certain circumstances, but they did not state what they would not do.

  CHINA (EXTRA-TERRITORIAL RIGHTS)
  Captain Gammansasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in the general decision to relinquish extra territorial rights in China, any agreement has been reached regarding the future status of the International Settlement in Shanghai?
  Mr. Eden: The negotiations with the Chinese Government for the relinquishment of extra-territorial rights in China have not yet begun but I hope that they will be opened in the near future. My hon. Friend will understand that I am not able to make any statement at this time, although the International Settlement at Shanghai will naturally be one of the subjects for discussion.
  Captain Gammans: Will my right hon. Friend see that in these negotiations the position of the Shanghai municipal pensioners will not be lost sight of?
  Mr. Eden: I think there is another Question about that matter to which a separate reply is being given.

  RUDOLF HESS
  Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will comply with the Soviet Government's suggestion that the Nazi leader Hess be brought to trial immediately?
  Mr. Eden: No, Sir. No such suggestion has been made by the Soviet Government to His Majesty's Government. In our judgment there is no cause to apply to Hess treatment other than that now being elaborated by the United Nations for dealing with war criminals, wherever they may be. Proposals for the establishment of a United Nations Commission for the investigation of War Crimes have been submitted to and accepted by the United States Government and all the Allied Governments now established in London. We still await the reply of the Soviet Government. I should perhaps add that from the moment of Hess's capture, which event as the House will recall took place on 10th May, 1941, and before Germany's attack upon Soviet Russia, Hess has been treated as a prisoner of war. There has never been nor can there be any question of treating him as an envoy or of giving him any form of diplomatic or privileged status. All concerned may rest assured of this.
  Mr. Thorne: Is it not a fact that in the earlier part of the stages, after his arrest when he came over to England, he had a very comfortable berth somewhere in Surrey and was not in an internment camp then?
  Mr. Eden: My hon. Friend will realise that his arrival was a trifle unexpected, and the arrangements had therefore to be improvised. The next time we shall be more ready and know what to do.
  Mr. Driberg: Does he live under exactly the same conditions of comfort or discomfort as ordinary prisoners of war?
  Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, that is his status.
  Mr. A. Edwards: If Hitler comes and seeks refuge over here, will he receive the same kind of protection?

  ATLANTIC CHARTER
  Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make it clear that the formation of federations or confederations in Europe between States with mutual interests is in accordance with the terms of the Atlantic Charter and would be welcomed by the British Government as strengthening the world organisation of peace?
  Mr. Eden: In the opinion of His Majesty's Government the provisions of the Atlantic Charter are in no way incompatible with the formation of federations or confederations. As regards the attitude of His Majesty's Government, I have recently made it clear that His Majesty's Government welcome and are prepared to encourage any steps on the part of the smaller States to weld themselves into larger, though not exclusive, groupings.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Flying Instructors (Flight-Lieutenants)
    Mr. Perkinsasked the Secretary of State for Air how many flight-lieutenants have been employed on elementary flying training instruction for more than two years; and how many have been promoted to squadron-leader?
    The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): The number of officers who have been employed as elementary flying instructors for more than two years in the rank of flight-lieutenant is 117. Of these, 109 have been promoted to squadron-leader.
    Mr. Perkins: Are these new squadron-leaders war substantive or are they merely acting?
    Sir A. Sinclair: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put down that Question.

    Funeral Expenses
    Mr. J. H. Hollinsasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will seek the amendment of the Regimental Debts Act, 1893, under which funeral charges constitute a first charge against the estate of service personnel, and especially the

    1945
    abolition of the Regulation which in effect compels a service man to provide his own coffin?
    Sir A. Sinclair: The Regulations provide for Service funerals at public expense in the case of all deceased airmen. When the relatives do not desire a Service funeral, a grant is made from public funds. Funeral expenses are a preferential charge against the estates of all deceased persons, and when these are not chargeable to public funds the Regimental Debts Act applies this rule to deceased members of the Forces. The arrangement is of long standing, and I see no reason for making a change.
    Mr. Hollins: Will the right hon. Gentleman instruct his Department not to send letters to relatives of a dead man stopping £6 4s. 6d. for his coffin?
    Sir A. Sinclair: Perhaps my hon. Friend will send me an example of what he has in mind.
    Mr. Hollins: I have the letter here.

    Air Crews (Swimming Instruction)
    Mr. Molsonasked the Secretary of State for Air to what extent members of air crews are able to swim; and what steps are being taken to see that all men who fly over the sea are taught to swim?
    Sir A. Sinclair: Precise information in reply to the first part of the Question is not readily available. As for the second part, it is laid down in King's Regulations that, where facilities exist, personnel liable to form the crews of aircraft flying over the sea shall be taught to swim. Facilities for learning to swim are being increased and are already available for all members of aircrews in Initial Training Wings.
    Mr. Molson: Will my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that every effort is made to induce men to use the facilities for learning to swim?
    Sir A. Sinclair: Certainly.

    Bands (Private Engagements)
    Mr. George Griffithsasked the Secretary of State for Air whether his Department proposes to follow the example of the War Office, which has issued an instruction that Guards musicians are forbidden to accept civilian employment; for what reason the Air Force band at
    1946
    Uxbridge is allowed to furnish a symphony orchestra which has publicly performed in the provinces; and many of whose members continually fulfil private engagements to the prejudice of civilian musicians; and whether he will consider prescribing a minimum age for entrants to bands?
    Sir A. Sinclair: As the information asked for by my hon. Friend is extensive, I propose, with his consent, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Griffiths: Will the Minister in circulating the information see that these chaps do not blackleg any more?
    Sir A. Sinclair: No blacklegging is allowed.
    Following is the information:
    R.A.F. musicians may, with permission, accept private engagements when on leave, but special leave may not be granted for this purpose, nor may contracts for a series of engagements be accepted. These instructions are similar to those issued by the War Office.
    The R.A.F. orchestra is composed of instrumentalists from the Central Band at Uxbridge and of selected aircrafthands (musician) enlisted under a scheme for providing five-piece bands at R.A.F. stations. The orchestra provides music for broadcasts and official films and also musical entertainment for the Forces which is outside the scope of a military band. Subject to Service requirements the orchestra may accept private engagements not exceeding an average of one per fortnight. When such engagements are in the provinces, the orchestra normally gives concerts at neighbouring R.A.F. stations before returning to its headquarters
    I have no information which suggests that the rules are not being complied with, but if my hon. Friend has any cases in mind and will send me particulars, I will have them looked into. I should add that R.A.F. musicians undertaking private engagements are forbidden to accept remuneration lower than that usually paid to civilians for similar services.
    The medical category of musicians of the Central Band must not be above Grade 2. Other musicians are enlisted as aircrafthands (musicians) and are required to perform aircrafthand duties

    1947
    as well as the duties of musicians, and to undergo training for the purpose. A minimum age of 30 for new entrants has been prescribed.

    Aircraft Accidents
    Mr. Thorneasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can give any information in connection with the fall of an auxiliary tank from an aeroplane flying over Ilford, Essex, on nth October; and how many gallons of petrol were wasted?
    Sir A. Sinclair: The incident in question and a similar one which occurred shortly afterwards are both believed to be due to a technical fault which is now under investigation. Both tanks were full when they became detached, but it would not be in the public interest to disclose their capacity.

    Raids on Malta
    Mr. Thorneasked the Secretary of State for Air how many times Malta has been raided; how many people have been killed since the declaration of war, the amount of property that has been damaged and the number of aeroplanes that have been brought down?
    Sir A. Sinclair: Up to 19th October there have been 1,660 bombing attacks on Malta, and 1,069 enemy aircraft have been destroyed. I understand that, up to 20th September, 1,386 civilians had been killed and 6,704 buildings destroyed or damaged.
    Commander Sir Archibald Southby: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether in view of what he has said he does not think it necessary in the interests of the people of Malta, to hit Italy from the air?
    Sir A. Sinclair: We have been hitting Italy from the air, and we shall go on hitting Italy.
    Viscountess Astor: Very tenderly.

    Discharged Security Police, Northern Ireland
    Dr. Littleasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will, in accordance with the promise given, see that employment is provided for the discharged Northern Ireland Royal Air Force Security Police, as several of them are at present unemployed?
    Sir A. Sinclair: Of the 31 men concerned, I understand that 26 have at one time or another been found employment. The remaining five are those referred to in the last part of the reply which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Armagh (Sir W. Allen) on 10th June last, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy. I doubt whether there is anything more that I can or ought to do, but if my hon. Friend will let me have particulars, I will look into the merits or any cases he may have in mind.
    Dr. Little: Is the Minister aware that I have had a list presented to me giving the names of men who have lost their employment? Will he fulfil his promise to get them employment, because their wives and families are in serious difficulty?
    Sir A. Sinclair: I cannot promise to continue to provide these men with employment after they have lost it.

    Air Training Corps
    Mr. Brookeasked the Secretary of State for Air whether a boy who is prevented by long hours of work from joining the Air Training Corps is, on that account, debarred from acceptance for the Royal Air Force when he reaches calling-up age?
    Sir A. Sinclair: Aircrew service in the Royal Air Force is open to all suitable volunteers whether members of the Air Training Corps or not. For ground duties, only a limited number of recruits can be accepted from the younger age classes and those who have undergone instruction in the Air Training Corps are, in general, preferred.
    Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: As this Corps is now wholly under the Air Ministry, will the Minister use his influence to see that these hours of work are reduced, because there is a considerable number of boys who would like to join?
    Sir A. Sinclair: I think my hon. Friend has misread the Question, which refers to long hours worked by boys not in the Air Training Corps.
    Mr. Lindsay: It is precisely for that reason that I am asking this question. A large number of boys would like to join, and as this Corps is now under the Air Ministry, would the Minister use his influence to see that their hours are reduced so that they can join?
    Sir A. Sinclair: I am responsible only for the administration of the Air Training Corps, not for the hours worked by boys outside.

    Bombing Raids on Germany
    Mr. Simmondsasked the Secretary of State for Air on how many separate occasions the Air Ministry has announced that more than 1,000 bombers attacked a specific area in Germany?
    Sir A. Sinclair: Three, Sir.
    Mr. Simmonds: Is it not a fact that in addition to the great material damage they have done, these raids have had a very considerable effect on enemy morale, and will the Minister give an undertaking to the House that so far as operational conditions permit he will endeavour to multiply the number of raids of this type?
    Sir A. Sinclair: I will give the House the assurance that I will fully support the Commander-in-Chief in all measures which he thinks necessary for the prosecution of the air war against Germany with the utmost vigour.
    Viscountess Astor: Will the Minister tell us whether the Cabinet have decided on full or partial bombing while waiting for a second front? Would it not be better, if we are to have a second front, to bomb properly while we are about it?
    Sir A. Sinclair: I can assure the Noble Lady that we are bombing as hard as we can.
    Sir A. Southby: Not Italy.

  AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION

    Factory Production Committee
    Mr. Pearsonasked the Minister of Aircraft Production whether a properly constituted production committee exists at a factory of which he has been informed; and whether it functions satisfactorily under a constitution generally acceptable to the employees?
    The Minister of Aircraft Production (Colonel Llewellin): No, Sir. But I am pursuing the matter with the firm concerned and will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

    Absenteeism
    Mr. Simmondsasked the Minister of Aircraft Production what approximate percentage of the scheduled hours was not
    1950
    worked by employees in industrial undertakings, mainly engaged on contracts for the Ministry of Aircraft Production, over the most recent convenient period?
    Colonel Llewellin: The latest statistics show that the percentage of non-productive hours in aircraft undertakings is just over 9 per cent. This covers waiting time, Civil Defence, and absenteeism from sickness and other causes.
    Mr. Simmonds: Could the Minister assure me that very careful investigation is made into these statistics so that local and national callings may be severally dissected?
    Colonel Llewellin: That is so. Wherever we find that absenteeism is particularly bad, we send someone along to go into it and find out why.
    Mr. G. Griffiths: Could the Minister give us the exact percentage of avoidable absenteeism outside sickness? Is not absenteeism on account of sickness higher than avoidable absenteeism? Let the hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) know that.
    Colonel Llewellin: I have not the precise break-up in these figures for avoidable and unavoidable absenteeism, but in the winter months absenteeism owing to sickness accounts for the larger share of it.
    Viscountess Astor: Is it not true that it was found in the last war that long hours meant absenteeism, and has it not taken the Government two years to find it out?
    Colonel Llewellin: I do not think that is so, because the hours are not unnecessarily long.
    Viscountess Astor: Of course they are.

  ROYAL NAVY

    Volunteer Reserve Officers
    Mr. Perkinsasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the highest rank yet attained by any Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve officer in a post afloat?
    The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander): The highest rank yet attained by any R.N.V.R. officer in a post afloat is that of commander.

    Journalists
    Mr. Saltasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of journalists

    1951
    who are serving in the Navy; whether their experience and ability are being used to record events as official correspondents on active service and thereby present a more comprehensive picture to the public at home of the Navy's achievements in the war?
    Mr. Alexander: Six journalists are employed by the Admiralty as official naval reporters, for the purpose my hon. Friend has in mind. In addition a number of newspaper correspondents are accredited to the Fleet in all parts of the world and are given facilities in His Majesty's ships and naval establishments whenever possible. I am unable to give the number of men serving in the Royal Navy who were journalists in civil life, but they, like other members of the Fleet, are at liberty to write to the Press provided that their contributions are first sent to the Admiralty for approval.
    Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister, in order to ensure that there are reliable correspondents, make arrangements for a representative of the "Daily Worker" to be accredited?

    Chief of Naval Air Services
    Sir A. Southbyasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what were the difficulties which prevented the appointment, as Chief of Naval Air Services, in place of Admiral Dreyer, of a younger officer with experience of the Fleet Air Arm?
    Mr. Alexander: I cannot accept the implication in the Question. Sir Frederic Dreyer's appointment as Chief of Naval Air Services was made, as explained by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary on 14th October, because he was considered to be the most suitable man for a post which required at that stage to be filled by an officer who had proved that he had exceptional administrative capacity. Sir Frederic Dreyer had proved by the exceptional work he had carried out during this war that he met this requirement. The work he has already carried out whilst he has been C.N.A.S. has proved the wisdom of his selection for this appointment.
    Sir A. Southby: Is it not a fact that in the Army competent officers have been removed from responsible posts simply because of their age, and are we now
    1952
    to understand that in the Navy, no matter how old they may be, men are to be retained in their posts although there may be younger officers with much more modern and up-to-date experience capable of doing the job?
    Mr. Alexander: The hon. and gallant Gentleman, with his well-known knowledge of the Navy, must recognise the strain upon the Royal Navy to-day. If it was not for the very large number of retired officers who are serving on active service to-day, we could not carry on.
    Mr. Austin Hopkinson: In order to prevent the further bandying about of the names and reputations of distinguished officers, will the First Lord consider taking steps to make such changes as will restore the confidence of all ranks in the Fleet while at the same time making it evident that the country is not ungrateful to those who have necessarily exhausted themselves in her service?
    Mr. Alexander: This is a matter upon which I am at any time open to examination by the House, as a question of confidence as to whether the Naval Staff is properly chosen. I have good reason, and the country has good reason, to be grateful to them all, and changes will be made when they are necessary in the interests of the country and not for any other reason.
    Commander Locker-Lampson: Is it not a great mistake to have the name of a gallant officer introduced into a Question in this House when he has done no wrong?
    Sir A. Southby: It is not suggested that he has.
    Commander Locker-Lampson: The hon. and gallant Member's knowledge of the Navy is not recent.
    Mr. Molsonasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the ages of the chief of the Naval Air Service and of his chief staff officer?
    Mr. Alexander: The Chief of Naval Air Services is 64. There is no such appointment as Chief Staff Officer to the C.N.A.S., but the Assistant Chief of Naval Air Services, to whom the hon. Gentleman presumably refers, is 56.
    Professor A. V. Hillasked the First Lord of the Admiralty at what date prior

    1953
    to the war the present Chief of Naval Air Services was last employed; and in what capacity?
    Mr. Alexander: Admiral Dreyer's last employment, prior to the outbreak of war, was as Commander-in-Chief, China. The appointment terminated in January, 1936.

    Civil Service, Malta (Bonus Scheme)
    Mr. William Brownasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the explanation of the delay experienced by the Civil Service Clerical Association in securing Admiralty agreement to terms of reference for arbitration on the question of the war bonus of the locally-entered staff at Malta, following on the unanimous rejection by the locally-entered staff of the new scheme introduced by the Admiralty?
    Mr. Alexander: In view of representations received locally from the staffs concerned the new bonus scheme to which the hon. Member refers has not been put into force, and further discussions have been taking place between the Governor of Malta, local representatives of the Service Departments and representatives of the local staffs. In these circumstances it seems desirable to await the outcome of those discussions on the spot.
    Mr. Brown: Is not the Minister aware that this issue of giving the Maltese civil servants some relief for the greatly increased cost of living they have had to bear has now been under discussion for 18 months? Instead of sending, George Crosses to Malta, will the Minister see that the grievances of this staff overseas are given reasonable consideration?
    Mr. Alexander: It is only because the hon. Member's own association, with which he has long been connected, did not accept the improved offer made that the improved offer is not now in operation, but, as a result of reconsideration, I understand the Governor has approved still further increases. I believe they were to have been announced yesterday, but perhaps the hon. Member will wait until he has seen the details before putting a further Question.

  JAMAICA

    Sugar Industry (Wages)
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies
    1954
    whether, as certain adult workers in the sugar factories in Jamaica are in receipt of wages of 10s. 6d. per week, the general wage being 15s. to 18s. per week for a 12-hour day, all of which wages are too low for reasonable maintenance, he will recommend the adoption forthwith of a minimum wage ordinance for this industry?
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Harold Macmillan): Wages of sugar workers in Jamaica are paid in accordance with an agreement concluded between the Bustamante Industrial Union and the Jamaica Sugar Manufacturers Association on 19th March, 1941, whereby wages are linked to the cost-of-living index.
    Mr. Adams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that complaints are made very generally in the island that these wages are too low to afford reasonable subsistence?
    Mr. Macmillan: As I said in my answer, I prefer to leave these matters of wages to be settled by negotiation between the trade unions and employers' associations.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: Are these low wages paid by British firms operating in the island?
    Mr. Macmillan: They are settled either by British firms or between the workers' unions and the employers' unions.

    Trade Union Activities
    Mr. D. Adamsasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the complaints of trade union leaders in Jamaica that their lawful activities are being interfered with, and their members intimidated, by the police authorities in Jamaica, to the detriment of trade unionism in the island; and will he recommend a cessation of such interference?
    Mr. Harold Macmillan: I have received no information with regard to any such action by the police authorities in Jamaica. But I will ask the Governor of Jamaica for a report.

  NORTHERN RHODESIAN COPPER-BELT (SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES)
  Mr. Maxtonasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the nature of the

  1955
  troubles with the North Rhodesian Mine Workers' Union; how many leaders of the union have been imprisoned; and what is the nature of the charge against them?
  Mr. Harold Macmillan: The recent detention of three persons on the Copper-belt under the local Emergency Regulations took place under the following circumstances. It had become clear to the Government that certain individuals on the Copperbelt were deliberately fomenting an agitation of a subversive character, and were planning to achieve their ends through the threat of a disruption of the copper mining industry. These threats were accompanied by the implication of a resort to arms. In these circumstances the Governor, being satisfied that a continuance of such activities constituted a danger to life and property and to the maintenance of essential supplies of copper required for the war effort, ordered the detention of the leaders of the agitation. His decision was taken after full consultation with my Noble Friend. I would emphasise that the action which has been taken does not, as my hon. Friend's Question suggests, result from any dispute between the Government and the Mine Workers' Union. The men in question, two of whom happened to be officials of the Union, were detained solely on account of their individual subversive activities. The Governor's action was taken under Section 16 of the Northern Rhodesia Emergency Powers Regulations. The individuals detained have the right to make objections against the Detention Order either in person or by a legal representative.
  Mr. Maxton: To whom?
  Mr. Macmillan: To the Advisory Committee.
  Mr. Maxton: Were the subversive activities referred to the attempt on the part of the union to obtain decent working conditions for the workers in the industry?
  Mr. Macmillan: No, Sir. The conditions of work are fixed by agreement freely negotiated between the union and the employers' associations.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister tell us why, in reply to Question No. 26, he said it was left to the trade unions to make the settlement, and the next Ques-
  1956
  tion says that the police are interfering with the trade union leaders and not allowing them to negotiate?
  Mr. Macmillan: I find it difficult to answer Supplementary Questions on Question 28 which refer to Questions 26 and 27, but it is quite clear that there was no industrial dispute of any kind in the Copperbelt, and the activities were not connected with industrial claims.
  Mr. Gallacher: What are subversive activities?
  Mr. Maxton: Will the Minister remind the Governor that there are distinguished trade unionists in the War Cabinet against whom this type of charge might be made and that he ought to show a certain amount of restraint and discretion in dealing with cases of this sort?

  TRINIDAD (WATER SUPPLY)
  Mr. D. Adamsasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the necessary information regarding the water situation in Trinidad has yet been collected; and whether, on the completion of work on the United States bases, the labour and machinery released will be used in an island-wide scheme whereby the recurrent problem of water shortage would be dealt with effectively?
  Mr. Harold Macmillan: The position is being investigated on the spot by a member of the firm of consulting engineers who advise the Government of Trinidad on the question of water supplies, and his report is awaited. I am grateful for the useful suggestion contained in the latter part of the Question, which had not altogether escaped the notice of my Noble Friend's advisers.

  MALAYA

    Asiatic Peoples (Japanese Treatment)
    Captain Gammansasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is in a position to make any statement regarding the treatment by the Japanese of Chinese and other Asiatic races in Malaya?
    Mr. Harold Macmillan: Little precise information is available as to the attitude of the Japanese authorities towards the Asiatic peoples in Malaya, but there is

    1957
    nothing to suggest any different treatment from that to which unfortunate peoples of other territories occupied by the Japanese have been subjected.

    Evacuees, New South Wales (Allowances)
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has considered a petition which has been sent to him against the drastic cut in the allowances to evacuees from Malaya who are now in New South Wales; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. Harold Macmillan: I have been unable to trace any record in the Colonial Office of the receipt of the petition mentioned by my hon. Friend. I understand, however, from a communication which he has sent to me, that the allowances to which he refers were Civil Liability awards which were authorised by the Malayan Governments before the fall of Singapore. The payment of these awards was discontinued some months ago because they were completely out of scale with the allowances for which other classes of evacuees from Malaya were eligible and it was felt that there was no justification for continuing them to only a relatively small proportion of the people who had lost their homes and means of livelihood in Malaya. The allowances now being paid are at rates, decided upon in consultation with the Australian authorities, designed to afford assistance on a scale, mutatis mutandis, comparable with that granted by the Assistance Board in this country. As regards the last part of the Question, I am glad to say that a Far Eastern Relief Fund has now been set up, initiated by a generous contribution from the Lord Mayor's Empire Air Raid Distress Fund, in order to enable people with special family or other needs who have lost their means of livelihood owing to Japanese aggression to receive assistance supplementary to that which can be provided from public funds. The address of the Fund is Malaya House, 57, Trafalgar Square, W.C.2.
    Mr. Lipson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the cost of living in New South Wales is very much higher than in this country, and in view of the fact that many of these people have lost everything and are suffering great anxieties about the welfare of their relatives who have been left behind in Malaya, cannot further consideration be given to this matter?
    Mr. Macmillan: Certainly, I will look into it again, but I must remind my hon. Friend that the assistance is in accordance with Australian scales for those residing there and not in accordance with English scales. The Australian scales are higher than the English scales.

  NIGERIAN PROPERTIES, LIMITED
  Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what services the Nigerian Properties, Limited, will perform for the royalties of £228,000 in the current year on tin-mines in Northern Nigeria; whether the extra royalty payments will be returned to the Nigerian Treasury by the company as sums arising from the war and be earmarked for African welfare services; and whether he is satisfied that the wage rate of Africans in forced labour of 2s. 6d. per week for a six-day task with rations and fuel, and of 5s. 6d. per week without rations and fuel, is in accordance with the policy of raising African standards of living?
  Mr. Harold Macmillan: As I informed my hon. Friend in reply to his Question on 14th October, the payment of half the total royalties is one of the conditions of the revocation of the Charter of the Royal Niger Company. Since the life of the mines is limited, the increased demand for tin for war purposes means that payments are accelerated which would normally be spread over a longer period. As regards the last part of the Question, I do not think that I can usefully add anything to what I stated in reply to my hon. Friend's Question on 22nd July, except to say that the wage position is under constant review.
  Mr. Creech Jones: Could representations be made to this company that these additional profits and royalties arising out of the war should now be returned to the native Treasuries for welfare purposes, and will he also consider whether wage determination could be based on the needs of the people and not on the lowest standard wages that are paid in this area?
  Mr. Macmillan: In reply to the first part of the hon. Member's Supplementary Question, I think my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have something to say about it.

  1959
  As regards the second part of the Supplementary Question, as my hon. Friend well knows, the problems of a war economy, where the totality of consumption goods is fixed and cannot be increased, are not met merely by raising money wages.

  MERCHANT NAVY

    Waste Disposal
    Mr. Keelingasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he will take steps to prevent the crews of merchant ships from throwing waste overboard and thereby leaving a trail for the enemy to follow; and whether facilities are provided at all ports for them to dump material valuable as salvage?
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): Strict orders are given by the Admiralty that no waste must be thrown overboard which would be likely to leave behind any track visible to enemy aircraft or submarines. In all the important ports in the United Kingdom there are schemes for the collection and disposal of salvage material from ship. The working of these schemes is being closely watched by my Ministry and the Ministry of Supply. I am sending my hon. Friend copies of the latest instructions on the subject. They were issued by my Ministry in August and September of this year, and are the last of a series, which began in August, 1940.
    Mr. Keeling: Has my hon. Friend seen the comments last week of the stipendiary magistrate at Salford to the effect that the lack of facilities for ships to discharge material valuable as salvage is shockingly wasteful?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: If instructions from headquarters could produce a satisfactory scheme, I think we should have that scheme. I am looking into the evidence which the hon. Member has sent me and I hope that improvements will result.
    Captain Poole: What happens to material other than salvage material in the ports, as there must be an enormous accumulation on the ships during their stay in the ports? How do they dispose of that?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I think there is no danger at sea resulting from that.

    Port Living Conditions
    Mr. Windsorasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he is aware of the bad living conditions prevailing at a port, named to him, for officers and men of the Merchant Navy, survivors of a convoy whilst waiting repatriation; and whether he has any statement to make?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir. I regret that the special conditions in this port left something to be desired, but every effort has been and is being made to secure that the arrangements for our officers and seamen shall be as good as circumstances permit.

    Chinese Seamen (War Risk Money)
    Mr. Windsorasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction that exists among Chinese seamen about the payment of war risk bonus; and whether he will' have inquiries made into this matter to avoid disturb ances like that which recently occurred on board ship at a place named to him?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: No, Sir, I am not aware of dissatisfaction amongst Chinese seamen serving in British ocean-going ships in regard to the payment of war risk money. In fact, they receive the same amount of war risk money as our own seamen. The disturbance to which my hon. Friend refers arose out of a dispute about conditions of service prior to the conclusion of the Anglo-Chinese Agreement which now regulates conditions of service for Chinese seamen in British ocean-going vessels.
    Mr. Windsor: Is it not a fact that these people were promised a £10 bonus and that £7 was taken away on board ship?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: No. There was an unfortunate misunderstanding on the part, first, of the purser and then of the crew as to the date at which payment of the war bonus would begin. That is how the trouble started.

  RAILWAYS

    Man and Woman-Power
    Mr. Thorneasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War

    1961
    Transport how many railwaymen have been taken away for the fighting forces and how many women are now engaged upon the railways?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: 98,879 male employees of the railways were serving with His Majesty's Forces on 31st August, 1942. On 30th September, 1942, the railways had 105,656 women in their employment.
    Mr. Thorne: Are these women paid in accordance with the wages that were paid to the men who have joined the Forces?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: That matter is dealt with by the competent trade union authorities. I will look into the details of the question, but I should like to take the opportunity of paying a tribute to the example that the railways have shown in training and employing great numbers of women.

    Snow-Fighting Arrangements
    Sir Robert Rankinasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether, in order to meet extreme weather conditions during the coming winter months, the snow-fighting arrangements and equipment of all the railways have been overhauled and improvements effected where necessary?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir. Special attention has been given to this problem, and the necessary arrangements have been made.

    First-Class Compartments
    Mr. Boothbyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether travellers holding third- class tickets are entitled to use first-class carriages if no seating accommodation in the third-class is available?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: The instructions issued to railway staff are that, when third-class accommodation on a train is seriously overcrowded, third-class passengers may be allowed to occupy first-class seats without extra charge. It is, however, necessary to have some regard to the requirements of passengers holding first-class tickets who may join the train later in its journey.
    Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Is it not a fact that this is a democratic country and that to nine-tenths of the population democracy means travelling first with a third-class, ticket?
    Mr. Boothby: Who is to decide what is serious overcrowding?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: That is left to the discretion of the competent railway officials who are charged with administering the instruction.
    Mr. Thorne: Is not the best solution to wipe out first-class travelling altogether?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I said a day or two ago, in reply to a Question, that I think the reasons" in favour of the retention of first-class accommodation still hold good.
    Mr. Driberg: Is it correct that a third-class passenger cannot enter a first-class carriage without permission from the guard or ticket collector?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: A third-class passenger has no prerogative right to a first-class seat without permission of the competent official. That is the only possible system, and I think the officials are doing very well.

    Season Tickets (Juveniles)
    Mr. Parkerasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he is aware that railway season tickets are available at half rate to juveniles under the age of 18 if their wages do not exceed 25s. weekly; that the increase in the cost of living has been followed by the granting of war bonuses which have largely removed this advantage; and whether the wage level concerned can now be raised to 30s. a week?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: The maximum wage qualification for season tickets at juvenile rates was increased in December, 1940, from 18s. to 25s. per week. This increase reasonably corresponds with the increase in the cost of living, and I do not think it would be wise to adopt my hon. Friend's proposal,
    Mr. Parker: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are a great many juveniles who do not get high wages and that those who have to travel long distances suffer very much from the present arrangement?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Those who do not get more than 25s. will still be able to get tickets at half rate. For the others there must always be difficult borderline cases, but the increase made 18 months ago still reasonably corresponds to the increase in the cost of living.
    Mr. Parker: Does my hon. Friend think that 25s. for a lad of 17 is a reasonable wage?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: That is a different question. I am dealing only with the increase in cost.

    Guards' Vans (Passengers)
    Mr. Martinasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport under what conditions, in existing circumstances, passengers may travel in the guard's van where no other accommodation is available on a train?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Under normal circumstances, passengers are not permitted to travel in guards' vans. In exceptional circumstances, the stationmaster may authorise passengers to travel in guards' vans when he is satisfied that this is not likely to impede the guard in carrying out his duties.
    Mr. Martin: Is my hon. Friend aware that in practice this is left to the guards and they have very diverse standards, some allowing half a dozen and others only one or two? Does not my hon. Friend think it desirable to establish some sort of uniformity?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Human nature is always variable. These are the instructions given to the railway personnel, but I will have the point looked into.
    Viscountess Astor: Are guards, like Members of Parliament, variable?

  MERSEYSIDE DOCK LABOUR SCHEME
  Mr. Graham Whiteasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport the circumstances under which Sir John Forster's inquiry into the Merseyside Dock Labour Scheme was set up?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir. When the Merseyside Dock Labour Scheme was first adopted, it was foreseen that, after a trial period, a general review of the working of so important an experiment would be required. A short time ago, the Government decided that this review should be made, and asked Sir John Forster to conduct it. Sir John Forster has been asked by the Minister of Labour and National Service and the Minister of War Transport to review on their behalf the conditions
  1964
  obtaining under the Merseyside Dock Labour Scheme, and to report to them. I would point out to my hon. Friend that these Terms of Reference are very general and that they imply no reflection on anyone who has helped to work the Scheme.
  Mr. White: May we assume that the decision to set up this inquiry was in no way influenced by any anonymous communications to the Press and, with reference to the last sentence of the reply, has the hon. Gentleman anything to say with regard to the services of Mr. Gibson Jarvie, the Director of the Port?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I am very glad to assure the hon. Member and the House that the setting-up of this inquiry was in no way due to any anonymous letter or other communication to the Press, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me the opportunity of paying on behalf of the Government a very warm tribute to the work which Mr. Gibson Jarvie has done in Liverpool and to express to him the gratitude of the Government for the many services that he has rendered in keeping our supplies working in very great difficulties in a vitally important port.
  Mr. Logan: Is it now possible for Members of Parliament for Liverpool and Merseyside to receive in secret the report of this important inquiry which sat in camera?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I will certainly consult my Noble Friend on the suggestion.
  Mr. Granville: Is it the intention of the Department to ask Mr. Gibson Jarvie to reconsider his decision to resign?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I should prefer not to answer that question.
  Mr. Logan: Is my hon. Friend not aware that this respected officer, whose appointment was at first received adversely, has brought about a decent standard of conditions of the docks? Is it not worth while to reconsider the situation?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I hope that the tribute I have given will be taken as expressing the feeling of the Government.

  PRODUCTION

    Regional Boards
    Mr. Ness Edwardsasked the Minister of Production the date of the announcement of the establishment of

    1965
    Regional Production Boards; the date on which the South Wales Regional Production Board was finally established, and how many meetings of this Board have been held?
    The Minister of Production (Mr. Lyttel-ton): The proposal to reconstitute the Regional Boards was announced on 19th May. They were established and I announced the names of the Chairmen, my Regional Controllers, on 1st July. The Regional Board for Wales held its first meeting on the 3rd July and has met in all five times. There have been 11 meetings of the Executive Committee of the Board.

    Factories (Capital Outlay and Output)
    Mr. W. Brownasked the Minister of Production the capital outlay for plant and machinery at the Royal Ordnance factory, the name of which has been supplied to him, and of factory No. 81, as compared with that in the case of British Manufacture and Research Company; and, in the terms of percentages, the respective outputs of these factories as compared with the same company?
    Mr. Lyttelton: I do not think it is advisable to give the actual sum spent on machinery and plant, but perhaps the following comparison would serve the hon. Member's purpose. The capital outlay on plant and machinery at British Manufacture and Research Company exceeds the outlay at the other two, by approximately 14 per cent. and 30 per cent. respectively, but this does not take into account capacity provided by the company out of its own funds. I do not wish to give the comparative outputs for fear of giving information to the enemy. The comparison in any case would only be very rough because of the influence of sub-contracting and other differences in the output of the three factories.
    Mr. Brown: If the Minister cannot give the figures for which I asked, which I understand, may I ask whether he is satisfied that we are getting as high an output at as reasonable and as low a cost at the two factories mentioned in the Question as at the factory not mentioned in the Question?
    Mr. Lyttelton: In general terms I should say yes.

    Phosphate Deposits
    Mr. Simmondsasked the Minister of Production what steps he is taking to ensure that the maximum production is obtained from phosphatic deposits in this country, in order to minimise the demands on shipping resources occasioned by the importation of phosphates?
    Mr. Lyttelton: The few natural phosphate deposits in this country are of low grade and it has been decided, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, that the results from exploiting them would not in present circumstances justify the expenditure in labour and equipment required. Steps have, however, been taken to increase the production of basic slag fertiliser. It is expected that the supplies in the current season will be about 17 per cent. greater than last year and that a further substantial increase will be obtained next year.
    Mr. Simmonds: Is my right hon. Friend aware that competent opinion differs from that view? In view of the need of increasing the amount of phosphates for use on the land, as well as of increasing economies in shipping space, will my right hon. Friend personally satisfy himself that some further action is not necessary?
    Mr. Lyttelton: I will certainly look into it again.

  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

    Paper Economy (Advertisement Hoardings)
    Sir Irving Alberyasked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that a large number of advertisement hoardings, erected on the main road between Mottingham and Swanley Junction, have recently been covered with large advertisement posters; and why paper is still made available for such purposes?
    The Minister of Supply (Sir Andrew Duncan): I have had the hoardings along this stretch of road examined and find that only three paper posters have recently been affixed upon them; all these were printed before the war.

    Scrap Metal and Wood (Advertisement Hoardings)
    Mr. Keelingasked the Minister of Supply whether he will take power to

    1967
    remove all metal and timber advertisement hoardings from the countryside so as to increase the supply of scrap and wood?
    Sir A. Duncan: In conjunction with my Noble Friend the Minister of Works and Planning, inquiries are being made to ascertain whether any considerable quantity of serviceable material would be made available from these sources.
    Major Lyons: Are not these hoardings very valuable for displaying Government announcements, encouraging war savings and other Government purposes?
    Sir Joseph Lamb: Are not tons of metal being used for this purpose in advertising commodities which cannot be supplied in quantity?
    Sir A. Duncan: That point forms part of the inquiry.
    Sir Herbert Williams: Do not the newspapers publish a great many advertisements of people who cannot supply the goods advertised for the purpose of keeping their goodwill?
    Captain Studholme: Would it not be a great public improvement if these hideous advertisement hoardings which disfigure the countryside were removed for ever?

    Tank Board
    Mr. Keelingasked the Minister of Supply what changes have been made in the membership of the Tank Board since 1st July; and for what reasons?
    Sir A. Duncan: Viscount Weir, Sir George Usher and Mr. Robotham have been succeeded by Commander E. R. Micklem, C.B.E., R.N., and Mr. A. J. Boyd. Commander Micklem, in addition to becoming the executive head of the Armoured Fighting Vehicle Division of the Ministry of Supply, succeeded Lord Weir as Chairman of the Tank Board. This change was in accordance with the advice of Lord Weir himself; the other changes followed upon the consequent reorganisation of the division.

    Tank Production
    Mr. Ness Edwardsasked the Minister of Supply whether he is satisfied that tank production capacity in this country is adequate to meet the need and that the types of tanks are such that will enable
    1968
    our men in the field to meet the enemy on the basis of at least equality of equipment?
    Sir A. Duncan: As stated by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Production in reply to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) oh 7th October, the tank production programme for this country has been formulated as part of a combined programme with the United States of America. This programme is planned to secure a supply of tanks of the most suitable types, sufficient in numbers and quality.
    Captain Poole: Is due regard paid to the supply of spares for tanks, particularly in regard to American and Canadian contracts?
    Sir A. Duncan: Very special attention is given to that.
    Mr. Lipson: Is my right hon. Friend's plan working out satisfactorily?
    Sir A. Duncan: Yes, Sir.

    Timber Control (Sir William Mallinson)
    Mr. McEnteeasked the Minister of Supply if Sir William Mallinson, against whom a writ has been issued in connection with alleged illegal practices against the Inland Revenue, Taxes Department; is still holding the office of Financial Adviser to the Timber Control Board, or whether he has been suspended from this office pending the hearing of this application?
    Sir A. Duncan: I understand that a writ was issued last April on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General against Sir William Mallinson and the Westminster Bank claiming accounts of sums expended under a charitable trust. Sir William Mallinson is still performing his duties as a Deputy Controller in the Timber Control.
    Mr. McEntee: In view of the fact that these charges were made in June, 1938, why was it considered reasonable or decent that this appointment should be made two years later? Was it on the general principle of setting a thief to catch a thief?
    Mr. Astor: Is not a man presumed innocent until he is proved guilty?
    Sir A. Duncan: I obviously cannot answer the first part of the supplementary,

    1969
    but the latter part is clearly not the reason for his appointment. This gentleman has given the most distinguished and honourable service in the Department.
    Mr. McEntee: May I again ask why a man against whom serious charges have been made was appointed two years later? What were the qualifications he possessed which are not possessed by scores of other men in the trade? Why is a timber man appointed as financial adviser?
    Sir H. Williams: On a point of Order. Is it proper for an hon. Member to exploit his privileges in this House and accuse a man who has no redress of being a thief?
    Mr. Speaker: It is most improper.

    Belting (Replacement)
    Mr. Higgsasked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that Order No. 1829 is retarding production owing to the delay that occurs in obtaining permits for belting; and will he consider some method whereby the Order can be simplified so that replace belting can be obtained without delay?
    Sir A. Duncan: Yes, Sir. A direction will be issued to simplify procedure as my hon. Friend suggests. This will enable replacement belting to be obtained in urgent cases without formality.
    Mr. Higgs: Is the Minister satisfied that sufficient consideration was given to this Order before it was issued? If he is not, will he give an assurance that when similar Orders are made greater consideration will be given to them before they are circulated?
    Sir A. Duncan: I think full consideration was given to it, but there was, I fear, some little difficulty in the working of the Order.

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Small Traders
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, when framing Regulations, he will take care not to penalise small traders and producers and not subsidise and encourage large trading concerns and organisations; and whether he will reconsider many of his existing Regulations with this end in view?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane): The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's Question is "Yes, Sir." The considerations mentioned have always been borne in mind by my Department. The latter part of the Question, therefore, does not arise.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that, whatever his Minister may say, the effect of many Regulations lately has been to penalise the small trader and to subsidise the big man at the expense of the small man?
    Mr. Mabane: I should find it difficult to accept that view. My Noble Friend's object has always been to secure that the small man has a fair, adequate and proper share of the distributive trade of the country.
    Sir W. Smithers: What about the new milk Regulations?

    Milk (Distribution)
    Sir H. Williamsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food to what extent the deliveries of the cooperative societies have been modified under the new milk delivery scheme?
    Mr. Mabane: Local war-time associations of dairymen who are engaged in preparing schemes for the rationalisation of retail milk distribution in their localities have been informed that their schemes may enable a co-operative society to continue to deliver milk to its existing customers. In such cases the co-operative society is debarred from registering new customers in the locality and where two or more co-operative societies serve the same district they are required to rationalise deliveries so that any overlapping or unnecessary transport is eliminated.
    Sir H. Williams: Does it not mean that the co-operative societies have an advantage over the individual traders?
    Mr. Mabane: I do not think so. This may seem illogical, but it is practical. The compulsory transfer of customers from a co-operative society to a private trader is not the same as a transfer from one private trader to another. There are prejudices in the matter which are powerful, and it is considered better to accept the arrangements that have been made than to sacrifice the great economies that will result from the scheme.
    Sir H. Williams: Has my hon. Friend consulted his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty?
    Mr. G. Griffiths: Has the hon. Gentleman a right to throw his innuendoes across the Floor?
    Captain Yorkasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food why his Department have laid down the principle, as applied to milk, that the larger the firm the greater shall be that firm's margin to cover overheads, expenses and profit?
    Brigadier-General Clifton Brownasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, as the present policy of the Government encourages the large milk distributors at the expense of the smaller distributors and the producer-retailer by paying them a larger distributing gallonage allowance, he has considered the effect in outlying rural areas if the smaller distributor and producer-retailer has to close down or send his milk longer distances to a wholesaler; and whether he will take steps to prevent this result?
    Mr. Mabane: My Department has not laid down the principle that the larger the firm the greater the trade margin. The new milk distributive margins are based on the principle that remuneration should vary according to the services rendered by different classes of distributors. All firms, large and small alike, will receive the same margin for carrying out the retailing of milk. Another uniform margin is to be paid to firms which are performing the wholesale function only. There are, however, firms which perform both the retail and the wholesale functions and are therefore entitled to a double margin. This is a common feature among the food trades. It is my Noble Friend's policy that the aggregate margin in the case of firms which, in addition to distributing by retail, also perform wholesale functions for themselves, shall be less than the aggregate of the margins available for wholesalers and retailers separately.
    Retailers who undertake certain wholesaling functions will be allowed a varying margin for these latter services according to the gallonage handled, as the cost of the service increases with the size of the area served. The margins which have recently been fixed are based upon the findings of a full investigation into the
    1972
    cost of milk distribution and will be subject to review after they have been in operation for six months. I have no reason to think that the new distributive arrangements will have any adverse effect on the interests of either the small distributors of milk or the producer-retailers. As regards the transport of milk, my Department intends to take steps to ensure that milk is not carried unnecessarily long distances.
    Captain York: Is it not a fact that the payment of a premium of ¼d. a gallon or ¾d. a gallon, according to whether the daily output is 750 or 1,500 gallons, is the only reason for the payment of this sum?
    Mr. Mabane: No, Sir. If my hon. and gallant Friend reads the answer, which is somewhat long, I think he will find that his point is dealt with there.

    Post-War Plans
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether the Ministry have a department working out plans for de-control in the post-war period; and, if so, can he state the ideas on which the plans are being prepared?
    Mr. Mabane: My Department has under constant consideration, in consultation where necessary with other Departments, the question of post-war reconstruction as it may affect food supplies and distribution. In reply to the last part of my hon. Friend's Question, the principal object in view is to prepare plans which will, subject to Government policy at the time, meet whatever contingencies may arise during a transitional period following the cessation of hostilities. The general aspects of the problems likely to arise in the subsequent period are also being studied so far as practicable.
    Mr. Smith: Is it not a fact that the Minister has given definite undertakings to representatives of certain big businesses in this country, and, if so, does the hon. Gentleman not think that Parliament should be consulted before such undertakings are given?
    Mr. Mabane: My hon. Friend does not say what sort of undertakings he refers to, but I am quite certain that my Noble Friend would give no undertaking that would not be in accordance with the wishes of this House.

    Brewing Materials
    Br. Littleasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food the quantity of cereals and sugar used by the brewers during 1941?
    Mr. Mabane: It would be contrary to the public interest to publish the figures for which my hon. Friend asks.
    Dr. Little: Has it not been given out in the Press that it is justifiable to assume that 700,000 tons of cereals were used by the brewers during 1941, and have we not a right to receive the official figures?
    Mr. Mabane: I would refer my hon. Friend to a reply given on 28th July by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which indicates the reasons why it is not in the public interest to give the figures.

  MINISTRY OF INFORMATION

    Foreign Music Broadcasts
    Mr. Hannahasked the Minister of Information whether any steps are taken by the British Broadcasting Corporation, or other organisation, to jam foreign broadcast music?
    The Minister of Information (Mr. Brendan Bracken): No, Sir, neither by the B.B.C. nor any other organisation in this country.
    Mr. Hannah: Why do so many people complain that foreign music is jammed?
    Mr. Bracken: I am not responsible for that.

    Small Traders (Broadcasts)
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Information whether he will arrange with the British Broadcasting Corporation for the necessary facilities being given and arrangements made whereby a broadcast could be made putting forward the case of the small shopkeepers, and their present-day difficulties, in view of the necessity that the public should be in formed on these matters?
    Mr. Bracken: A review of the B.B.C.'s output on this matter shows that the case of the small shopkeeper has not been in any way neglected. Moreover, I have been in touch with them and they have assured me that it is their intention to
    1974
    devote further time in their programmes to this subject in the future. The manner and the occasion must, of course, be determined by the B.B.C., not by my hon. Friend or myself.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in a recent broadcast by the Brains Trust there was nobody on the Brains Trust who had any sympathy with or understanding of the position of the small shopkeeper? Ought there not to be someone on the Brains Trust who can put forward the case for the small shopkeepers? They subscribe to the licences, and they are entitled to have their case broadcast. Can I have an answer?

    British Information Service, United States
    Captain Pooleasked the Minister of Information (1) whether he is aware that we are still failing in our news and information services to the United States of America; and whether he proposes any further action to improve the position;
    (2) what is being done by his American Department to make full and accurate information of Britain's part in the war available to people living west of Chicago; and if he is a ware of the need which exists for such information?
    Mr. Bracken: The main work of supplying British news to the United States is of course done by the correspondents of the American Press and Broadcasting systems. The ability and enterprise of these gentlemen is an example to journalists everywhere. The British Information Service does not attempt to compete with these American correspondents. I know that its staff are doing very useful work in supplementing the information given to the American public through their own newspapers and radio networks The British. Information Service has offices in Chicago and San Francisco.
    Captain Poole: Is the Minister aware that many of the people whom he eulogised, American Pressmen, are complaining of the lack of information which they are getting from this country; and if he does not realise that, will he again look into the question to see whether it is the function of his organisation in America not to set up a huge administration but rather to get representative men and women of

    1975
    this country to meet with and talk to American people, to let them know something more of our point of view?
    Mr. Bracken: In regard to the first part of the question, if the hon. and gallant Memher tells me that American correspondents in London are criticising their own work, I can tell him that he is wrong. In regard to the second part of his Question, British Information Service is a small and modest organisation which does exactly what he suggests.
    Captain Poole: May I ask the Minister whether he has not misunderstood my question? I was referring to American Press correspondents in America. Will he give us the number of people who are employed by his organisation in America?
    Mr. Bracken: I should be very glad to do so if the hon. and gallant Member put down a Question.
    Mrs. Beatrice Wright: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the great difficulties in the way of getting news to the people of America is the fact that very few of them are provided with sets which can pick up our short-wave transmissions, and does he not know that very few people in Chicago ever get British news?
    Mr. Bracken: Yes, Sir, but I am not in a position to equip 130,000,000 people in America with wireless sets.
    Mrs. Wright: Could not the difficulty be overcome if arrangements could be made whereby many of our admirable broadcasts could be re-broadcast on American wave-lengths?
    Mr. Bracken: That is exactly what is happening at the present time. We have negotiated with the big broadcasting systems of America, and increasing space is being given every day to records of British broadcasts made here.
    Viscountess Astor: How long ago was that decision taken?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Clement Davies: May I ask the Leader of the House whether it is the intention of the Government immediately to make a statement to the House with regard to the sinkings of and damage done to German submarines? I ask that
1976
in view of the fact that the Government have persistently and consistently refused that information to the House on the ground that it was against the public interest to disclose it, and yet in the evening newspapers yesterday there was a statement on the subject made by the First Lord of the Admiralty to the public in Caxton Hall. How long is this House going to be treated in this way?
The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Stafford Cripps): It is not the intention of the Government to make any further statement on the war during the present series of Sittings, but at a later date some statement may probably be made. With regard to the speech to which the hon. and learned Member has referred, I am afraid that I have not had time to read what my right hon. Friend said, but I will draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the point which the hon. and learned Member has brought forward.
Mr. Stokes: In connection with that point, may I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware that on 10th May and on 6th June this year I put Questions on this very point to the First Lord of the Admiralty, and they were not answered because it was said to be not in the national interest to reply?
Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: On the question of Business, I would ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether the Government will reconsider the information which was given yesterday regarding the chaining of prisoners. I understand that on the next Sitting Day we are to consider a Motion for the temporary Adjournment of the House for a period, and I think it is very desirable that the Government should reconsider their decision before the House adjourns. One can thoroughly understand the natural reason which prompted their decision, but we cannot compete in brutality with Germany, and I think the whole country realises that the Government have made a mistake.
Hon. Members: No!
Sir S. Cripps: I very much regret that the hon. Member should have put this Question—[Interruption]. I stated in the House yesterday that, owing to the state of this affair at the present moment, it was undesirable that there should be any discussion upon it until the Government had considered their point of view.
Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: Is not the Leader of the House aware that it is because I think the country and the House do not agree with the Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "No," and "You are wrong."]
Mr. Maxton: On this issue, does the Leader of the House recollect that the Prime Minister asked us not to raise the matter or to discuss it, as the position was temporary, and that the House absolutely accepted that suggestion, which was right and proper for three days or so; but does the Leader of the House think it would not be altogether wrong if we left the country to believe for three weeks that there is no antagonism to this act? Before we go, can we not have a statement from that Box from the Prime Minister himself about this position, because there is very strong feeling against it in the House and in the country?
Sir S. Cripps: The answer is that the circumstances because of which the Prime Minister stated it was advisable not to make any further statement still persist. The Prime Minister has promised the House that as soon as these circumstances alter he will make a statement to the House.
Mr. Cocks: Is it not desirable, at a moment when delicate negotiations are going on, that no impression should be given in this House that we are showing any weakness in the matter?
Sir S. Cripps: It is because it is undesirable that any view should be canvassed in this House that the Prime Minister made the statement to which I have referred.
Mr. Pickthorn: On Business generally, and with apologies to the right hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), may I ask the Leader of the House when it is proposed to take the Second Report of the Select Committee on the Disposal and Custody of Documents?
Sir S. Cripps: We hope that the House will agree to consider the report of the Select Committee on the next Sitting Day. After we have disposed of the Consolidated Fund Bill, the Motion for approval will be moved by another member of the Committee, in the re-
1978
gretted absence, owing to indisposition, of the Chairman of Ways and Means,
Mr. Gallacher: I want to ask the Leader of the House a very special question. Will he take the real soldiers out of chains and put the fake soldier Hess into chains?
Mr. Granville: If we are fortunate enough to catch Mr. Speaker's eye upon the Adjournment Debate, and we raise the question of U-Boat sinkings, will the First Lord of the Admiralty be in his place during that Debate?
Sir S. Cripps: If on the Adjournment some question is raised which requires the presence of the First Lord of the Admiralty, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will come to the House, as he always does.
Mr. Buchanan: I understood the Leader of the House to say, in reply to the question by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), that the Motion was being taken on the next Sitting Day. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that that day is an Adjournment day and is usually reserved for private Members? Will the Motion be debatable, and are arrangements likely to be made through the usual channels to see that it does not occupy too much time?
Sir S. Cripps: I understand that the matter has been raised through the usual channels and that it is unlikely to take any material time. Otherwise we should certainly not have asked the House to take it on that day.
Mr. Stokes: Is it desirable that the public should be left in a state of indecision in regard to the chaining of prisoners? [Interruption.] It is most misleading.

NEW MEMBER SWORN
Thomas James Brown, Esquire, for the County of Lancaster (Ince Division).

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS
That they have agreed to—
London Midland and Scottish Railway Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
    SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE OF CREDIT, 1942

      EXPENDITURE ARISING OUT OF THE WAR
      Resolution reported:
      "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,000,000,000 be granted to His Majesty, towards defraying the expenses which may be incurred during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1943, for general Navy, Army and Air services and supplies in so far as specific provision is not made therefor by Parliament; for securing the public safety, the defence of the realm, the maintenance of public order and the efficient prosecution of the war; for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community; and generally for all expenses beyond those provided for in the ordinary Grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war."
      Resolution read a Second time.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

WAGES POLICY
Sir Herbert Williams: In view of the restricted time available to-day, and having regard to the fact that a very large number of Members wish to speak, I will endeayour to show an example of brevity. It has commonly
2000
been said that profit should not be made out of war. That receives wide endorsement, but, unfortunately, profit has been a little too narrowly interpreted. What should have been said is that undue financial advantage should not be made out of war. The restriction to profit has created a good deal of misunderstanding. It is obvious that, generally speaking, incomes cannot be increased proportionately to the increase in the cost of living. If they were, it would mean that nobody was paying for the war. The war can be paid for only through the fact that, in general, our net incomes are reduced. It is also true that if you take that class to which I have never had the privilege to belong, the pre-war rich, most, I suppose, of them have seen 80 per cent. or 90 per cent. of their net incomes taken away from them. That is a reasonably accurate statement, and it is certainly borne out by the document which the Chancellor of the Exchequer circulated on Budget Day. Having said that by way of preliminary, I think we ought to be careful not to exaggerate on the wages question. From time to time one hears mention of some relatively enormous figure as the wages of a young boy, or, occasionally, a group of men appear to be in receipt of wages which are enormous in relation to pre-war standards. But I beg hon. Members, particularly some on my side, not to overstate the case, because, by doing so, they produce resentment among large numbers of workers who are not in receipt of these abnormal rates.
If hon. Members go to the Library and examine the June number of the "Ministry of Labour Gazette," they will see there a very interesting set of tables showing the percentage increases in the remuneration of men, youths, boys, women and girls and also of all workers for a group of industries. Those tables are worth study. I shall not attempt to quote them all, but the general statement which they present shows that during the period between October, 1938 and January of this year—and I have not picked those dates; they are the selection of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service—in the industries concerned, which are the bulk of the industries, men's wages are up by 47.8 per cent.; youths' and boys' wages by 62.9 per cent.; women's wages by 46.2 per cent.; girls' wages by 45 per cent.

2001
while the general wages average shows an increase of 46 per cent. during the same period. [An HON. MEMBER: "Wages or earnings?"] I beg pardon, I should have said earnings. We are inclined to forget that we are dealing here with earnings, and these figures relate to the actual earnings.
Mr. George Griffith": What were the increases of hours?
Sir H. Williams: I do not think the figures of increases of hours are furnished, but I am trying to make a fair statement of the case, and I was just about to add that those increased earnings to which I have referred are the result of two things, greater regularity and longer hours, and the longer hours, of course, lead to increases in earnings greater than the proportionate increase in the hours, because of overtime rates and the rest of it. Over the same period the cost-of-living index number has increased 29 per cent. The cost-of-living index number is still compiled on the old basis, and the report that was prepared, I think in 1938, by the Ministry of Labour shows that that old basis is substantially accurate to-day, and therefore it is not possible to criticise it. But we have to bear in mind that that increase of 29 per cent. is an increase involved in the maintenance of a certain standard which includes the general range of essentials but does not include customary necessities such as beer or tobacco, or anything by way of meeting the increased burden of taxation which falls upon a lot of these people. Generally speaking, it is perfectly clear that there has been a substantial advance in the monetary standard of a very large number, in fact of the general mass of manual workers in this country. I have no complaint in so far as that increase is the result of increased productivity. The source of an increase in the standard of living for all sections of the community, must be an increase in productivity, and it is to the extent that these payments, to which I have referred, go beyond the increase in productivity to-day that one section of the community is getting an advantage at the expense of another.
If we take the industries which have been particularly stimulated by the war—metal, engineering and shipbuilding—the figures are, for men, 58.9 per cent. increase; for youths and boys, 73.2, which of course is a very large increase
2002
indeed; for women, 60.8, and for girls, 55.6. But I imagine that the figures with regard to women probably do not afford a very satisfactory comparison, because in that case we are comparing the enormous number of women now in those industries with the much smaller number who were there before. Therefore the setup has changed, and I would not attach too much importance to the comparisons in respect of women or girls. As far as the men and youths are concerned, I imagine it is a fair statement. I think that for a period we were paying people about eight days' pay for about five days' output. It was not that the workpeople were exploiting the nation. It was thrust upon them by Government action. I was one of those who thought that we made a mistake when we cancelled the Whit Monday holiday. I said so at the time, and I remember it was said, "It will have a very bad effect on the French if we go on with our customary holiday." But customary holidays are for the purpose of getting more output by maintaining the general physical condition of the people and giving them adequate relaxation.
I have been persistently opposed to the cancellation of holidays and to abnormal hours of labour. They have not been productive. This was shown by the committee which investigated the question of industrial fatigue during the last war. But the very mistake that was made in the last war was repeated in this war, in spite of the efforts of those of us on the Select Committee who urged on several occasions that we did not get increased output by these abnormal hours of labour but that we did get into the minds of the people a wage-earning standard far in excess of what they had ever expected. The result of that has been that on the reversion to shorter hours of labour, there have been demands for increased rates of pay in order to compensate for the loss of double pay on Sunday and other things of that kind.
We have, I think, made another mistake. A great many new factories have been constructed to make articles that were not made in peace-time. To a large extent these articles are, rightly, being made on a piece-rate basis. Once you have fixed a piece-rate, it is vital that you should never cut it, unless there is a change in productive methods. That is one of the most

2003
important things in industrial relations. It is equally foolish to fix your piece-rates too high, and I am satisfied that, in respect of certain instruments of war and parts of instruments of war, we have fixed the piece-rates too high. The result is that you have, to-day, the resentment of the highly skilled workmen who, owing to the necessities of the case, are working by time and not on piece-rates, and the resentment of the men in the Services when they see abnormal increases in the remuneration of the unskilled. Mass production is shown in excelsis in war-time. War gives opportunities for mass production that peacetime cannot furnish. War-time is, without the slightest doubt, the paradise of the unskilled.
Mr. MacLaren: Hear, hear.
Sir H. Williams: My hon. Friend is possibly thinking of the unskilled on the Front Bench. They were not in my mind, though I thick it is a very apt description.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): We are not the result of mass production, anyhow.
Sir H. Williams: No, because the results of mass production would all be of the same shape. As I was saying, there is resentment on the part of the Service men, and on the part of the skilled men, and, of course, there is acute resentment on the part of that very large number who are, rightly, continuing in their normal civil occupations and whose prosperity has been gravely affected—adversely—by the war. So we have had a vast shift of income from one section of the community to another at all levels, or nearly all levels. As I say, it causes resentment, and I think it imposes upon us an undue cost as far as the war is concerned. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is indirectly the ultimate employer to-day of nearly everybody in the war industries. Sitting near him on the Front Bench is the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour and National Service, who came to this House after a most distinguished career in the trade union movement. To him, collective bargaining, which is a good thing, is almost the whole gospel. He, I think, sometimes overlooks the fact that collective bargaining, in the ordinary sense, in peace-time, may work very well because both sides are concerned in maintaining a price at which their product can be sold, and all wage
2004
negotiations have to take into account whether any change in wage rates will represent an enhancement in the price of the product as a result of which trade will be adversely affected and unemployment will follow. That does not arise to-day. It is, from the point of view of immediate effect, a matter of complete indifference to the employers what wages they pay, because they do not pay them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer pays them, and as he has no collective money of his own, they are paid by the money of the general population.
Therefore, strongly as I believe in the doctrine of collective bargaining, there must be some restriction imposed in wartime if one section of the community is not to take undue advantage of another section. As the State is in effect the only effective consumer to-day, I think the State has an obligation in preventing both employers and workpeople from engaging in a racket at the expense of the taxpayer. I will give an example. The other day the production committee of a certain firm, going outside their terms of reference, submitted a proposal to the management that all rates of pay should be increased in accordance with a certain formula, subject to the condition that the increase must be enough to absorb the whole of the sum of the Excess Profits Tax which the firm was earning and would have paid to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have seen the correspondence. I am fully aware of the facts. It was a deliberate proposal that the firm should not pay Excess Profits Tax and that the whole of the sum should be paid out to enhance wages.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): What happened?
Sir H. Williams: I am glad to say that the management resisted.
Mr. Bevin: The management did care?
Sir H. Williams: They resisted the proposal, quite properly. I furnished particulars to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Tomlinson): I think the hon. Member ought to say that the Parliamentary Secretary replied to say it was no part of the production committee's business to deal with rates of remuneration.
Sir H. Williams: I was very grateful for that. As I said, the production committee were going outside their terms of reference. I am drawing attention to the curious attitude of mind—the demand that the whole of this sum, which necessarily should go to pay for the war, should be handed out in the form of an increased rate of pay.
Mr. Lipson: How does the hon. Member reconcile the attitude of the management in the case he has given with his statement that managements were not in the least interested in what happened?
Sir H. Williams: There may be cases where a general body of employers are indifferent, or largely indifferent, because of the fact that if there is an increase in a rate of wages, that is then passed on in the form of increased costs. This was a different issue. This was a proposal to wait until the end of the year came, and that when the Excess Profits Tax was ascertained there should be an increase of pay to absorb it all. [Interruption.] I do not know who thought it out, but they did not get away with it, I am glad to say. I give that to illustrate an attitude of mind which is growing up. In considering all these questions of the increased rates of pay, we must take into account that they no longer represent net incomes, because all these people are subject to Income Tax. Curiously enough, having regard to some Debates that have taken place in this House, there is no resistance to any material extent on the part of wage-earners to paying Income Tax. There has been a great deal of misrepresentation on that matter. The only criticism I have heard is about the case in which a man is already paying the full standard rate on part of his wage and his wife goes to work. After she has paid the necessary expenses which her going out to work entails and paid Income Tax at nearly 10s. in the pound, she is left with so little that she is working for a negligible net income. I think that is one direction in which there might be some consideration in respect of this matter.
Increased rates of pay are operating as a factor in absenteeism. There are curious people who do not want to earn more than a certain sum. As soon as
2006
they have earned enough for the rent, a certain amount of food, the pictures; a shilling or so on a horse and an occasional visit to what is called the "local," they are satisfied, and once they have earned that they do not seek to earn much more. At a time when there is so little else to buy they take time off when they have earned that. In some cases I believe that an abnormal increase in the rates of pay of certain classes of people is a factor in absenteeism. I have tried to speak temperately. Nothing would do more harm than if large numbers of wage-earners who are working hard—and the bulk are working hard, faithfully and well—thought that an attack was being made in the House of Commons on their standard of living. That is the last thing we want to do. It is equally true that the wage situation must be considered in connection with the incredible task which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has in paying for the war. I would beg and beseech all of us to consider it in that light.
Mr. Summers: Before coming to the topic that is before us to-day I hope the House will allow me to make one brief reference to a personal matter in connection with this Debate. I refer to the fact that there have appeared statements in the Press to the effect that I was to open this Debate. I would like to make it as clear as I am able that I was in no way associated with these references in the Press, and, moreover, I am quite unable to account for how they got there. It is not the first time this practice has been followed, and I have consistently deplored that practice. I would like only to add that I deplore it still more when my own name is associated with it. I would just add, finally, that if the Press would realise that by disregarding constitutional procedure and attempting to anticipate your wishes, Mr. Speaker, they do nothing but disservice to hon. Members and to the practice of this House.
I am very glad that on the Report stage of this Vote of Credit opportunity is being taken to review the Government's policy with regard to wages, for there are few subjects, it seems to me, of greater importance at the present time. It is sometimes said that the Government have no wages policy, but I suggest that a study of the speech of the Lord Chancellor in

2007
another place on a recent occasion would do away with any such idea. It is no part of my case to-day to challenge the wisdom of the original decision which the Government took to permit the continuance of collective bargaining in industry", strengthened by the prohibition of lockouts and strikes, and by the establishment of the National Arbitration Tribunal. There were, I think, good reasons for that decision. The change from the conditions prevailing in peace to those prevailing in war brought many complex problems in their train, and it is only those in close touch with the factories who can be expected to deal with such problems. Conditions between one trade and another vary greatly, as they do between one district and another and indeed between one works and another, and it is very necessary in settling all such questions that there should be ample flexibility.
The White Paper that was issued in July last year, entitled "Price Stabilisation and Industrial Policy," set out the means by which the Government intended to prevent the £500,000,000 of incomes in excess of goods available for purchase from driving up prices and leading to inflation. It was made plain in that White Paper that the success with which their efforts met would depend largely on the maintenance of the wage level prevailing at that time. It may be an interesting speculation whether the chicken came before the egg or the egg before the chicken; it is hardly less profitable to argue whether prices drive up wages or wages drive up prices: the fact remains that they are inseparably linked together. Everyone is familiar with prices, and not slow to complain when prices go up. People do not always realise that such increases in prices must necessarily follow, sooner or later, from increases in wages. I hope, therefore, that one effect of this Debate will be to create a better understanding of the factors inherent in the policy of stabilisation which the Government have undertaken to carry out. This policy which they have hitherto pursued must be described as very precarious, if only because it depends on the way those in industry discharge their responsibilities. It is made clear that a great responsibility is placed on the two sides in industry in that matter. A system so arranged will necessarily bring about great variations and
2008
grave anomalies. It is easy to pick out ridiculous earnings in a particular industry, and to give specific illustrations. While I regret that there are anomalies and believe that their effect for ill is very far-reaching, I suggest that it is desirable not to obscure the main factors in this situation of wages policy by dealing with details of that kind.
Mr. Bellenger: Might I ask, in order that we can follow the trend of this Debate, whether we are to understand that wages include salaries?
Mr. Summers: Certainly; I speak for nobody but myself, but I draw no distinction between the two. How has this policy worked hitherto? The time lost in disputes in industry in this war compares very favourably with the time lost in that way in the last war. Comparison between the base rates in industry and the rise in the cost of living also shows up very favourably. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) pointed out, when you come to earnings, as distinct from base rates, the comparison is very much less favourable. Earnings have gone up far more than the cost of living. But by and large the system has worked satisfactorily. But is it sufficient to judge the soundness of our policy by what has happened hitherto? When we discussed the amalgamation of police forces and saw the unusual spectacle of the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) supporting the Government, I was interested in one of his arguments. He pointed out that the proposals then before us were designed to deal with conditions which could be foreseen. In this instance it is equally important to review our policy in the light of conditions which can be foreseen, and not merely to rest on satisfactory results hitherto.
What is the present position? On the one hand, we see the country flooded with posters advising people to save; we hear Ministers and Members of all parties telling the public that unless they save there is great danger of inflation and of deterioration in the real value of wages. At the same time, while that advice is being given, and when it is known that there is excessive purchasing power, we are faced with" demands from all quarters for wage increases. Hon. Members are familiar with the claims put forward in the engineering industry; and what happens in that

2009
industry is usually reflected in the shipbuilding industry. The railways have put forward demands. Although we had hoped in the steel industry that a substantial measure of stabilisation had been achieved, those hopes have not been fulfilled. Before the war, in the steel industry, there was a rough and ready method of seeing that the prosperity of the industry was to some degree reflected in the wages of those who took part in the industry, and for that purpose the percentage additions to base rates were related to the selling price of steel. After some experience of war, it was recognised that there would have to be a substantial increase in steel prices to cover the prime cost freight and insurance of supplies imported from abroad. It was recognised that that increase would not increase the prosperity of the manufacturer. It is to the credit of all concerned in that industry that they realised that the method of assessment of wages called for review in the light of these special circumstances. Fresh arrangements were made, by which the percentage addition to base rates was pegged at the rate then ruling, and any further additions to that scale were related to the cost of living. Although conditions in that industry have not materially changed since that arrangement was made, and although at the time it was generally expected to continue for the duration of the war, notices terminating that arrangement have been handed in—as the agreements provided might be done—and the whole position is in a state of flux. Hon. Members will recall the increase which has been given in agriculture, because, in relation to the general level, it was thought that the pay in that industry was inadequate. There have been changes in the coal trade, because, again, it was felt that comparison made some adjustment necessary and it is not long since we increased pay in the Services. I do not want to stress the comparison unduly between the pay in the Services and that prevailing in industry, but the gap between those two types of pay is already subject to criticism, and any widening of the gap by a major change in the munition industries must have far-reaching results.
Why do these wage demands come forward? I do not believe that they arise from a need to increase the purchasing power of the recipients to cover
2010
increases in the cost of living. Occasionally increases can be justified on that ground, but, broadly speaking, I do not think that plays a major part in these demands. To some degree, I believe, they are put forward as a result of pressure exerted by irresponsible elements, actuated by ulterior motives, who force the responsible trade unions to put forward extravagant demands or to make way for others who will. To some extent it may be a desire to offset the rates of Income Tax, but probably the most important reason is the comparison which individuals make with the remuneration of those in other industries, and they say, "If they have had an increase, why should not I." I believe that after the war it will be very necessary to find ways and means of ensuring that wages more comparable with one another are paid for comparable effort and skill, but surely a problem so difficult to deal with as that is very much better dealt with in the calmer days of peace than in the critical days of war. In the White Paper to which I have already made reference it is stated that increases in wages or other incomes would not make more goods available. Such increases would not raise the general standard of living. They would merely tend to send up prices and to denude the shops, making it difficult to secure a fair distribution of the limited supply of goods. I hope it is not necessary for me to dwell at any length upon and to emphasise the main message conveyed in those words that any major increase in the wage level must have a serious and damaging effect on the question of inflation.
It is no argument to say, as an hon. Member on one of the Front Benches opposite who is not here to-day said recently, that because goods are scarce and because so many of them are controlled in price there is therefore no harm in putting more money still into the pockets of the wage-earners. In the first place there are still many goods not controlled in price and hon. Members do not hesitate to quote them when they are pressing the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer for improved allowances and pensions. But in addition to that we must surely have regard not only to the position to-day, but to the position which will prevail after the war. It may not be that these restrictions and controls will come off immediately, but

2011
some day there must be a relaxation of control and then will be the time when the actions we take now will have effect. We must have regard therefore to that position. It is not that the demands we see before us to-day are merely the continuance of the trend which has been going on for the last six or 12 months, but the demands are coming in from all quarters. The flood gates have been opened and the very stability of the wage structure is in doubt. Does anyone imagine that if these changes in munition industries which are requested are met, or even partially met, we shall not have recurring demands from this industry to which I have referred and already dealt with? It is only natural when their position has been rectified that, if the comparison made at that time is altered by a further increase in the munition industries, this other will once again come forward and have a very plausible case with which we shall have to deal.
It is pointed out by some people how logical it is—how illogical perhaps I should say—for the Government to deal with prices and many other factors in the situation and not directly deal with wages. They say, "After all, are we not all in the front line? Then why should not the similar procedure adopted in the Services be applied also to industry." For my part I am fully conscious of the dangers and difficulties of attempting to deal with wages in industry directly by the Government and I think some of those who lightly advocate such a course would do well to study more carefully before advocating such extreme lengths. I should have thought the experience of the controversial discussions on wages in the coal industry with which this House is all too familiar would have been a salutary warning of the dangers of dragging wages discussions in detail into our political life. In Canada they had attempted to deal with this problem by fixing a ceiling upon the wage rates to be paid and they selected those prevailing on 15th November last year, but they found it necessary to establish machinery for dealing with special circumstances and hard cases, which did very much to undermine the rigidity of the ceiling which they were setting out to provide. We see in America that directions has been issued to the Wages Board there that no wages may be paid higher than the rates prevail-
2012
ing on 15th September of this year, except for particular reasons which are laid down. But the exceptions to justify special treatment just mean that the whole system is riddled with loopholes, and unless I am mistaken one of them is to the effect that further increases may be made if they are required "for the better prosecution of the war."
You cannot drill holes in the stopper of a bottle and expect the liquid inside to stay put, and yet one is very conscious of the fact too that the liquid in the bottle, particularly if it is intoxicating, may very well burst the bottle for lack of an adequate vent, and that, it seems to me, is the dilemma in which we are placed in dealing with this problem.
If we reject the extreme alternative sometimes advocated and are by no means happy with the system prevailing now, does this mean that there is nothing more that could be done? We pride ourselves in this country in relegating logic to a subservient position. Our political institutions have thrived and survived by a process of improvisation and adaptation, and I believe that there are still ways and means open to us so to adapt and strengthen the present method that we are applying as may lead us to have more confidence in its successful application. (An HON. MEMBER: "What about logic?") The part logic plays is always dangerous in my view. There are three sources from which we might look for help. The Government themselves, those who take part in wage negotiations, and thirdly, the working people, the public, themselves. I do not believe that the Government have as yet come out anything like strongly enough in bringing it home to the people of this country that the maintenance of the present wage-level is an indispensable part of the price policy of the Government. It is perfectly true that we are told in the White Paper that the Government regard it as—
"the duty of both sides in industry' to consider together all possible means of preventing a rise in the costs of production,"
but who in industry has read the White Paper? When have we heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour an emphatic and forthright statement telling the people that there is the gravest possible danger in their demands for wage increases coming forward so long as there are not additional goods to buy to balance those demands? Why should

2013
not he come out and tell the working people what it is wise and what it is not wise for them to do in those same forthright terms that he has not hesitated to use when he has considered that there are employers in need of correction? It is not dictatorship for which I ask, but leadership. We have learned that in the near future the Prime Minister is to address a meeting of representatives of the coal trade, and here I may say, in passing, how much some of us welcome this instance of the additional interest taken by him in the affairs of the home front. (An HON. MEMBER: "It is the first time "). We have already dealt with the situation in the coal trade, and I can hardly think that it can do other than harm to that industry for further changes to be made in other industries. So it would seem the proper occasion—and I hope that my right hon. Friend will take it—to strengthen the forces of stability and to bring home to all concerned in industry the magnitude of their responsibilities in this matter.
Now there is a more direct way in which the Government can strengthen the present position. The keystone of joint conciliation machinery is the arbitrator. As matters stand, he can hardly fail to have regard to the wages paid in other industries when considering cases which are brought before him. I believe it should be possible for the Government to ensure that in dealing with the cases brought to him the arbitrator does not overlook the national considerations and the interests of the taxpayer. Just as in the same way as a judge directs a jury as to the weight to be given to the considerations before them, so, I suggest, the Government can direct arbitrators as to the weight they should give to the considerations put before them in these industrial cases. It does not follow that by so doing you would necessarily tie the hands of the arbitrator.
Mr. Levy: Do I gather from my hon. Friend that the arbitrator would cease to be impartial but would be prejudiced and guided by the instructions given him by the Government, which would do away entirely with his freedom of action?
Mr. Summers: I am not suggesting that there should be given to the arbitrators instructions such as would do away
2014
with their freedom of action, but I am suggesting that because so much of the wage increases falls upon the taxpayers in the last resort it is perfectly proper for the Government to take steps to see that these considerations are given full and proper weight by an arbitrator when dealing with these cases.
Mr. Willink: Is it not a fact that public policy is taken in account by all tribunals when they are considering matters between individual litigants?
Mr. Summers: I think it would be a mistake if we dwelt too long on this aspect, but lest anyone should think that I feel I am getting the worst of the bargain, I should be happy to continue it afterwards. Coming to those who take part in these wage negotiations, I believe that the responsible leaders of trade unions do realise their responsibilities in this matter. I am one of those who regard the wellbeing of the trade union movement as an indispensable part of peaceful and efficient industry, but their task is very difficult. They have to justify their existence.
Sir Joseph Lamb: To gain his object, would my hon. Friend be willing that the Government should be represented before an arbitrator to state their case to the public?
Mr. Summers: My own personal view is that that, at this stage, is going too far.
Mr. W. A. Robinson: The hon. Member has not made his mind up yet. Give him a chance.
Mr. Summers: It is not a question of making up one's mind. Just as we reject the extreme course now we may have to come nearer to it as time goes on if the matter gets out of hand. Trade unions not only have to justify their existence but they have to look two ways at once and I am afraid that some of the demands now being put forward are putting an unwarranted strain on mutual confidence. My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon gave an instance in which employers resisted demands to exploit the E.P.T. situation. I believe that generally there is a perfectly proper desire on the part of employers to resist such demands and that the existence of E.P.T. is not tending to allow these increases to take place unduly.

2015
Finally, there are the working people themselves. The Minister of Labour has told us in a number of speeches that the unprepared position in which we found ourselves at the beginning of the war was in varying degrees the responsibility of all of us and in this case also everyone has in varying degrees both responsibility and the possibility of improving the position. It is all very well for us to say we are fighting for freedom and democracy and to be proud of our popular institutions but we cannot expect others, while we are preaching that creed, to make good our own individual short-comings. We are reminded of the dangerous position in which we are placed. We pay tribute to the gallantry of our Russian Allies; we marvel at their sacrifices and lament their sufferings; we tell each other that we must not use the war to improve our own personal positions. But are the jostlings for position at home, which we see going on around us, in keeping with these considerations? Is it not time we recognised that a different set of values must be shared and accepted in this country? We are told of the iniquities of the profit motive and that in the brave new world which we shall see one day service alone will suffice. Those who are so confident that that kind of new world will come about would do well to apply themselves to the present situation so that by so doing we may avoid many disappointments and possibly bring about a greater sense of realism than is apparent just now.
In a book which has just been published by Lord Elton there is a reference which I think is pertinent to this situation. I am speaking of an extract from "St. George or the Dragon." He says there that
"long ago men believed that the supreme tasks demanded of those who undertook them, not only a certain quality of life in the past but a progressive effort of self-discipline in the present. It was not so much the crusader who made the crusade as the crusade that made the crusader. To win your victory, you have sooner or later to earn it."
I suggest that such thoughts are equally applicable to-day. Public opinion can do much in this matter, and it is up to the Government and hon. Members to mobilise public opinion. When the welfare of this country has been at stake hitherto, the good sense of the people has always
2016
been forthcoming. I trust that in these circumstances it will not be found wanting.
Mr. Benson: I hope the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) and the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Summers) will forgive me when I say that their speeches were tinged with a lack of realism.
Mr. G. Griffiths: They were attacks on wages all the time.
Mr. Benson: When the honourable and usually gallant Member for South Croydon sings in a minor key, it is obvious that he and those who think like him are rather afraid of the problems they are trying to tackle. The two speeches we have heard have been demands for the freezing of wages. If we are to discuss this problem with realism, I think we had better cut out all vagueness. I do not think the hon. Member for South Croydon and the hon. Member for Northampton will deny that this was the demand they made. All I ask is that they should state it clearly and realistically. I am fully aware of the danger of purchasing power running ahead of the goods that are available for purchase. No hon. Member has spoken more strongly on that than I have, and nobody has taken a stronger line on the subject of taxation. I am prepared to give the hon. Member for Northampton his case fully—that unregulated increases in wages may produce a very serious financial position. I think that Lord Keynes, in a broadcast, put the matter very clearly when he said, 12 months ago, that the money income of the country was £17,000,000 a day, and that the total available amount of goods and services was only £12,000,000. Obviously, there is no possibility of an increase in the quantity of goods and services available to civilians during the war. The hon. Member for South Croydon referred to wages increasing with production, but if that production is war production, it does not increase the total volume of goods available to civilians. I am prepared to grant the whole of the case concerning the danger of inflation arising from either regulated or unregulated increases in wages when there is no possibility of an increase in the quantity of goods available. But I do not want to deal with that point now. Hon. Members opposite can be trusted to rub it in.

2017
I want to consider the matter from a rather different angle. The hon. Member for South Croydon said that sacrifices have been made by the rich and that Income Tax, Surtax and Excess Profits Tax have taken something like 90 per cent. of the larger incomes. That is quite possible, but we must not overlook the fact that, despite the undoubted shift in the quantity of purchasing power down towards the lower income scales and despite the very high taxation of the upper scales, there has so far been little or no change in the relative standard of comfort of the various classes of society. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Does any hon. Member challenge that? I think the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) challenges it.
Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Certainly, I do. It is absurd to say that there has been no diminution in the standard of living of those who before the war had large possessions. There has, very rightly, been a great diminution, and it is most unfair to suggest that there has not. Everybody is making a sacrifice in the war, and to say that people who had large incomes before the war and who still have great commitments are not making a sacrifice is not a statement of fact.
Mr. Benson: If the hon. and gallant Member had listened to me, he would realise that I did not make any such silly statement. It is no use challenging a statement which I did not make. I said there has been no great relative change—I did not say no absolute diminution—in the standard of comfort of various classes. The hon. and gallant Member, I believe—I may be doing him a wrong—is a wealthy man.
Sir A. Southby: Believe me, I am not. The hon. Member is doing me a grave injustice.
Mr. Benson: The hon. and gallant Member's standard of comfort, before the war and now, is a great deal higher than that of the average miner.
Mr. Wragg: The average miner can afford to buy lots of things which a rich man cannot afford.
Mr. Benson: If we go through this Debate in an air of unreality, the Debate will do no good. It is useless to challenge the statement that those who were rich
2018
before the war still enjoy a standard far higher than the standard of the average working-class man, before the war or now, despite increases in wages.
Sir Alfred Beit: Surely, that is quite different from saying that the standard of the working classes has not risen at all?
Mr. Benson: Of course, it is, but I did not say that. I said quite the opposite. I agreed there has been an undoubted shift of purchasing power towards the lower end of the scale. I said there has been no relative change in the standard of comfort of the different classes. [Interruption.] Hon. Members can deny it if they like, but the vast majority of the people believe it.
Mr. Wragg: Yes, because the hon. Member and those associated with him tell them so.
Mr. Benson: Would the hon. Member for Belper (Mr. Wragg) be prepared to change his standard of living for that of a miner?
Mr. Wragg: My standard of living has changed very much, and I see miners around me getting twice as much as they did before the war.
Mr. Benson: I asked the hon. Member whether he would be prepared to change his standard of living for that of a miner. I am well aware that money wages have gone up and that net large incomes have gone down, but that does not alter the fact that people who were comfortable before the war are comfortable now, and that people who were poor before the war are relatively poor now. That is the opinion of the vast majority of the people of this country, and that is why there are wage demands; and until that opinion has been changed, there will continue to be wage demands. The hon. Member for Northampton demanded the freezing of wages.
Mr. Summers: No.
Mr. Benson: The hon. Member asked for that. He referred to America, and he spoke of stabilisation, which is not quite such a crude word as freezing.
Mr. Summers: The hon. Member takes exception to the advocacy of a policy of maintaining the wage level at approximately where it is now. Does he seek to

2019
challenge the whole of the White Paper in which that is shown to be dependent upon the success of the whole policy? Does he challenge that policy?
Mr. Benson: Why does the hon. Member say I take exception to it? I have never said that I did. This demand for freezing wages means interference with the old-established law of supply and demand. I do not know whether hon. Members opposite realize it, but that is an extremely revolutionary proposal, reversing the whole policy of the past. In the past the' incomes of individuals have depended on monopoly in one way or another. If it were a landlord, it is the fact that his land had a monopoly value. If it were a barrister making £10,000, £15,000, or £20,000 a year, it was the monopoly value of his particular kind of skill, [HON. MEMBER: God gives ability to all men.] God does not give the same kind of ability to all men. It is not the social value of the service rendered which has had any bearing whatever on remuneration in the past. It has been simply and solely a question of how much the individual could wring out of society for the land or the factory, or whatever he owned, or for his ability. The hon. Member is proposing that this old-established custom of remuneration according to the law of supply and demand should be put an end to. As far as I can remember, there have only been three periods in history when the law of supply and demand has worked to the advantage of the working classes. One is now, one was in the last war, and the previous time was 600 years ago, after the Black Death.
Mr. Summers: Does not the hon. Member agree that the whole of the law of supply and demand has already been completely vitiated by the restriction and control of our actions, and so already it is no longer operating?
Mr. Benson: The law of supply and demand is certainly not operating in its complete fullness and purity, but, where the law of supply and demand for only the third time in 600 years works out to the advantage of the working class, hon. Members opposite say "No, it must be stopped." The hon. Member for South Croydon put the thing excellently. "Restriction is necessary to prevent one section of this community taking advantage
2020
of another in war-time." Why only in war-time I am not quite clear. It seems to me very invidious that hon. Members opposite should say that, when for the third time in 600 years the law of supply and demand, which has worked enormously to their advantage during those six centuries, and probably before, operates in the interests of the working classes, it must be completely suspended for the duration of the war. I am quite prepared to give them the case as to inflation. I admit as definitely as anyone on the other side that, if we allow wage rates to get out of hand, it will produce immense financial difficulties. I am quite prepared to see that wages shall be dealt with and, if necessary, frozen, but I am not prepared to accept the idea that only during war-time, and when the advantage is on the side of the working class, should the law of supply and demand be suspended.
I am quite aware that there is a grave crisis. I am quite aware that the unregulated demand, owing to monopoly value, for labour may produce trouble. But what about after the war? What about the past? Has the functioning of the law of supply and demand in the past failed to produce evils? It has produced low wages, poverty and sweating. Hon. Members opposite never suggested that it should be suspended when, along with low wages and sweating, it produced enormous wealth for their section of the community. They cannot have it both ways. If they say this is a bad method of fixing remuneration and it must be stopped now and for always, well and good. They will find that we on this side will give them every help. But let them realize that they cannot come along once every two hundred years and say this law must not operate now, while in between it operated to their advantage and that of their forbears.
Sir J. Lamb: The hon. Member keeps on referring to "we" and "they." Is he aware that some of us have advocated higher wages as vehemently as he has? To give one instance only, higher agricultural wages were advocated by Members on this side but were opposed by Members on the other side because they were consumers.
Mr. Benson: I am pointing out that hon. Gentlemen opposite are still maintaining the right to go back to the law of

2021
supply and demand—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Are hon. Gentlemen opposite prepared to say that we should get completely rid of free competition? Are they prepared to say that in future, and not merely during war time, there should be an entirely different system of regulating incomes and that it shall depend entirely on service to the community and not upon monopoly values?
Sir J. Lamb: Earned income, yes.
Mr. Benson: What about unearned income?
Sir J. Lamb: We are discussing wages.
Mr. Benson: I am discussing all forms of income. The point is that if hon. Gentlemen opposite want us to agree to the regulation of wages in war time we, as a price for that, demand that there shall be an entirely new system of regulating all forms of income and that it shall not cease when war ceases. We protest against the idea that it is only when wages rise that something is wrong with the law of supply and demand. We protest against the idea that it is only in war time that there are crises and social evils arising from the unregulated demands and powers of monopoly interests.
Mr. Wragg: If there were no regulation, prices would rise. The hon. Gentleman is arguing about supply and demand from the point of view of wages, but he must argue it from the point of view of prices. If there were no regulation by the Government, supply and demand would operate and prices would rise considerably.
Mr. Benson: I admit that the law of supply and demand is not working completely freely, but I am pointing out that there is a very large element in the fixing of remuneration in between wars which depends on the law of supply and demand. When the law of supply and demand is working to the advantage of the working classes—at any rate, to their apparent advantage—hon. Gentlemen opposite demand that regulation should take its place. As a price for that, if hon. Gentlemen opposite want us to agree, they must accept our position that the crisis is not merely a war-time crisis, but a permanent crisis so long as poverty exists and capital values give one man an enormously increased standard of living over any other man. They cannot make
2022
fish of one and flesh of the other and say that in one period of crisis it is essential to deal with it by abolishing the law of supply and demand, but that when the crisis is over we shall go back to the old method of regulating remuneration. We challenge the right of hon. Gentlemen merely to pick and choose their time when remuneration shall be regulated. We demand that in future there shall be an entirely new system and that that system shall be based upon social utility and not upon monopoly values. What I have said may be entirely irrelevant to this Debate or at the moment impracticable, but if hon. Gentlemen are to pull the majority of this country with them on the question of the regulation of wages, the point I have tried to put will have to be met.
Commander Galbraith: On this the first occasion that I have had the privilege of addressing this House, I would ask for your indulgence, Sir, and for the indulgence of the House. Ever since the commencement of this war the Government have found it expedient in the national interest to impose an ever stricter measure of control on every one of the national activities and to institute a measure of control over the lives of individual citizens. The sole great exception to that policy is in the remuneration of the workers, whether they be professional, industrial, distributive, clerical or otherwise. There normal peace-time channels have still been allowed to operate without interference, and that though the Government must be very interested in the wage situation because of the effect it might have on inflation and also because more than 50 per cent. of the industrial capacity of this country is employed directly on Government account. It seems to many people somewhat extraordinary that the Government should continue to pursue that policy, for after the experience of the last war there was a general opinion that in the event of another war one of the things which the Government would be almost bound to control would be wages. It is the more remarkable that they have not done so because they have taken such right and proper steps to control very strictly the profits that have been earned in industry and otherwise.
Indeed, a belief prevailed after the last war that in the event of this country ever

2023
again finding itself fighting for its existence, when the life and liberty of everyone of us was equally at, stake, it would be probable that the Government would introduce universal conscription. As the event has turned out, they have introduced conscription only so far as the Armed Forces are concerned. I am one of those who hold very strongly that when the State assumes the responsibility of demanding from certain of its citizens as of right that they shall give life itself in defence of the country, and when the State actually chooses the people from whom it expects that supreme sacrifice, then it has no option, either morally or logically, but to conscript and use in any manner which the Government consider necessary every individual citizen, male or female, and everything that they possess whether it be property, investments, capital or income. I am very sorry that at the outbreak of this war the Government did not follow that extremely logical course. It would have resulted, in my opinion, in there being in this country to-day an even greater unity than exists, though that is undoubtedly very great. It would have removed once and for all any suspicion that one section of the community was benefiting by the sacrifices of others. It would have made us feel even more strongly than we do to-day that we are all part of one team playing for our side not for ourselves. It would have achieved also a much nearer approach to something which, although it can never be attained in full, is very desirable, and that is equality of sacrifice. Unless we can get a very close approach to that objective I do not think we can ever get the maximum effort from us all. It is unfortunate that to-day it is probably too late to remedy what I conceive to have been a great mistake, in consequence of which we are faced now with an illogical situation which is unfair and, in certain of its aspects, also unmoral.
May I ask the House to consider a matter which has been debated here at some length recently, the position in which men in the Fighting Services find themselves as the result of the Government's decision to leave wages to be fixed by the normal channels which existed before the war? Their remuneration, of course, is fixed by the Government, who, I under-quite adequate in the present economic
2024
quite adequate in the present economic circumstances. That is something which, I am sure, the House will judge for itself. I have been told by Members who sit on the Benches opposite that there is no feeling among men in the Services which is strongly against the present wages policy of the Government which allows the industrial worker to receive a considerably higher remuneration than that which is received by Service men themselves, and that men in the Services are glad to know that their friends and relatives are doing so well. I think there is probably a certain degree of truth in that statement in so far as the young unmarried men in the Services are concerned, but human nature being what it is I wonder if they will have the same feelings when they return home at the end of the war to find their friends and relatives fairly comfortably off and with considerable savings put aside while they have little or nothing to show for the dangers and hardships which they have undergone in their service overseas.
What I really wish to consider is the position of the married men, and I will take as an example an able seaman in the Navy, not one who has recently been raised to that rating but one who has a good conduct badge, and let me assume also that he has a wife and two children. If that man makes the largest possible allotment to his wife, which means that he will have only 4s. 7d. a week for himself, his wife will receive 67s. a week. Do hon. Members really believe that that man will feel any very great degree of contentment when he learns from his wife that her sisters, young and inexperienced women, after a few short weeks of training, are able to bring home at the end of the week a pay envelope with something in the region of £4; or perhaps that her sister-in-law is receiving something in excess of £6 a week from her husband who is employed on munitions? I do not think those are extravagant figures. Does the House not think that that woman will feel some resentment when she knows that these sums, so considerably in excess of what her husband can earn, are being received by her relatives while they live quietly and comfortably at home, and not in any sense in danger, while her husband is in danger every moment of the day and night and she has to do without his companionship for many months at a time? I suggest that these circumstances must result in that woman feeling a certain amount of bitterness, and that bitterness will be communi-

2025
cated to her husband, and he will feel that he is not being fairly treated by the State. If that feeling is multiplied I suggest that it will not be to the national interest.
In case the House considers that the example which I have given is an extreme one, I will quote another, that of the most highly skilled member of the seamen branch in the Royal Navy, a chief petty officer, gunner's mate, with three badges, and let me assume that he is married and has two children. If that man makes the maximum allotment to his wife he is left with 11s. 3d. a week in his pocket, while his wife gets £5 7s. In view of what could be earned in civil life by a man of equal skill and experience and, most of all, capable of bearing the same responsibility that that man takes, I do not think hon. Members would be surprised if that man felt that his services were not fully appreciated by his country. Of course, anyone replying to these cases would probably accuse me of having failed to give the full account. It would be said that the men in the Services are housed and fed. So far as housing is concerned, I do not think the point really applies, because the man has to keep a house for his family in any event; and in regard to food the value amounts merely to a few shillings a week, and when we consider that the industrial worker to-day gets very good food, just as good as in the Services, at the factory canteen, at equally low cost, I do not think the point about the food of the Service man is really relevant.
Again, it would be said that men in the Services have pensions. I wonder how many of the men serving in the Navy to-day will receive a pension; and even if they do, it is a matter of 12½ per cent., and working that out on the pay of the men it comes to very little indeed. Again, it may be said that they get a free issue of tobacco and that their other tobacco they receive duty free. If that were put to the lower deck to-day the men would probably say that they would far rather give up these small privileges than have the issue obscured by them, and would rather have their pay fixed somewhere more nearly in relation to that which is received by a man of equal skill and experience in industry. These examples could be multiplied throughout the Services time and time again. There are other examples, too. Will the House consider the case of
2026
the nurses in our great hospitals who, after many years of the most arduous training and further years of service, may rise to the responsible position of sister? In Scotland a hospital sister has just recently had her salary raised to £110 a year, and that at a time when, as I have already stated, young and inexperienced women can receive after a short training more than £4 a week from industry.
I do not want the House to imagine that I do not appreciate the great services that these women in industry are giving. I do, and everyone is grateful for their services, but what I wish to bring out are the inequalities that exist. The fact is that the Government's policy in regard to wages leads to a continuous struggle for higher wages, produces a multitude of anomalies particularly between skilled and unskilled labour and results in unfairness and also in injustice. Wage rates to-day all over the country, and including those in agriculture, are, I am credibly informed, up by 31 per cent. The cost of living is up by 30 per cent. These two figures, considered one with the other, appear to be most reasonable, but when we come to consider earnings it is rather a different picture, because earnings are up by 47 per cent., that is, are 17 per cent. higher than the increase in the cost of living, and that wide disparity is not quite so reasonable.
There is another side to the picture which has been alluded to already. No matter what system may be imposed, no matter what control there may be over industry in the future, it is very unlikely indeed that the present rates can be maintained when we have again to face world competition, and nothing is more certain when these rates have to be adjusted to meet that competition than that there will be dissatisfaction, unrest and, maybe, bitterness. If the present wages policy of the Government is to continue, we can only anticipate that rates of wages current to-day will rise even higher, and, if that be so, I suggest that the dissatisfaction later on will be proportionately greater. There is another thing which I feel about this wages policy. Is there not a feeling in certain quarters in this country that after all war is not a bad thing? Food, it is true, is rationed, and so are other things, but there is still enough to go round. Commodities are controlled, but luxuries are available to those who

2027
have the money to buy, and money to-day appears to be plentiful. In my opinion war-time is a time of sacrifice. It is a time of sacrifice for many of our people, and should be a time of sacrifice for all, and that applies to every strata of society. What is this wage policy doing for the young? I do not think signs are wanting that it is having a demoralising effect on some of our younger people, who have far more money in their pockets than is good for them at that age.
In that connection I am alluding to boys and girls who have recently left school and have not yet reached military age. It is also giving to those young people a disinclination to take up a trade. What the state of mind of those boys and girls will be after the war, when they find themselves unskilled and unable to command more than a proportion of the wages they are receiving to-day, I do not know, but it seems to me that this wages policy is allowing a good deal of talent to go to waste when it might be of the greatest value to us in future.
My plea to the Government is—if it is too late to conscript us, which is what I would like to see—that they should fix wage-rates on the present level and step up the pay of the Services till it bears a closer relationship to what is earned by people in industry. If that course were adopted it would result in not so much unrest later on and it would have a steadying effect throughout the entire country. It would remove any feeling of unfair treatment in the Services, and it would avoid the danger of inflation, which is very real, in view of the applications for further increases now in preparation. Nothing is more distracting than uncertainty. Nothing is more crippling to the national effort. No matter what a man's earnings may be, when he has the knowledge that an application has been made to give him more than he is getting it has an unsettling effect. If the application should fail, he inevitably feels a sense of grievance. It is the same with a man who is completely satisfied with what he is receiving till he hears of someone who is receiving more. Then he feels entitled to an increase as well. This process is causing much unrest.
I would say, with all due deference to the Government, that if they want to get the maximum effort from industry—
2028
nothing less than the maximum will suffice at this moment—and the greatest measure of contentment in the Services they should stabilise wage rates now and step up the pay of the Services where it is out of step. I am certain that in that way all uncertainty would be removed and, with it, discontent, waste of effort, and the danger of inflation which is involved in the present wages policy.
Captain Cunningham-Reid: I am sure it will be the wish of the House that I should congratulate the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken. His maiden speech was excellent. It was lucid and well balanced. Having been in this House off and on since 1922, I envied him his confidence—or his apparent confidence.
I regret that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Summers) has just left his place, because I should have liked to make a comment on one or two of his remarks. I notice that he suggested that the Minister of Labour should make an appeal to the working classes to make certain sacrifices and that there should be impressed upon them the damage that their increasing demands would make upon the national security. I would ask the hon. Member whether he is prepared to ask the Minister of Labour at the same time to demand that the rentier classes should also make what sacrifices are possible. It is important to make it clear that in this war there are no class distinctions and that we expect sacrifices from all members of the community.
I have listened to the whole of the Debate. The trend of it has only confirmed the fact that what is gnawing at the very vitals of the nation is widespread, unfavourable comparisons. That has been more or less agreed upon by all speakers. Comparisons are made between what can be earned and saved in the Services and what can be earned and saved in Civvy Street. We are told that from Civvy Street £10,000,000 a week can be invested in War Loans, but in the Services we know that practically nothing can be invested because the people there have no savings. The miner compares his financial lot with that of the skilled worker in a war factory who sometimes collects £ a week. There cannot be a great number who receive such a wage as that, but the

2029
comparison still remains. The agricultural worker knows what the labourer is receiving in some nearby aerodrome construction work. The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths), who I regret is not in his place, compared only the other day his £600 a year with my spendable income. In passing, I would like to point out that there is not such a great difference between the two. Then the engineers see no reason why they should be left out of the inflationary picture, and they demand a rise which has been estimated, I understand, to amount to approximately £200,000,000 a year. So the ever-mounting spiral of comparison goes on. Men and women become more and more discontented and unsettled, and with good reason in the case of many who are in the Services. In some other spheres it is just the natural human urge to be equal with wage earners in other industries.
The Government admit frankly that this is an immense psychological problem. They point out that the only alternative is for the Government to fix the amount which each wage earner should receive. In reference to that, a Government spoke-man said, the week before last:
"Does, anybody really suppose that the Government could undertake to regulate the size of wages in this country without the question arising, 'What about salaries? What about Directors' fees? What about the returns on investments?' "
I agree with that profoundly. If there are to be sacrifices there must be all round equality of sacrifice. Just as there are some wage earners who get more than is necessary to support them in modest comfort, so the same applies to the rentier classes, though the majority of them have been hit hard by war taxation. I agree though that in both spheres, those who have too much, taking into account the present necessity for austerity, are decidedly in the minority. But this is the point: So long as that minority exists, comparisons and demands will be made, and something has got to be done about that. Yet the Government are not prepared, as has already been done in the United States, to grasp this nettle by stabilising wages.
"If somebody will come here and prove to me there is some third course which combines the advantages of both"—
that is to say of the present system of bargaining or wage fixation—
2030
"I am sure no one would be better pleased than my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour."
Those are not my words. The Lord Chan cellor said that a week or so ago. Those were his very words. With such exalted encouragement——
Mr. Marshall: Did not the Lord Chancellor in that speech pay a very fine tribute to the present way of fixing wages?
Captain Cunninigham-Reid: That may be, but I do not wish the hon. Gentleman to misunderstand me. I am not for one moment saying that under the present system there should not be increases of wages. With what the Lord Chancellor said on that question I am entirely in agreement.
Mr. Marshall: He was referring to the method, not to the increases.
Captain Cunningham-Reid: Exactly. I agree with that. As the Lord Chancellor has suggested that he desires, if possible, to find some third course, I think we might examine that for one moment. It is admitted that the present labour conditions are unsatisfactory, for they allow wage earners to be comparing their lot constantly and unfavourably with that of other wage earners, and this leads to discontent and ever-increasing demands. The alternative sometimes pressed on the Government is that they should stabilise wages at present rates, but what would be the good of stabilising wages where they are at present when, at the same time, that would automatically stabilise the discontent caused by the present comparisons?. Then again if a limit was placed on the amount that wage earners could earn—and I do not say one should place such a limit under the present system—why should there then not be a limit on what other sections of the community can earn? In this desperate fight for existence citizens should not try to get more out of the war than that which is necessary for their reasonable expenses, plus some financial reward for skill and responsibility.
That surely should be the principle underlying the third course canvassed by the Lord Chancellor, and it seems to me well worth trying. We should courageously embark on a revolutionary system of something approaching real equality. Some political leaders claim that there is already to-day equality of sacrifice. I am

2031
inclined to agree with some members of the Army who use that phrase "Equality of sacrifice" as a term of sarcasm. Here very briefly is an outline of a proposed new system for the duration of the war. People who are better qualified to judge these matters tell me that it is a scheme that could well be a basis for an advantageous alternative to the present unsatisfactory and dangerous state of affairs. In the first place, every adult should be conscripted to come under martial law so that, whether he or she is an industrial worker or a director of the Bank of England, he or she should be liable to be shot for the same reasons that soldiers can be shot. At the same time the income, which includes wages, of every individual in the country who comes within the ambit of Income Tax should also be conscripted. Under such conditions citizens would have sufficient income allowed them from what they receive to cover their reasonable expenses, plus a bonus according to skill and responsibility. It stands to reason that a skilled worker is deserving of more than an apprentice, or that a sergeant is deserving of more than a raw recruit. The necessary individual returns—and I am glad to see my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer there—would be no more complicated than the present individual taxation forms, all of which under the proposed system could be done away with, as could all other direct taxation on the individual.
In practice a large proportion of the population would find that they had the same amount to spend as now. The soldier and his dependants would be better off, and would no longer be at the present disadvantage to the industrial worker. The spendable income of the majority of the Members of Parliament in this House, especially Labour Members of Parliament, would be about the same; but other M.Ps., including myself and the Minister of Labour, who, I see, has just come in, would be somewhat worse off. Under this scheme, properly adjusted by the Inland Revenue experts, the State would benefit, possibly financially, but certainly from the point of view of national morale. No longer would there be the same opportunity for considerable sections of the community to be envious of others, for to a far greater extent everybody would be in the same boat.
2032
I would merely say this in conclusion. Let this House give up petty nibbling at a huge problem which can only be solved by immense courage on the part of the Government. They have already got the power to do this. Let us face up to the fact that so long as we presumably run the nation on democratic lines we shall never get that whole-hearted war effort necessary until there is no longer any real cause for one section of the population to demand to be treated the same as some other section who are or appear to be better off, that is to say, until every individual in the country, especially the majority of the Services, feel that at last there is something approaching real equality of sacrifice. We shall be heading for disaster if we continue to treat the grievances of those in the Services as well as those in certain industries as separate problems, because they are all, as I have attempted to show, inter-dependent, for each forms part of one vast problem and as such should be approached in a far wider and more statesmanlike manner than is being done at present.
Mr. Marshall: I do not want to follow the hon. and gallant Member for St. Marylebone (Captain Cunningham-Reid) too closely. He based many of his statements on what I think is lack of knowledge about how wages are fixed to-day. He concluded with a fantastic scheme for regulating wages, which would just about lose us this war. He would abolish in one fell swoop the trade union movement and a system for negotiating wages which has taken a century to build up. The upshot of his proposals would be to break the morale of the country, and to bring discontent into every trade and into every individual home. He would place every body of workmen in a position where, instead of making application for the removal of any grievances to their immediate employers or to the industry in which they work, they would have to make direct application to the Government. I do not think that the hon. and gallant Member realised that he was proposing to bring the Government directly into wage negotiations in such a manner that the workmen would be placed in a position of having to strike against the Government if there was a dispute, instead of striking against their employers. I do not know whether the hon. and gallant

2033
Member appreciates what the Government would have to do in such circumstances, but I can tell him that the policy which he proposes would be the most disastrous that could ever be brought into our wage negotiation system.
Captain Cunningham-Reid: Is the hon. Member going to put forward his solution of our present problems?
Mr. Marshall: If the hon. and gallant Member will be patient, I will put forward what proposals and advice I can. He goes on to say that the present method of fixing wages is dangerous and unsatisfactory. Who says that it is dangerous? Who says that it is unsatisfactory? I have not heard any widespread complaint about it.
Captain Cunningham-Reid: I said nothing of the sort. I said the present unfavourable comparisons are dangerous and unsatisfactory.
Mr. Marshall: I wrote the hon. and gallant Member's words down, and I think that when he reads the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow he will see that they were as I have said. I have not heard any widespread complaint about the present method of fixing wages. It may be considered unsatisfactory, but if so that feeling is on the part of the workpeople, who do not think they are receiving enough. Applications for increases in wages are nearly always made as a result of increases in the cost of living. I suppose the hon. and gallant Member would say that no matter how high the cost of living goes, wages are to be stabilised at a fixed point. That would be a very perilous path for this House to follow. It would break the morale of this country. Are you going to tell the miners that they are taking too much out of the national purse? The Government themselves had to interfere a short time ago, and to say that the miners were not getting enough, and that they must have more. If the hon. and gallant Member says that previous to that the miners' wages were too high, it means that the Government were wrong to interfere. Not long ago, after a prolonged and painful agitation, this House was induced to grant a minimum wage of £3 a week to agricultural workers. Does the hon. and gallant Member say that those wages should be stabilised at £3 a week? Are those fellows, upon whose efforts the feeding of this country depends, to be told that £3 a week is too much for them? The
2034
engineers wage to-day is about £4 2s. 6d. [An HON. MEMBER: "£4 1s. 8d."] It is £4 1s. 8d. Think of the engineering operations done by these men, working to the finest point of engineering practice, building all these instruments of war and of peace, and pouring into their labour all their skill. Are their wages to be stabilised at £4 1s. 8d.; and are we to say that, even if the cost of living goes sky high, we are not going to allow them to make an application, even on the merits of the case, for an increase in wages?
Captain Cunningham-Reid: The hon. Member must not continue completely to misconstrue what I said. My suggestion was that everybody should have sufficient for his necessary commitments. That is my scheme.
Mr. Marshall: Then the hon. and gallant Member points out that every body of industrial workers makes an application for higher wages because somebody else has got an advance. A general statement like that is only half true. I have been in the trade union movement for the greater part of my life, and I am now chairman of a trade union with 750,000 members. I know as much about trade union organisation as almost any Member of this House—I except the Minister of Labour, of course. Men do not ask for an increase simply because somebody else in Timbuctoo has got an increase. That suggestion is eyewash. If the hon. and gallant Member had ever attended a meeting of the body which is responsible for regulating engineering wages, he would have known that that kind of thing does not obtain. At such a meeting he would see on one side the representatives of the employers, the cream of the engineering industry in this country, and on the other side the representatives of the men. Somebody gets up to open the case for the men. He does not neglect to go into the cost of living and inflation, and subjects of that kind. These men are as much concerned about inflation as any Member of this House, and they take a reasoned view. Then the employers' representative gets up to reply. We members of the rank and file do not at once butt in, but we leave it to these expert spokesmen to argue the matter. Then the meeting is adjourned, the case is considered by a committee, and ultimately the findings are promulgated. That is collective bargaining.

2035
If we took any steps to sweep away this system, which has grown up in this country in the last 100 years, we should be sweeping away something which, especially in war-time, is one of our most priceless assets. We ought to leave well alone. These great organisations are dealing not only with wages, but with working conditions and the prevention of disputes; and no one can assess the effect of the trade union movement to-day upon industry, arid upon the national life generally. If you are going to sweep this system away, and to leave all these little irritating grievances to grow into causes for industrial disputes, and to leave it to the Government—however generous a Government there may be—to deal with the matter, that will have a bad effect upon the whole industrial outlook of the country.
I believe in trade union collective bargaining, and in men's work, and they will come through this war and discharge their duties as loyally and patriotically as any section of the country. We should let well alone. They do their job well and will come through all right. I remember in the last war that wages were to some extent regulated by the State. Did that prevent trade union applications? Instead of going to the engineering employers, the building trades' employers and all the other employers' associations of the country, we had to put our case before the Ministry of Production. It did not prevent applications and comparisons being made. I understand that the suggestion in this Debate is that we should not do that but must come straight to the Government and bring the Government into the negotiating field. That would be disastrous, and if I could offer any advice to his House, I would say, Let well alone.
Sir Alfred Beit: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Brightside (Mr. Marshall) administered some corrections to the hon. and gallant Member for St. Marylebone (Captain Cunningham-Reid) at the beginning of his speech and very suitably exploded some of the proposals which we had heard from the hon. and gallant Member, but the hon. Member himself later on proceeded to announce certain propositions which I think were similarly born of confused thinking. He said that the rise in the cost of living was causing demands for
2036
increased wages and seemed to overlook the fact which had been explained to us at the beginning of the Debate, and which we all know, that in point of fact the rise in earning rates in the case of men, youths and boys respectively has been between 50 per cent. and 100 per cent. more than the rise in the cost of living, so that it could hardly be said that the rise in the cost of living can attract demands for increased wages. Similarly he said, If any stabilisation of wages as has been proposed in certain quarters were attempted at the present moment, what would happen to workers when the cost of living went galloping up? If anything so drastic as stabilisation were to take place the cost of living would not go galloping up. It rises because of the vicious circle established by these increases
I would also like to refer to a remark made by the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) in a maiden speech in which he said he was sorry that at the beginning of the war some more embracing legislation had not been introduced. I would refer to what happened in France at the beginning of the war, and indeed on the day before war was declared. It is the fashion nowadays to decry the French war effort in view of subsequent events but there was introduced a remarkable and far-seeing legislation concerning the general problem of labour, especially with regard to national defence. That legislation was, I regret to say, attacked by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour in this House when he spoke about a year ago and said it was one of the contributory causes of France's downfall, but the fact remains he and the Government between them at subsequent dates introduced identical orders or legislation with two very great differences. One is that what was done in France in one day has taken us two years to do, and the other is that, whereas the French legislation covered every aspect of the whole problem, including, most important of all, the control of wages and rents, nothing of that sort has been attempted here. That law to which I have referred, introduced on 31st August, 1939, prohibited workers in national defence industries from leaving their employment, abolished the 40-hour week, stabilised rates for overtime and controlled rents and wages and certain other things as

2037
well. It had been prepared a long time previously against such an emergency and it operated smoothly with the minimum amount of friction, with the result that there were no labour troubles in France during the nine months that she was our ally. The cost of living rose far less than was the case in this country and had not to be kept down by vast Government subsidies.
Mr. G. Griffiths: On what authority does the hon. Member say that there was no labour trouble in France during those nine months?
Sir A. Beit: On the authority of personal observation. I was there during the whole of the nine months in question, serving with the Forces, and I had opportunities of studying that legislation and of seeing how smoothly it worked. I should emphasise that though there is a great difference in the level of earnings between civilian and soldier in France no jealousies were created, as has been the case here. Whatever may have been the cause of the collapse in France, one thing is certain, and that is, that labour trouble was not one of them.
No democracy ever seems able or willing to learn a lesson from another. I see in the American magazine "Time" that industry is now suffering from the same trouble that we experienced here of workmen being enticed from one factory to another. We experienced these troubles for an all too long period before the Essential Work Orders were introduced. We had only to look across the Channel to France, and I hope that the United States will look across the Atlantic for their own sake. It is obvious that, while profits were uncontrolled, collective bargaining was the right policy, and as such it has become the traditional policy of the country. I am sorry to have to say it, but I cannot believe that a love of tradition is the reason why the Minister of Labour is so loath to give it up, and I have a positive feeling that he is more concerned in creating a strong and even unassailable position for labour after the war than fitting wages into the general framework of the national war economy, with the urgent need of restricting purchasing power and preventing inflation. These are strong expressions, and they are not intended in any way as a personal attack upon the right hon. Gentleman, whom I personally admire and
2038
whose career I also admire, but I feel justified in saying them since the needs of war have imposed severe restrictions upon the capitalist element which most of us accept entirely without complaint.
Whatever may be said, profits are controlled either directly or through Excess Profits Tax, and, fortunately for the nation, no money can be made out of war without breaking the law. Why, therefore, are not wages and also rents controlled? [HON. MEMBERS: "Rents are controlled."] Hon. Members say rents are controlled, but not to the extent that I should like them to be. The control of rents we now know is hardly more than' it was before the war. Anybody who travels in the country where accommodation is sought by members of the Services who may be fortunate enough to have their wives or families living with them know what the state of the furnished house market is.
We were entertained by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) with a characteristic and familiar speech, and I am sorry that he is not in his place at the moment. He repeated very largely what he said about a month ago in a Debate in this House on the last Vote of Credit for carrying on the war. He once again repeated that he could not support any proposals like these—although he started by appearing to agree with them to some extent—unless he was convinced that there was genuine equality of sacrifice, and he cross-examined some of my hon. Friends on' this side of the House as to whether we thought anything of that sort had been achieved. Well, the hon. Member cannot have been round the country very much recently or he would have had greater knowledge of the equality which is now in existence. I can assure him that before the war is over we shall all be pressed into a still more standardised mould. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] I am not opposing that, but the hon. Member for Chesterfield, who started his speech by conceding some of the most important points made on this side, proceeded to knock down the edifice he had created by going back to the argument he has so frequently repeated in this House, and with which I am well acquainted, as I have had the pleasure of listening to him for 10 years or more.
Further, another argument against collective bargaining, as we know it in peace

2039
time, as was emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), lies in the growth of new industries, especially those run by or for Government Departments, such as the Ministry of Supply. I cannot speak from practical experience, but I believe—and I take courage from the fact that what I am about to say was confirmed by my hon. Friend—that in fixing certain piece-rates the lack of any previous experience upon which to go caused these rates to be based on estimates doubtless connected with some similar industrial operation but which in practice have been found to yield incredibly high amounts which were subsequently not revised to bring them into line with the payments probably anticipated. Whether it was owing to the sacrosanct nature of collective bargaining or lack of interest on the part of the Department concerned I do not know.
I have had, in common with many other Members, almost as many surprises during the war as to the way Departments allow themselves to be imposed upon as examples of the treatment they have meted out to individuals, and I look forward to the day when it will be possible for their control to be relaxed. I wonder how long after the war that will be?
I have heard and read attacks on various firms who continue to advertise products which are no longer procurable, and I think they might limit their expenditure in this direction if they did not feel that the present policy towards them was aiming, by a process of industrial and financial exhaustion, at their ultimately being taken over by the State at the cheapest possible price. One of their few remaining defences, therefore, is to retain their goodwill.
Mr. Cluse: Could the hon. Gentleman give any instance over a long period where the State has purchased any undertaking at the cheapest possible price?
Sir A. Beit: I cannot give an example, and I was not quoting from the past. I am merely voicing the opinion expressed by responsible persons who feel that that is the path which the future is likely to take.
Mr. Cluse: There are too many Government valuers about.
Sir A. Beit: My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon quoted figures from the "Ministry of Labour Gazette" for June of this year showing the average increases in wages. I have not seen that document, but I have in my possession a copy of a document, which was sent to all Members in November last, giving the increases up to then, and it is interesting to see that the rise between November and June has been in the order of 5 per cent. In November the individual increases ranged from 9 per cent. in the case of men printers to 104 per cent. in the case of youths and boys employed in constructional engineering. The average at that time was 42 per cent., and it has now gone up to 46 per cent. Averages at all times are dangerous things, for they even out a multitude of discrepancies as in the case of the various trades, ages and sexes quoted in this document. Whereas such industries as agriculture and coalmining received increases which were long overdue, these are more than countered by the big rises in the purely war industries, a great number of which are new. The result is, as I said at the beginning of my speech, that the rise in earnings is 50 to 100 per cent. more than the rise in the cost of living, and I have no doubt that the latter would catch up with the former without any difficulty at all if it were not for the vast subsidies now being spent in keeping it down.
Mr. James Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman says that the rise in wages is 50 to 100 per cent. over the cost of living. Where does he get those figures?
Sir A. Beit: The figure for the rise in cost of living is 30 per cent. at the present time, and the increase in the rate of earnings, according to the pamphlet quoted, is 46 per cent. all round and just under 60 per cent. for youths and boys. That represents 50 to 100 per cent. increase.
Mr. Griffiths: How does he arrive at that?
Sir A. Beit: Sixty per cent. is twice 30 per cent.
Captain Poole: But the comparison is not as between 60 and 30. It is as between 160 and 130.
Sir A. Beit: I am sorry if my mathematics are not correct. But it is clear to anybody that wages have increased far more than the cost of living.
Mr. G. Griffiths: Why does not the hon. Member say something about the additional hours being worked for the earnings? We have men in the coal pits working 60 to 70 hours a week.
Sir A. Beit: It is impossible to give a general average for hours worked, and there is no reference to that in this pamphlet except to the fact that the earnings given are average earnings based on average hours now being worked. We do know that although long hours are being worked to-day, there has been a tendency since 1940 for them to be reduced from the very high level which they then reached. Is not this policy of spending vast subsidies to keep down the cost, of living—which can only thus be kept below the rise of earnings—a policy of robbing the Peter to pay Paul? Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has avoided many pitfalls in the conduct of the nation's finances in this war, really approve a race of this nature? Is it not touch and go whether inflation is just round the corner? The "Economist," which is hardly a reactionary paper, continually says so, and I am interested to see in the current number that it has joined the battle for a wages policy. It says:
"It has not been possible to work out an agreed policy for the restraint of money wages, a shortcoming which may still redound seriously against the real interest of a large section of the wage earners themselves."
I think that insufficient attention has been paid to this matter, and I hope that the workers and their representatives will reflect on its significance.
I have not previously intervened in a Debate of this nature because, as I am only too ready to admit, I have not sufficient industrial experience. In my constituency there are no heavy industries, if one excludes the railways, and even as far as they are concerned, in St. Pancras there are only the administrative and distributive sides. Furthermore, I may add that I am not an employer, and that I am employed. Therefore, my experience has been limited largely to the kind of work which is done on a weekly basis, and I am a stranger to the shift system.
2042
There has been in recent Debates a good deal of talk about absenteeism, and I do not want to lift that subject out of its proper perspective, but I feel that high wages;, or at least wages which are very much in excess of those formerly associated with any particular industry, together with a curious fear of Income Tax, have contributed to it. The shift system is an advantage at the present time to the less conscientious worker, while in bad times it suits an employer to put his men on short time. Would it not be possible in present circumstances for every industry to work on a weekly rather than on a shift basis? Vast numbers of people in this country are accustomed to the five-and-a-half or six-day week, and it would not occur to them not to turn up for their work during the course of it, and their employers certainly would not tolerate their absence. Absenteeism of shift system workers, small though it may be, is no less intolerable from the national point of view. I have put forward this suggestion without knowing whether it would be practically feasible, but as representing, nevertheless, a national necessity.
In conclusion, I feel more convinced than ever that collective bargaining must bow to sterner measures. The Government have control over every aspect of our lives. They have not hesitated to make use of their powers for restricting profits, limiting our movements, moving workers from one place to another, and in many other ways. Let them take courage and pursue this task to its logical conclusion.
Mr. Norman Bower: I fully realise, and the speeches of certain hon. Members opposite have made it abundantly clear, that anybody who advocates the regulation of wages, particularly if he is on this side of the House, is treading on very dangerous ground and is bound to come up against certain difficulties, the chief of which is that he immediately falls under suspicion of wanting to keep wages down. I want, as far as I can, to divest myself of that particular suspicion. I have always been in favour of high wages. I believe that in normal times the higher real wages are, the better it is for everybody. I have at any rate the advantage of being able to speak from a completely independent standpoint. I am not an employer of labour, I am not a director of any company, I am not even, at the moment, a shareholder in any company.

2043
Therefore, I have no personal interest in wanting to keep wages down. I think it ought to be made clear that anything that is done now in the direction of stabilising or regulating wages is done entirely without prejudice to any policy that might be decided upon after the war, either by the Government of the day, or between the two sides in industry, or in the direction of a fairer distribution of the products of industry. The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) said that if we are to interfere with the law of supply and demand now, we must also be prepared to interfere with it for good and to introduce a new method of fixing wages after the war. Personally, I would not have any objection to interfering with the law of supply and demand and establishing a new method of fixing remuneration in perpetuity, but it is the first time I have heard that point raised, and I wonder whether the trade unions would agree to having the power which they exercise through the medium of collective bargaining permanently interfered with after the war, I rather doubt it.
Mr. G. Griffiths: No.
Mr. Bower: The hon. Member agrees that they would not like it. I am bound to say I find the arguments that have been put forward by the Government against the regulation of wages somewhat inconclusive. It seems to me that the economic policy of the country at the present time is definitely lopsided and out of joint. After all, practically everything is regulated in some form or another. There is a 100 per cent. Excess Profits Tax, dividends are virtually limited to what they were before the war, the prices of many commodities are controlled, the rents of a good many types of dwellings are also controlled, and in so far as they are not, I think they ought to be. Wages are really the only element in the economic structure of the country which at the present time are not subject to any substantial measure of public control.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that we must rely on the good sense of the two parties in industry and rely upon their being actuated by a sense of the national interest rather than a desire to promote their own sectional advantages. I agree that if we were able to rely upon that, it would be excellent
2044
and very much to the advantage of the whole community, but I am afraid I cannot place quite as much faith as the Chancellor appears to do on our ability to rely upon that particular element. If one expected people when negotiating wage agreements at the present time to be actuated solely by a sense of the national interest, one would be expecting them to be rather more than human—[Interruption]—or rather less than human, whichever way one looks at it. I do not think it is necessary for the Government actually to fix all wages rates or to make themselves entirely responsible for the whole complicated wages structure of the country, but what they could do, and what I think they ought to do, is something similar to what President Roosevelt has done in America; they ought to clamp down a ceiling on wage increases as from a certain date, unless some good cause can be shown to some authority representing the Government. One hon. Member opposite asked whether we are to stabilise wages permanently regardless of the cost of living and regardless of all other factors. I do not advocate anything of that sort. I want particularly to emphasise that if some good cause—such as the fact that wages in any given industry had been sub-normal over a long period and that that section of workers had never succeeded previously in obtaining justice and fair treatment—could be shown to the authority concerned, that would constitute a reason for raising wages in these times just as much as in any other time, in that industry.
The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Summers) said that this ceiling which has been imposed in other countries is full of loop-holes. It may be, but it seems to me that in essence it is a fairer and more satisfactory principle than the system which we at present employ. I think this question of granting or disputing wage increases, as the case may be, should be taken entirely out of the hands of employers, because they are not concerned in the matter at all at the moment. It is the Government that is interested in it, either through losing Excess Profits Tax or having to pay higher contract prices. The fact that employers are not really interested in it any more may account for their comparative generosity in granting wage increases which we have witnessed since the War. You cannot expect em-

2045
ployers to risk unpopularity with their workpeople by shouldering a responsibility which is really that of the nation as a whole. The argument is sometimes put forward that they are really interested because they have to think of what the effect of those increases will be on their post-war prospects, but we do not want to encourage them to think about their post-war prospects. We have numerous complaints all the time that employers and industrialists are thinking more about the post-war prospects of their industries than about getting down to the job of winning the war now, and there is a great deal to be said for some of those complaints. If we are going to impose this responsibility on them of disputing wage increases simply because of the effect that it may have on their post-war prospects, we are giving them an extra excuse for thinking about those very things that they ought not to be thinking about.
It is said that the arbitration tribunals are sufficient and that they are functioning satisfactorily and well, but it seems to me that even if they take the widest possible view and consider only the highest national interests, they are, as I understand them, a piece of conciliation machinery which only functions if a wage increase is disputed, but in cases where an application is not disputed and an increase may be granted without any contest at all, the matter never comes before the arbitration tribunal, and consequently they are not called upon to function. We are also told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that so far there has been no evidence of this policy leading to inflation. That is true, but the cost of living has been kept down because very large subsidies have been paid. I agree that we have to consider not only the present but also the prospects for the future, and there is in the minds of very many people to-day a grave fear of inflation in the future. That shows itself in numerous ways. Everyone is afraid to allow his money to lie idle. People are undoubtedly seeking an outlet for it in some form or other. That has shown itself in the rise of prices of goods which are not controlled, particularly precious stones and valuables, and also in the recent long and steady rise in Stock Exchange prices. That again is a symptom which shows that people are afraid to leave their money lying idle because its value may depreciate after the war. Those are all sym-
2046
toms which show the way the wind is blowing. They are the unhealthy sym-toms which usually precede inflation.
The hon. Member for Chesterfield said it was not fair in war-time to suspend the law of supply and demand. The law of supply and demand cannot apply to all the people. If we allow it to remain as it is in industry, at best it is only applying to a certain section. There is one very large section, those in the Armed Forces, to whom it does not and cannot apply, and it seems to me wrong and morally unjustifiable that one section of the people, those engaged in civilian occupations, should be able to better their position by bringing pressure to bear and using weapons of a kind which are absolutely denied to those in the Armed Forces.
Mr. Benson: I hope the hon. Member does not think that I was advocating the law of supply and demand as a desirable method of settling remuneration. All I did was to point out that hitherto it has been accepted without question by hon. Members opposite and that it is only during war-time, when it affects wages, that they suddenly throw it overboard. We do not want the law of supply and demand. We want it scotched not only now but during peace-time as well.
Mr. Bower: I agree that the law of supply and demand might not be the best way of settling remuneration in industry, and I should be quite prepared to see it abrogated, not only now but perpetually. Before members of the Armed Forces can get an increase in their pay we have to get up one after the other and advocate it, and even then very often they do not get it, and I think it would be better if increases should only be obtained by the civilian section of the population by those same methods. We hear a great deal about equality of sacrifice, and I think most people would admit that at present it does not exist, but it is thoroughly desirable, and it seems to me that the regulation of wages on some such lines as those which have been suggested' would be one of the best ways of obtaining it.
Mr. Clement Davies: This has been an interesting Debate, and I have heard the major part of it, but there has not been a very clear exposition of the ideas which seem to be in the

2047
minds of hon. Members. The Debate opened with a very light, unrehearsed and obviously unprepared sort of prelude by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams). The full orchestra came in with the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Summers). The only thing of interest in his speech was that the Government had a policy and that he approved of it, but he was incapable of saying what it was, and he referred us to the Lord High Chancellor, who had explained it. The complaint that has been made by many of us is that there has been no policy at any time by any occupant of that Bench.
What we have been asking for all along is that there should be a policy. If there had been it would have saved a great deal of time that has been spent in negotiations and in recriminations and a great deal of disgruntlement and dissatisfaction, so long, of course, as it had been accompanied, as we have been asking that it should be, by a crisis policy, a profit policy and a salary policy, in fact, a comprehensive policy for the whole country including, of course, a full rationing policy which I have asked for right from the start. I have heard it said to-day, with the approval of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that one of the advantages we have had in continuing as before is that it has relieved the Chancellor of the Exchequer of many of his difficulties by giving him the help of savings. If we had had a definite rationing policy for everything from the outset, he would not have had to send out all the ballyhoo begging people for money to carry on the war in addition to the taxation which he inevitably collects.
What decides wages and has been deciding them throughout? The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) was right in saying that in the past they were decided by the law of supply and demand. That is why we get the terrible fluctuations and differences that exist in labour to-day. That was why trade unionism had to come into existence. There was the strong employer on the one side, and the weakling worker on the other, whose need for food for his family was so great that he was willing to supply his labour for very little. Can anybody be satisfied with the fluctuations and differences that exist to-day? Will the Deputy Prime Minister consider publishing a White Paper setting out the
2048
wages paid to men, women and youths? It would make startling reading. Why should there be in time of war these distinctions between one and another? Our needs are the same.
Up to the time of the war the free working of economics, as far as it was possible, was allowed play, and the law of supply and demand decided these matters. My complaint all along has been that the Government have not realised even to this day, in the fourth year of the war, that on 3rd September, 1939, one period ended and another began. From that moment onwards the movement, even the mobility, of men and women was not the same as it was on 2nd September. In a very short time one could realise that the materials which they could buy were not the same. Nevertheless, we were allowed to continue as if that great change had not come about. The old laws were allowed to operate so far as they could. One danger that has been mentioned is that of inflation. There was inflation for a number of months, but there is not so much now because we have rationed the vast majority of consumption goods—food, clothing, boots and so on.
Mr. Evelyn Walkden: But very few vegetables.
Mr. Davies: I agree that we have not rationed enough. Nor have we seen to proper distribution or to price, but a great number of other articles are rationed indirectly because there are not sufficient raw materials to manufacture them. Moreover, owing to concentration of industry a great number of workers have been taken away from industries. Therefore, the danger of inflation is not very great, and it would disappear if we had complete rationing.
What is the complaint made from the other side? It is that wages are going up. What does it matter? There has been an unequal distribution which was perfectly obvious up to now. Is it a matter of complaint that the distribution is a little more equal now? That is not a case that can be made out. A case can be made out for the danger which arises from these inequalities and from comparisons one with another. A man pays attention to what is in his wages packet, but he also pays a great deal of attention to what is in the wages packets of his neighbours on either side of him.

2049
He can make a comparison as to the work done by each one and the value of their contributions, and if he finds that one of his neighbours, suddenly, for no reason apparent to him brings back more in his wages packet than he has, he wants to know the reason why. That is bound to affect a man's attitude and mentality as he goes on with his work. What we ought to concentrate on is the war effort and what is wanted to ease the wheels of production instead of making them more difficult. We have allowed this play to go on with trade unions bargaining on one side and the employers on the other. Bargaining for what? To what is the bargaining related? We will find a trade union asking for a higher wage. Why? Is it related to the cost of living? Obviously not. Is it related to the value of the contribution of the man or the particular trade to the community? Obviously not. Why has the miner had to work in the way he has and only recently has had a bare increase? Suppose that man who is so essential to the country and to ultimate victory—a lesson which is now being brought home to the people of this country because they are shivering—used to-day the law of supply and demand and held up the community to ransom; what would be his wage? That is the wrong principle. To what is it related? Not to the value of his work. Look at the differences.
Take the case of railwaymen. Some of the highest skilled railwaymen, upon whose skill, ability and concentration upon their work the lives of others depend, are often paid less than the unskilled labourer. Not only are there differences between trade and trade but there are regional differences within trades. The engineers in London are paid more than the engineers outside London. What is the result upon the war effort? There is little or no shortage of electricians here in London, but there is a cry for them in the country. Is that to be wondered at? To what, then, are you relating yourself when you are bargaining on the other side of the table? The law of supply and demand has gone. You are not relating yourself to the value of the contribution. I feel honestly, much as I want to appreciate the attitude of mind of one hon. Member who spoke as the chairman of a trade union which, he said, represented 750,000 members, that his attitude of mind was this "We have done
2050
our work well in the past, we have acted on behalf of these people and we are acting on behalf of them to-day. Do not interefere with the way in which we are acting." But they are perfectly prepared to interfere with everything else. Is the only thing which is to be held sacrosanct the trade union machine and the trade union leader with, so far as I can see, no co-operation amongst the leaders of trade unions or between one separate trade or another? How do they regard these matters? For the benefit of the community as a whole? And where has been the leading trade unionist of the lot with regard to these matters? When he entered the War Cabinet he took with him the tremendous experience of the leading trade union. He had 33 years of life devoted to the leading of his fellow men, 33 years of work within the trade unions. Fighting for what? A separate interest against other separate interests. The moment he stepped into the War Cabinet he should have taken the bigger view and regarded himself as standing on behalf of the whole community and not for any single interest. Will he say now, at that Box, that it would not have been the right policy to have introduced immediately war broke out a wages contract and profit policy and made the arrangements that would have been necessary to raise the level of those wages which had been too low throughout the years? Would he say at that Box now that production would not have been better and easier, and the movement of peoples easier?
I should like to see a complete review of all wages, all profits, all salaries, so that there was a proper valuation, so that they should be adjusted to the effort that is made and the production that comes from that effort, to the value of the effort, if you like. If that were done, then these distinctions and discrepancies, the causes of disgruntlement, would go, and you would not have, as we have to-day, differences decided by the sex of the workers. Why is it that when equal work is done by women they are paid less than men? Why is it that we have men working on an aerodrome or at a camp who are in uniform and getting only their keep, their clothes and pocket money and working alongside them men employed by a contractor, getting perhaps six, seven, or eight times as much? The Government should tackle this. I do not

2051
know what length of time will be required to tackle it, but the troubles have increased week by week. They would have been simpler in the days when the Chancellor of the Exchequer occupied another position under another Government but they have been allowed to grow, though even now if tackled properly, tackled with courage and tackled on behalf of the community, the community as a whole would benefit.
Mr. J. Griffiths: As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) has told us, this has been a very interesting Debate and I think it has been a very welcome Debate for two reasons. For some time past there have been Questions almost every day from the other side of the House about wages and wage increases and I think the hon. Members who asked those Questions, some of whom have spoken to-day, ought to be told that their Questions have created a very definite impression in trade union circles and amongst the workers which is very undesirable from the standpoint of the war effort, because it has been observed that all the Questions were about pay and that those Members put no Questions about dividends. I suppose hon. Members will not deny that dividends have increased and if they are concerned only with increases that may lead to inflation then they ought at least to show an equal interest in increases in dividends, which also become purchasing power. There have been no questions about dividends increasing and no questions about the increases in prices.
Mr. Molson: I question the accuracy of the statement that dividends have increased.
Mr. Griffiths: I have been referring to hon. Members who have been putting those Questions, and if the hon. Member will look back over the OFFICIAL REPORT for the past few weeks, he will discover that what I have said is true. There has been created an impression that the object of these Questions has been to make an attack upon the wages of the workers. I hope it will not be forgotten, however, that Questions have been asked and this Debate is taking place at a time when applications for wage increases on behalf of certain sections of workpeople are coming along for hearing, first by negotiation in the industry and outside the
2052
industry eventually by arbitration. Therefore, there has been a definite impression, to be quite frank, that some of the things said in the Debate to-day have revealed the fact that that impression is quite correct, because there has been an attempt in this Debate to-day to influence the minds of arbitrators who will shortly be dealing with wages questions.
From time to time there have been suggestions in the House about the alleged high earnings of youths in industry, and I have no doubt that there are cases in which the wages of boys and girls when compared with pre-war earnings appear to be very high. With others in this House and outside I have recently been interested in one form of Government service connected with the youth of the country. Some time ago boys and girls between 16 and 18 were asked to register, and following registration there were many interviews, and I hope that one of these days we shall have from the Board of Education a White Paper giving a complete survey of the revelations that have come out about the lives of these boys and girls. A great deal has been said about the danger of the alleged high wages they are getting. Let me tell hon. Members what men and women who have been taking an active part in this matter are very much more afraid of than that, what is behind even those exceptional cases of high earnings.
Is it a fact that boys and girls in this country are working such hours of labour every day and every week that their health is sure to be undermined in the end? The Minister of Labour knows that I have the privilege of being chairman of the Advisory Committee on youth in Wales. We asked the Ministry of Labour's Officers to discuss with us the influence, not of wages of £4 or £5 per week upon boys and girls but the influence upon them now and in the future of the hours they are working. Let me give one or two examples revealed as a result of a survey in a Welsh industrial town. In the 17–18 year group of boys, 22 were working more than a 50-hour week, and four more than 60 hours a week. In the younger age group, 16–17 years, the position was worse; 90 were working more than 50 hours a week, 48 more than 60 hours a week and four boys between 16 and 17 were working more than 70 hours a week. In one

2053
factory in Carnarvonshire boys and girls aged 16 to 18 begin at 7.30 in the morning and work until 7.30 in the evening and they work one Sunday every month. These were ascertained at interviews with these boys and girls. When we hear all this talk and charges and allegations about high earnings of boys and girls, I would say to the Minister of Labour and to the Government that the sooner we put a definite maximum limit on the hours of work of these boys and girls, the better it will be for the future of this country. The kind of country we shall get at the end of the war depends on these boys and girls who are now being overworked.
This has been an interesting and welcome Debate. It would have been much more interesting if hon. Members had been much more frank than they have been. This Debate was asked for, I understand, not even through the usual channels but through unusual channels. It began with a contribution from the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) who has told me he regrets he cannot be present at this stage as he has to attend an important meeting upstairs. His was a very "cooing dove" sort of speech. Apparently this Debate was asked for to examine and to review first the Government's wage policy and secondly the present method of settling wages in industry, and also, I understand, to present us with alternatives. I have listened to every speech in order to try to elucidate what was the proposed alternative. We did not get an alternative until the last speaker. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery has an alternative policy, that the reward for service and for labour in this country shall be related to the effort people are making and the contribution they are making, and nothing else. What I would put to my hon. and learned Friend is this: Such a policy is only possible in a society in which all the wealth is under the control of society itself. It is therefore the clear alternative to the present system but that is not the issue to-day. The issue to-day is that of an alternative to the Government's policy.
As I understand it the Government policy is, first to rely upon the machinery for negotiations and settlement of disputes set up in industry. They have supplemented that by setting up instruments of
2054
arbitration which will be available if the ordinary machinery of negotiation fails. So far as a piece of machinery it has worked reasonably well in the circumstances. The trade unions in this three year period of war have not taken advantage of the economic position. I think I am entitled to say that because I would remind my hon. Friends that, as was stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson), for the first time for many years there is a real, acute shortage of labour in this country. In normal times that would give trade unions an enormous bargaining power they have never had before. Look at my own industry. Before I came to this House I had the honour to be the President of the South Wales Miners Federation. I have negotiated round a table for 125,000 men, working in a coal field where ten years before there were 270,000. For every man on whose behalf I was accepting wage offers there were two poor devils unemployed. Did the employers at that time not take advantage of their position and drive our wages right down until real wages were lower than they had been since 1850? Here for the first time for more than a generation, the trade unions, the workers of this country, have the advantage. The miners could ask for £10 a week, and if they made up their minds, it would have to be given to them. But they are not asking for that. They are showing a bigger sense of responsibility than the employers in industry did, and I think we are entitled to say that.
I heard the hon. Member for South Croydon and one or two other Members speak about employers who, so it appears, did not bother whether they had wage increases or not. I would ask him to give me their addresses. I would like to see them. I would like to meet them. Is it the Mining Association? To the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Summers) I would say: Is it the owners of the steel industry? Several Members have said it does not matter to the employers whether they give wage increases or not. Will they cite a single instance of an employer anywhere who has said to the trade unions, "Come here chaps, I want to give you an increase of wages"?
Mr. Summers: I made no suggestion of that kind. If such a suggestion was made, it was made by other Members in my absence and not by me.
Mr. Griffiths: I am sorry, but if the hon. Member did not make that comparison other hon. Members did so. The hon. Member for South Croydon certainly made it. As a matter of fact, every wage increase secured has had to be fought for stage by stage and more has been got from arbitration courts than from employers. Before the Minister of Labour replies I want to ask hon. Members whether they want this arbitration machinery scrapped. If so, what do they propose to put in its place? The hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Bower) used the frankest language. While other hon. Members skirted round the problem, apparently afraid to state what they wanted, the hon. Member urged the Government to clamp down on wages. I have his words.
Mr. N. Bower: I said they should clamp down a ceiling on wages.
Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Member thinks the Government ought to clamp down a ceiling. He did not say what the ceiling was to be. Obviously, the implication of his statement is that the State should be asked to regulate wages by fixing a ceiling for wages. Let me follow that suggestion by asking a question. Is it to be only a ceiling? Is there to be no bottom or no foundation? Is the State to say to industry: "You must not pay more than a certain amount"? Is the ceiling to be £5, £6 or £10? The State has no moral right to fix a ceiling unless it says to everybody in industry that no one shall be paid below a certain wage in this country.
Mr. Bower: A number of hon. Members here would agree that there should be not only a ceiling but, of course, a bottom. In present conditions, however, a bottom is unnecessary, having regard to the demand for labour.
Mr. Griffiths: The fact is that the hon. Member mentioned the ceiling but forgot all about the bottom and did not mention it. If the State is to enter this field and to scrap the present machinery, there must obviously be not only a ceiling but a bottom, a minimum wage below which no one should be employed. Tens of thousands of workers in this country are not getting enough week by week. We know this to be true. There are workers who cannot even buy their maximum rations. The other day a survey was made by an organisation and it was discovered that
2056
when the ration price of some essential foods was raised, the workers failed to buy the complete ration because their wages did not reach to it. We hear complaints about high wages, but actually the over-all increase in earnings in this country since the war began is 47 per cent. The increase in wages rates is only 7 per cent. above the pre-war level. It must be remembered that the wages ruling when the war began were fixed in the years of depression. Not only are the workers not taking advantage of the position in which we now are, but they have not used their power to any extent.
A suggestion came from the hon. Member for Northampton which I should like to give him an opportunity of explaining. In a very interesting and closely argued speech he tried to get the Government to do something. I do not know whether he intended to say it, but the impression he made upon me was that he was suggesting that the Government should bring to the attention of arbitrators the public policy aspect of this problem. Was the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the deciding of public policy in this country should be done, not by the Government but by arbitrators? Is it his suggestion that arbitrators should decide wages issues that come before them, not upon the relative merits of the cases presented by both sides, but upon some other consideration? If that is to be done, the trade unions will refuse to be parties to any arbitration where the dice would be loaded against them in that fashion.
Mr. Summers: The hon. Member has asked me a series of questions and has posed them as suggested alternatives. He wants to know whether an arbitrator, who now considers only the merits of the case before him, should cease to do so under my suggestion, and decide cases solely on public policy. I was not representing this as a complete change, in the sense that the hon. Gentleman has indicated. I say that I believe it will be necessary not only to take account of the individual merits of the case, but in addition, to give proper weight to public policy.
Mr. Griffiths: We had better look at the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow. I thought it was a very clear suggestion that the Government should influence arbitrators in some way. The fact will not be lost sight of that the suggestion comes at a time when wage applications

2057
from many hundreds of thousands of workers in this country are being considered. Public policy must be decided in this House and announced from that Box and not by outside arbitrators.
One last word. A good deal has been said about contrasts between rates of wages in one class of workers and another. Every speech has brought in a contrast between the men who are in the Services and those who are left in industry. Speaking for myself and for my hon. Friends, I say that we are as closely in touch with the men serving in the Forces as any Members in this House. If there is resentment, it is not, believe me, at the comparison between the wages of men in the Forces and the men who are working hard, but at the fact that there are still people in this country who do not work at all. Go to some of the resorts like Llandrindod Wells in Wales, or Harrogate in Yorkshire and there you will find people who render no service at all and who live on the fat of the land. The hon. Member for South-East St. Pancras (Sir A. Beit) accused the Minister of Labour of using his position to build up what he called an impregnable position at the end of the war. Does the hon. Member want labour to be in a weak position at the end of the war? Labour is entitled to ask the Government and the nation to note that it is not taking advantage of the war or pressing its claims unduly or exploiting its monopoly advantage, although employers did so in pre-war days. We are giving service to the nation and are quite entitled to a square deal. We are entitled to a guarantee that at the end of the war, the service we give to the nation shall be valued in proportion to the real work upon which the life of the nation depends.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): Like the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), I welcome this Debate, but I must confess that, as a representative of the Government, holding a vital office—on which I think the outcome of this war depends as much as on any other Department of State—I regret that the contributions made to-day to the solution of the problem have been so small. I would like, first, to deal with the constantly-reiterated contrast between the conditions of men in the Services and of those in industry. Let me say, I think, for all my colleagues in the Government, that we should have no resentment if the House
2058
thought it their duty to put forward a rearrangement of soldiers' pay, or to say, if they felt so, that the Services are not being treated right. But the method of trying to set Servicemen against their comrades in industry and vice versa is the lowest form of agitation that could be adopted in a war.
Mr. William Brown: It- is not speeches here, but Government action that does that.
Mr. Bevin: If my hon. Friend will be as good, a listener as he is a speaker, he will help me a lot.
Mr. Brown: I do not want to help the right hon. Gentleman. I think he is a national menace.
Mr. Bevin: So long as my hon. Friend thinks me a menace, I know that I am right. No one has done more than my hon. Friend in the way of hopping about like a bird who does not know where he is to go. I had the experience of dealing with the men who returned from the Forces at the end of the last war, and of re-settling them in industry. I would utter this warning. The main concern of the men in the Forces is, what are they coming home to? The men in the Forces, a large number of whom are members of trade unions, are looking to the unions to maintain their standards. To try to set one lot of men against another, in pursuance of a political aim, is not conducive to a solution of the problem. I can produce hundreds of cuttings showing that this sort of thing has been deliberately carried on as a political campaign, to try to put the trade unions in the dock, and to make it appesx that they are neglectful of their brothers, in the Forces. It is not true, and I repeat that with emphasis. The Government had to design a policy to deal with wages, and that policy has not been seriously challenged in any part of the House. As the hon. Member for Llanelly says, not one Member has submitted a real alternative that can be applied in practice.
I have never accepted the view that pre-war war and post-war are, of necessity, separate things. War may be an intensification in the development of our lives, but there is no definite break; everything you do before a war determines largely what will happen in the war, while everything you do in the war will largely determine what will happen after the war.

2059
We have to consider, in endeavouring to handle this difficult problem, whether we will tear up everything that has gone before and start afresh, in the middle of a crisis, or utilise the machine that has been established to assist in the prosecution of the war. Many experiments were tried in the last war, and many pitfalls had to be avoided. There was one great advantage at the outbreak of this war as compared with the beginning of the last war, or even with the end. There had grown up between the two wars collective bargaining machinery over a very wide area. A previous occupant of your Chair, Sir, was associated with a change in the negotiating machinery of this country, with which his name will ever be linked: I refer to Mr. Whitley, and the Whitley Council. That introduced into a field where there had been practically no industrial organisation joint machinery which, I think, has been, if I may say so, with great respect, superior to the older machinery in the older trades. I hope I will not be misunderstood by some of the older trades when I say that this machinery was not wedded to out-of-date wage structures which have been largely a handicap, rather than a help, between the two wars and during this war.
We had to decide whether to utilise this machinery, and the Government decided that they would. I claim that this Debate shows that we took the right course. We have promoted on both sides of industry a policy of self-government in industry. There has been a gradual change-over to what I think holds very great potentialities, namely, negotiations of a more representative character than the old method of bargaining prior to the last war. The change towards the Whitley procedure has had a very steadying, and a very good, effect. The trades boards, while there has been very little amendment in the structure itself, have gone far beyond the mere dealing with sweated wages and have been utilised to build up wage structures over a very wide area. That applies equally where the employer is the State. I do not use the term "employer" in this sense as meaning only the private employer, because the Whitley machinery and the collective bargaining machine extend over the whole Civil Service and productive enterprises, whether State-owned or privately-owned,
2060
and including local authorities and any other publicly-owned institution. I use the phrase "employer" in that sense. There is a moral force working which it is wise to harness and take account of. There was a terrible disaster at the end of the last war, due, first, to an orgy of speculation, and, secondly, to inflation that went with it, and then a sudden deflation. [Interruption.] It was before the return to the gold standard. I am dealing with the inflation of 1922. Perhaps hon. Members will be good enough to allow me to follow this through, because it has a very great bearing on the policy we are endeavouring to follow at the present moment. It is clear that that situation remains so vividly in the minds of both sides of industry that nobody wants to go through it again. No one wants the up and down fluctuations of currency and artificial rises, and then sudden reductions, dislocating the whole of our national life, and doing something worse—holding up the internal trades and allowing the export trades to drop down, thereby destroying the equilibrium throughout the nation and creating the very condition which caused the inequality of wages with which we have been trying to deal in this country. Therefore, with that in mind our aim has been to allow the collective bargaining machinery to act as a sort of trustee on behalf of the State in so far as it is capable of doing it.
It has been said that employers would give rises without question. Let me assure the House that that has not happened. There has been none of that, as far as I know, in this war. There was a lot of it in the last war, and everybody knows it, but everybody was bitten by it then, and no one wants to repeat it. Consequently the trade unions have been careful in their demands. But in the progress of a war lasting this period, do please remember that there are two things happening: not only the increased cost of living but the increased productivity per unit. It is said that piecework rates are fixed without regard to their results. That is not true. They are fixed at their inception with a definite yardstick with which to measure them, but there is an enormous amount of ingenuity in the heads of working men and working women, and if by their ingenuity they increase output, are you then going to put a ceiling on to stop

2061
them? Such a thing would be a terrible injustice and would cripple your production immediately you attempted it. It would have a worse effect than the old system that used to apply, namely, that when output was increased the rate was cut. That was a terrible system, and it held up efficient production for years. You want payment by results. If there is any hon. Member who will get up here and say, "Cut out payments by results," let him get up and. say so. If it was done I can assure him that war production would go down enormously. But if you are to have payment by results, you must have it honestly and——
Mr. Bernays: That is the answer to Socialism.
Mr. Bevin: Payment by results is not inconsistent with Socialism. It was in the days of Liberalism that the rate was cut immediately there was increased output. That was the product of the Manchester school.
Mr. Bernays: The basis of Socialism is opposition to the profit motive.
Mr. Bevin: That is not the profit motive; that is paying for production. Profit is taking money that you do not earn. Let me give the hon. Member the correct Marxian theory. I think he had better go back to the London School of Economics.
As regards the question of arbitration, I regret that it should have been introduced into this Debate. Arbitration, apart from the general increase in wages arising out of the war by voluntary arrangements through joint machinery, covers a very wide field, and I beg Members to place arbitration courts in industry as high as they place the Judiciary above the Executive in other matters. Unless you do that, you will weaken arbitration, and I advance this reason for it. At the end of the last war I happened to be in a minority with a few others—as I have so often been on other occasions—and we were anxious to carry on arbitration for a period following the cessation of hostilities. I think every member of my own movement will agree with me now that it was a mistake at that time to throw it over. If it had not been thrown over, we might have checked inflation and had it as a buffer against the terrible events of 1921 and 1922. If I do nothing else in this House, I hope I shall create such confidence in arbitration that, during the
2062
transitional period following this war, when our men will have to resettle, come back into industry and evolve their own policy—to which they are entitled after fighting—it will allow this resettlement to be carried out in an orderly and stable "manner.
There is another reason why I want to maintain arbitration and collective bargaining, and it is that the settlement of wages is such a comparatively small side of the business. No Government machine can be created to handle efficiently or effectively the thousand and one questions that are arising every day. Both sides employ technicians, from the shop stewards upwards, to adjust these questions. I know of heaps of men in the trade union movement who cannot make a speech on a platform, but give them a job to do and they will price it immediately, whether it is in mine, factory or ship. It is the same on the employers' side. This is a valuable asset which the Government cannot afford to lose, and we are not prepared to get rid of it. While there may be a strike now and again over these settlements, let it be remembered that in thousands of cases the settlements are based on two men's word, often without anything being put in writing. It is simply a matter of the foreman or the manager and the shop steward or the trade union official pricing a thing and agreeing to it. Sometimes the matter is even settled over the telephone, without a word in writing. Yet everybody accepts it as an honourable bargain. No other country in the world has yet been able to find a way of doing this with the same confidence. I am not prepared to be a party to getting rid of this system unless it can be shown that it has completely failed, and it has not failed yet.
Another point I want to deal with is whether it is desirable to bring wages into the political arena to be debated in the House. I wonder whether it is. Agriculture was debated here for a long time. The problem of agriculture was not solved, and the problem of the standard of living of the agricultural workers was not solved. At the outbreak of the war agriculture was one of the most sweated industries in this country, although it is one of the most highly skilled occupations. To those who have the conception that it is general labour, all I can say is that they should have a try at it. The men working in

2063
agriculture were comparatively unorganised, their union was very weak, and at one time, when they were right in the doldrums, they had practically no defence. Did not Parliament have a chance then to show how it would handle people in that condition? The House debated the industry, but left it, in most cases, worse than it was before, as far as wages were concerned. The wages of the miners have been discussed in the House from 1912. I venture to hope—and I say this with all sincerity—that the steps we have taken during the last six months to give the mining industry the machinery they want and minimum standards which they can understand will enable them to build a new piece-work system which is up to date on the new minimum instead of keeping on the basis of 1879—or whenever it was. I venture to urge that upon the industry. Instead of looking backward, they might look forward. I believe that, with the other conditions that have been given and with the National Wages Board, and with real self-government that must be made to work properly, the probability is that the mining industry, which has given so much difficulty, will do better under industrial self-government than it has done through the years from the Benches of this House
The hon. Member for South East St. Pancras (Sir A. Beit) said I was anxious to leave the Labour movement in an impregnable position. I have not noticed that the Conservatives want to come out any weaker than they are. Both sides seem to be anxious to stand at the next election as well prepared as possible. But' in shaping this policy, I have not given a moment's thought to any political considerations at all. If the hon. Baronet says I want to finish up with this job and go out of politics, as I hope to do when the job is over, leaving the people of the country better off to face the post-war world, I confess to that design, and I think it is a laudable one. Experience of the war is giving us some opportunities to do it. We have done it in agriculture and in mining. We must do it in textiles. We can never have an efficient textile industry on the basis of the present wage structure. An efficient wage structure is the best way to promote efficiency in any industry. If you have a poor wage basis and a poor wage structure, you are almost certain to have an inefficient industry. When this
2064
House carried the Trade Boards Acts the cry went up that businesses would be ruined. There is not a single industry that has ever come under the trade boards or under the joint industrial councils which was not more prosperous afterwards than it had ever been before. One industrialist said to me, "The more you fellows keep a steady pressure up from beneath, the more the man on top must use his head." I think there is good economic truth behind that.
Mr. C. Davies: Then the Chancellor taxes him for his industry.
Mr. Bevin: He is only socialising the profits of both.
The next point that I want to make is that wages can never remain absolutely stationary. Changes and opportunities for changes must continue to occur. The shipbuilding industry was mentioned. I must be careful to say nothing which will prejudice the present case, but the highly skilled men in that industry fell to about 50S. a week in the middle of the depression. Neither the Government nor the unions can be expected to take the view that the basis which was the result of the depression must of necessity be the right basis, merely adding the cost of living for the rest of the war. That would not be equitable. In the engineering industry, which fell so badly as the result of deflation and stagnation at the end of the last war, you had certain very poor conditions.
It is true that it has been made up in aircraft and some of the other sections of war production which give a higher average, but this must be considered—and I would emphasise it—that the best craftsmen must be on time-work. You cannot help that. Therefore you have to try and make adjustments accordingly. That involves changing wage practice. It has nothing to do with the increased cost of living at all. Unless we had some machinery of this kind to make the adjustments we would be landed into strikes and disaster.
I can assure the House that every alternative method has been studied. Also it must not be assumed that there has been no control at all. In the last war Parliament imposed arbitration, and it broke down. This time arbitration was carried by the consent of both parties; it is really a collective agreement endorsed by Parliament. There have been many other

2065
measures which have operated as a restriction on the workpeople. There has been the Restriction of Engagement Order, which took away altogether freedom of contract. There was the Essential Work Order, which was described when it was introduced as a slacker's charter. I do not think it has turned out to be that at all. It has proved to be a very steadying influence in the organisation of the war effort. The power to direct people from one occupation to another at the rate for the job, the conscription of women and Orders of that kind are all parts of our labour policy. Instead of dealing with wages and challenging the Government on a wage policy alone, hon. Members should realise that the only way they can get a real appreciation of the Government's policy is to take all the parts together. The Orders have been part and parcel of that policy, and each part dovetails into the other.
Lastly, there is the question of increased production. We have been told by the Minister of Production recently that the increased production per man-hour is up by over 44 per cent. If we had, in peacetime negotiations, been able to show an increased production of 44 per cent. per man hour, what kind of wages could the unions not have succeeded in getting as a result? They would have been colossal. We have pressed no claim at all—— [Laughter.] I slipped back into my old position in saying that, but it was not a bad slip, and I would never apologise for it. The unions or the employers have pressed no claim at all in respect of that. We hear a lot about American shipbuilding and their great output. We welcome it and we need it. But we have a limited capacity in this country, and I am saying nothing derogatory about America when I say that our shipbuilders on the Clyde and the Tyne are producing twice the output per man of the yards in the United States. That is a remarkable achievement. The shipbuilders have not claimed American wages. There has been nothing of that sort. The men do say, however, "'You have no right to base our wages on the circumstances of a horrible depression." Another great saving which no one has mentioned is that the average increase in earning of 47½ per cent. is for full-time work. Remember that a lot of time which now goes into full-time was part-time before the war and had to be
2066
paid for by the State out of State funds as unemployment insurance or unemployment assistance. That is all turned over to productive enterprise.
If I had the time to make a real financial analysis of the workers' contribution in this war covering the increases they have received to meet their cost of living, and setting off against them the taxation they have borne and what has been saved by the State in other directions, taking into account the increased production per man-hour, it would be seen that the workers of this country have nothing to be ashamed of in their contribution to the war effort. I hope that this thing will be looked at in a real way. If anyone can suggest a better and wiser policy, likely to lead to a quicker end to this war, the Government will not turn it down. But we know that any disturbance of this system may lead to disputes and trouble, may undermine the whole war effort and do more harm in industry than our Forces can do for victory in the field. I trust, therefore, that the matter will be viewed with a constructive outlook. I believe this policy will serve us in the war and will help us through the peace.
Mr. William Brown: I propose to detain the House only for two or three minutes. The Minister of Labour has taken to the credit of the Government the increased productivity of the workers and their willingness to make sacrifices during the war, but he has not said a word of defence about the absence of any constructive wages policy on the part of the Government. There are three elements in this picture. First, there is control of prices, which is at the root of this structure. In regard to that, this Government, and its predecessor, were found wholly wanting. They allowed prices to go as they would in the early days of the war, and when they began to apply control, applied it only to certain standard articles of consumption, leaving the rest to go where they liked. Only now are we beginning inadequately to get some sort of price-control policy. Point No. 2 is control of profits. You cannot get the workpeople of Britain to acquiesce in an ordered wages policy while there is anarchy in profits. There is anarchy in the matter of profits. You may say that there is the 100 per cent. Excess Profits Tax, which applies to profits made in

2067
excess of what was made in the standard years, but this, especially in the armaments industry, can be anything up to £2,000,000 per annum per firm. There has been no disposition on that side of the House to tackle the problem of profits.
The third element is that there has been no attempt to achieve an equation between three or four things that must be equated unless we are to run into serious trouble. One necessary equation is in the relation between one workman and another. That is going to pieces in this war. Any miner will say that his unskilled daughter can go into a munition factory and come back with two or three times as much wages as a skilled miner is getting. It is a travesty to talk about a wages policy when agriculture and mining remain two of the worst-paid industries in Britain, and at a time when they are the most essential industries. That is a complete evasion of a wages policy. The next thing you must equate is the treatment of the civilian population compared with that of the Army. I do not know whether the Government—if it can be called a Government and not the illegitimate offspring of an unholy alli-anee between Transport House and the Carlton Club—occasionally read a book. Among the books I recommend them to read is "The Memoirs of Ludendorff," written after the last war. It has one paragraph which I commend to Ministers on that bench, in which he states that in his view the greatest single cause of the breakdown of German morale at the end of the last war was the contrast between the treatment of the civilians and the military population of Germany during the war.
The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Stafford Cripps): May I interrupt the hon. Member? I am sure that he appreciates the position in which the House is. He has had twice his three minutes. I am very anxious, because I know that Mr. Speaker is anxious to leave at once in order to make the necessary arrangements.
Mr. Brown: I understand that very well. May I make this point? I do not understand how it is that the real Opposition, which sits on these benches, can sit here all day waiting for the opportunity to get in a speech, while the men on the benches opposite to the Government, who
2068
claim all the advantages of being in the Coalition and all the advantages of being the Opposition, can get up and speak when they like. I will not trespass further upon the feelings of other people. I will conclude, not out of consideration for the Front Bench but out of consideration for Mr. Speaker and our distinguished visitor at the end of the corridor, by saying that this Debate illustrates as nothing could have done the deep, diseased fissure that marks the whole character of the social set-up in Britain. I warn hon. Members that unless they achieve a solution of that problem, which expresses itself in every field of our national life, we may squander by the civilian arm everything that the military arm may win for you. We must become integrated in this war, or perish, and as a condition of integration, the first thing that is required is to get rid of the corrupt bargain between the trade union movement of Britain and the employers' representatives on those benches, which overlays everything in every sphere of the war effort in Britain, and is the biggest single obstacle to victory in this war.
Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1942.
  CLASS V.

    SUPPLEMENTARY PENSIONS
    Resolution reported:
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £7,000,000. be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1943, for the payment of Supplementary Pensions to certain persons in receipt of Old Age Pensions or Widows' Pensions."
    Resolution agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS [20TH OCTOBER].
Resolution reported:
"That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1943, the sum of £1,007,000,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
Resolution agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Captain Crookshank.

WAYS AND MEANS [20TH OCTOBER].
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) (No. 3) BILL,
  "to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and forty-three, and to appropriate the further supplies granted in this Session of Parliament"; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed. [Bill 46.]

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

(1) the Urban District of Braintree and Bocking; and

(2) the County Borough of Bury.

copies of which were presented to this House on 20th October, be approved."—[Mr. Peake.]
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pym.]
NATIONAL WAR EFFORT
  Labour Disputes
  Labour Disputes
  Employed Persons (Estimated Total)
  Employed Persons (Estimated Total)
  Production Capacity (Assessment)
  Production Capacity (Assessment)
MILITARY SERVICE
  Ministry of Information and O.B.C. Staffs
  Ministry of Information and O.B.C. Staffs
  University Students and Staffs
  University Students and Staffs
MINISTRY OF INFORMATION
  Post-War Reconstruction Problems (Public Opinion)
  Post-War Reconstruction Problems (Public Opinion)
  Journalists (Armed Forces)
  Journalists (Armed Forces)
  Press Articles
  Press Articles
  Cartoons
  Cartoons
  Members of Parliament (Broadcasts)
  Members of Parliament (Broadcasts)
  UXBRIDGE BY-PASS ROAD
  UXBRIDGE BY-PASS ROAD
  LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD (TICKET INSPECTORS)
  LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD (TICKET INSPECTORS)
  KENIA (UNCULTIVATED LAND)
  KENIA (UNCULTIVATED LAND)
  COLONIES (PAPER STOCKS)
  COLONIES (PAPER STOCKS)
  MALAYA (FOOD SUPPLIES)
  MALAYA (FOOD SUPPLIES)
  NORTHERN IRELAND (ATTACK ON POLICE)
  NORTHERN IRELAND (ATTACK ON POLICE)
FUEL AND POWER
  Electricity Supply (Committee's Report)
  Electricity Supply (Committee's Report)
  Petrol Allowance
  Petrol Allowance
  Coal Mines (Horse Inspectors)
  Coal Mines (Horse Inspectors)
  Pit Production Committees
  Pit Production Committees
  Coke (Domestic Stocks)
  Coke (Domestic Stocks)
  MEDICAL SCHOOLS (WOMEN STUDENTS)
  MEDICAL SCHOOLS (WOMEN STUDENTS)
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE
  DISEASES (INCIDENCE)
  DISEASES (INCIDENCE)
  URBAN AND RURAL DISTRICT COUNCILS
  URBAN AND RURAL DISTRICT COUNCILS
  HOUSING (REPAIR OF WAR DAMAGE)
  HOUSING (REPAIR OF WAR DAMAGE)
  NORTHERN IRELAND (BROADCAST TO EIRE)
  NORTHERN IRELAND (BROADCAST TO EIRE)
  WAR DAMAGE CLAIM, RUGBY
  WAR DAMAGE CLAIM, RUGBY
  CHILDREN'S FOOTWEAR (SUPPLIES)
  CHILDREN'S FOOTWEAR (SUPPLIES)
  WAREHOUSE FIRE, LONDON
  WAREHOUSE FIRE, LONDON
BRITISH ARMY
  Separation Allowances (Officers)
  Separation Allowances (Officers)
  Hours of Duty and Leave (War Office and G.H.Q., Cairo)
  Hours of Duty and Leave (War Office and G.H.Q., Cairo)
  Operational Research Groups, Middle East
  Operational Research Groups, Middle East
  Cinematograph Displays
  Cinematograph Displays
  Sports Equipment (Repairs)
  Sports Equipment (Repairs)
  Army Catering Corps (Commissions)
  Army Catering Corps (Commissions)
  Journalists
  Journalists
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Bank for International Settlements
  Bank for International Settlements
  Allied Central Banks
  Allied Central Banks
  SHANGHAI (MUNICIPAL PENSIONERS)
  SHANGHAI (MUNICIPAL PENSIONERS)
  ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS)
  ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Milk Distribution
  Milk Distribution
  Dog Biscuits
  Dog Biscuits
Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Mervyn George, Lord Bishop of Winchester—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

TIMBER CLEARANCES IN SCOTLAND.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government, whether, in view of the immense clearances of timber, especially soft wood, that are taking place in the Northern Highlands, a plan is being formulated by His Majesty's Government for replanting after the war, when the country will be practically denuded of trees; and whether His Majesty's Government think it a good plan, in view of the intense cold of the northern winters, to employ for this purpose large numbers of native foresters from the Tropics instead of Canadians who have hitherto done the work so well; and whether in view of all these problems it would not be advisable to form a separate Forestry Commission for Scotland: and to move for Papers.
The noble Duke said: My Lords, I do not raise this question of timber clearances in Scotland in any spirit of criticism. On the contrary, we are all fully alive to the dire need of timber for winning this war, timber which cannot now be imported in the same quantity as heretofore owing to the shortage of shipping space. No one objects to his timber having to go for the purposes of victory. But what we would like to know is that the Government are planning a little ahead in this matter, and that when the time comes, as it surely will, when the whole of Scotland is practically denuded of soft wood timber, the
724
Government will have a big scheme ready by which these vast but necessary depredations on our home-grown timber can be eventually made good. A big scheme of reafforestation will be necessary all over Scotland, and plans for this necessity should be put in hand now.
The other question I have to raise is the way the Forestry Commission or the Timber Control Board, or whoever the authority may be, is setting about the method of cutting down these great woods. During the last few years we have had splendid work done throughout the Highlands by many thousands of the Canadian Forestry Corps. These hardened and picked men from Canada have been able to stand our northern winters and have made great strides in clearing the great timber resources of the north. Now it is proposed, instead of adding to the numbers of these magnificent Canadians already on the ground, who are proving so satisfactory, to send natives from British Honduras, in the region of the Equator in Central America, to do this cutting. They are expected to arrive here at the beginning of the northern winter, and huts have been built for them on high ground fully exposed to the northeasterly gales and blizzards which usually begin to blow early next month, with heavy snowfalls.
I do not suppose these natives of the Tropics have ever seen snow before. Yet they will be shipped straight from the Tropics to these arctic snowbound heights and expected to be out in all weathers cutting the timber. These men—probably fine men—who are used to cutting the mahogany forests of British Honduras, where no doubt they do magnificent work, will surely perish with cold or spend their winters in the local hospitals, adding to the troubles of our already overburdened hospital staff. On the surface the whole thing seems to be sheer lunacy, and that is what has given me doubts as to the judgment and capability of a purely English Forestry Commission to understand and grapple with these purely Scottish problems. A few more Canadians added to the numbers already there would have done the whole job in a much shorter time, and without the risks of illness and death that will surely attend this rash experiment. I am told on very good authority that the presence of Honduras foresters was tried in Dumfriesshire (a much warmer county than ours) and has

725
not been an unmitigated success, and has, in addition, caused many complications of a different kind, as it naturally would.
I now come to another aspect of this question. There are to-day about 270 forests under State control in the United Kingdom. Almost one-half of these, 125, are in Scotland. The affairs of the Forestry Commission are directed from England, although almost one-half of the forests are in Scotland. If there should be, as in all probability there will be, a vast development of State forests after the war, Scotland's basic industry of agriculture might be placed in jeopardy by a Commission the vast majority of whose members are not conversant with Scottish agricultural needs and operate from far outside Scotland's boundaries. Scotland's foundation sheep stocks, and in some areas the cattle-breeding industry, might be menaced. The practice of the Forestry Commission is to plant up to about 1,000 feet above sea level. This obviously leaves the highest altitudes implanted and the greatest care would have to be taken to ensure that these higher altitudes were not left as breeding-grounds for vermin.
The agricultural interests in Scotland must be paramount, and the Agricultural Minister in Scotland—that is, the Secretary of State for Scotland—should be answerable to Parliament for all agricultural affairs. Under present arrangements he is personally divorced from any say in the administration, direct or indirect, of large tracts of forest land or forestable land. In Northern Ireland forestry was originally allotted to the Forestry Commission, but has later been transferred to the Agricultural Department in Belfast, as a result of hard experience. In the United States, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Belgium and Japan, forestry is closely associated with agricultural administration. Scotland's experience in government by these Commissions and Boards has not been too happy. The Boards of Health and Agriculture were superseded in 1929 by Departments under the Secretary of State for Scotland, and in 1937 the Committee of Inquiry, over which the late Sir John Gilmour, then Secretary of State, presided, declared unanimously that the Fishery Board should also give place to the ordinary type of departmental organization. This was done in 1939.
The present position is that a Backbench Member of Parliament, who is not necessarily associated with the Government of the day, answers any questions on forestry in the House of Commons. This is obviously ludicrous. Questions should be answered for Scotland by the Secretary of State for Scotland, and for England and Wales by the Minister of Agriculture. It seems to me, therefore, that it would be a much more practicable move to form a fully Scottish Forestry Commission, which would be completely under the control of the Scottish Office and the Secretary of State for Scotland, or, better still, become a Department of the Scottish Office, as the Scottish Board of Agriculture and the Scottish Board of Fisheries have now become. Englishmen cannot be expected to run forestry in Scotland, or to understand and properly work out purely Scottish problems. This instance of sending men from the Tropics to work in a northern winter is a case in point. I feel sure also, from what I have heard, that His Majesty's Government would welcome such a proposal as I have made, in the interests of all sane development in Scotland, especially after the war. Of the nine members of the existing Forestry Commission, I understand only two live in Scotland and have knowledge of Scottish problems; that is to say, there are seven Englishmen to two Scotsmen.
Obviously, preparations must be made now if there is to be a big scheme of re-afforestation after the war. Seeds from trees take time to collect and to extract, and the yield is erratic. Plants derived from the seeds have to be tended in nurseries for at least three years before they can be transplanted to the hills. All this emphasizes the need for thinking now about what will have to be done after the war, when labour will again be plentiful. No other country would have allowed its timber resources to be neglected as we have neglected ours. Development of our woodland resources is sufficiently important to be put in charge of a responsible Minister, which it is not at present. Scotland offers greater possibilities for afforestation than does England or Wales, by reason of its great stretches of moorland and mountain suitable for afforestation. Scotland's problem is a completely different one from that of England and Wales, and should therefore be looked after by a separate authority, fully conversant with Scottish problems.
I should like to quote from a letter that I received to-day from a member of your Lordships' House, the noble Earl, Lord Powis, who wrote to me on forestry problems. He wrote chiefly on the problem in England and Wales, but I thought the letter was so much to the point that I will read a part of it. This is what he says:
"I am sorry that I cannot be in London on Wednesday to support your Motion in the House of Lords as to replanting areas that have been recently felled. The subject of denuded woods in the Highlands applies also to England and Wales, though the forests are not individually as large generally. There are hundreds of acres of denuded woods which require replanting and which owners are either unable or unwilling to replant. The Government apparently take no interest in the replanting of these derelict areas. Owners who are endeavouring to replant are hampered by their woodmen being tempted away by a temporarily higher wage, and the men who should be employed in replanting give up permanent employment, and in some cases a future pension, to fall trees for the Government or contractors who have bought the owners' woods.
Of course, felling is most necessary, but I view with grave anxiety these thousands of acres lying derelict for several years and growing scrub and weeds to the detriment of the soil, now rich in humus. I also fear that with so much felling the climate may be affected, and possibly serious droughts occur—probably not so serious as those which have occurred in America and elsewhere—through reckless cutting of timber. Even if the Government require all man-power for the Armed Forces and munition works, use should be made of the Italian and German prisoners, so that a beginning should be made and not left entirely till after the war. I understand that the Forestry Commission are looking for new land to plant. Why should they not undertake some of the derelict woods which owners do not intend to replant, and some help in the shape of prisoners of war and increased grants be given to owners who will undertake replanting immediately?"
I thought that was a very sensible letter. I have also heard from the Duke of Buccleuch, who is President of the Royal Scottish Forestry Association. I do not know whether he is in favour of the scheme I am putting forward to-day—probably not. In his speech the other day to the Scottish Forestry Association, he said the Association proposed that the new private woodlands policy should incorporate the principle of the appointment of a competent forest authority charged with the direction of State forestry. The Forestry Commission, he said, has in the past been fully occupied with its obligations in connexion with State forestry, and has had neither the
728
means nor the personnel to help effectively the interests of private forestry. Such a competent forest authority as my noble friend speaks of might, I think, well be a separate Scottish Forestry Commission. I beg to move.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE DUKE OF DEVON SHIRE): My Lords, my noble friend who has raised this Motion is entitled to an answer from the Government. On the other hand, the Government have no spokesman in this House, nor indeed in the other, who is fully conversant with forestry conditions. It has therefore been suggested that the convenience of the debate might best be served if I gave my noble friend such answer as I can now, and then, after the speeches of various Peers, who, I understand, desire to speak, my noble friend Lord Radnor, who is a member of the Forestry Commission, should reply to the general debate. I hope that that arrangement will suit the convenience of your Lordships. My noble friend's Motion really deals with three questions, first of all, is a plan being formulated to replace the woods of which the country is now being stripped on such a wholesale scale? secondly, the employment of natives of British Honduras, and thirdly, the desirability of setting up a separate Forestry Commission, or Forestry Department, in Scotland.
As regards the first part of the question, the Government are fully aware of the importance—I think I might say the vital importance—of working out a definite policy for the replacement of the timber of which we are stripping ourselves now, and for afforestation generally after the war. War conditions are quite inevitably making devastating demands upon our own home-grown timber. We are destroying capital to an appalling extent, and there will be a vital need for replanting after the war. The Paymaster-General, who is in general control of post-war planning, has got this matter very much in his mind, and plans are under active consideration. The Forestry Commission are also actively engaged in working out plans in detail for submission to the Government. I believe that few of your Lordships will fail to realize how important this is. Our woods, mature and immature, are being cut down wholesale now, and, in reply to

729
that part of my noble friend's question, I can assure him that this matter is at the moment under very active consideration and that the Government are fully aware of the necessity of having plans ready.
Your Lordships will perhaps forgive me if I speak for one moment on rather a personal basis on this question. As your Lordships will be aware, the Government in their wisdom decided to acquire coal from its previous owners. On the day on which the coal passed into the possession of the Government—it may be a coincidence—the price went up 3s. But there is a prospect of previous owners of coal receiving substantial sums in cash, and it occurred to me that I could make no better use of this cash than by putting it into timber; but on making a closer investigation of this question I became aware that our present system of taxation made it impossible for a prudent man to make any such investment. I think my noble friend will probably agree that taxation has been a very potent factor indeed in stopping that replacement of our forests which is so very necessary unless the country is to be deprived a permanent resource of very great value. Rainfall may be affected, water supply certainly will be affected, and in many other ways the country would be seriously damaged unless replanting takes place. All these matters are under active consideration by the Paymaster-General.
My noble friend also raised the question of the employment of these natives from British Honduras. As every one of your Lordships is aware, the shipping situation has made it necessary to look to our own resources for more and more of the timber required for our war needs. The aim tint of home-produced timber which can be made available for the war effort is limited by labour and by equipment. As regards labour, both felling and sawing are skilled occupations. Those of your Lordships who have any experience of forestry will know that an unskilled man can very substantially diminish the value and the cubic footage of timber available in a tree, and unskilled sawing can very largely diminish the amount of timber which is available. We were very glad to avail ourselves of the services of forestry units offered by the Canadian and other Governments. The Newfoundland Government have also sent
730
forestry units which have done good work. I have had an opportunity of visiting the large majority of these at work, and I can say they were doing very useful service. But Canada now requires skilled foresters as much as we do, if not more. The Forestry Commission have therefore had to look elsewhere for additional forestry labour. Some skilled labour was available in British Honduras, and these timber workers from British Honduras are not being used instead of workers from Canada, as my noble friend's Motion implies, but in addition to them. British Honduras, like other parts of the Colonial Empire, was desirous of making a contribution to the war effort. It was thought that one of the best forms in which it could make a contribution was by sending over skilled forestry workers, and the Government are deeply appreciative of what they have done.
It might very easily be felt, as my noble friend said, that these foresters from a tropical country could better be employed in the relatively warm climate of southern England rather than in Scotland where the winters are cold or possibly extremely cold. But there are two reasons why they are being employed in Scotland. In the first place it is desirable—indeed it is almost essential—to employ these men as a considerable unit rather than in twos and threes. There are obvious difficulties which will suggest themselves to your Lordships in employing these men in small scattered parties. It is highly desirable that they should work as a unit, and it is only in Scotland that large blocks of standing timber of sufficient extent to be worked by large units are available. The woods simply do not exist in southern England. There is another reason. It is that, unlike our own workers—such workers as have not been called up for the Army and so forth—these men from British Honduras, so long as they are over here, have no home ties, and it is therefore desirable to use them where local labour is scarce. The men have been for some few weeks now employed in this country, though they have not yet been employed in the extreme north of Scotland. Their health has been good. Although they have felt the cold, they are showing signs of being acclimatized, and special provisions are being made for their clothing and medical care and welfare. With all respect to my noble friend, his rather gloomy forebodings may prove unjustified.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: I hope they will.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I am informed that people of the same race as these men have done extremely well in Alaska. The negro has shown a capacity to adapt himself to conditions in the extreme north of Canada, and it is reasonable to hope that this experiment may not prove a failure. The third question—a separate forestry control for Scotland—raises very important issues of policy into which the Government cannot go to-day. As I have told your Lordships, the Paymaster-General, having regard to his special responsibility for the study of reconstruction problems, is considering the whole question of future policy in consultation with the other Ministries concerned and with the Forestry Commission. The question whether or not any change in the existing administrative arrangements in regard to forestry is desirable is one aspect of the general problem which will certainly have to be covered, but it is not possible for the Government to make any definite statement in this connexion at this stage.
The Forestry Commission has now been in existence for some twenty-three years. It is within the knowledge of everyone that, owing to the Commission's efforts, large and flourishing plantations have been established both in Scotland and in England and Wales. I have had occasion to meet the Forestry Commission in various ways myself. The Commissioners have taken my wood since the war began, and before the war they had leased land from me for planting. While we can always find points to criticize, my own experience—and I believe it will be the same as that of most of your Lordships who have had dealings with the Forestry Commission—is that they are doing good and valuable work. There is no doubt that they have substantially improved the standard of forestry practice in these islands. I have always found them extraordinarily helpful in the way of giving advice and in other ways, and they have made a very substantial contribution to the nation's forestry resources. As I have said, they have been in existence only for twenty-three years, and they are not yet in a position to meet very much of our present demand for timber, but thanks to what they have done there is a great deal of timber growing
732
up which would not have been available but for their effort.
Whether two or more forestry authorities in this relatively small island would improve the condition of affairs is at least arguable. I cannot say what the Government's view on this very important question of forestry administration may be, but it is not altogether the case that one can rigidly divide Scotland and England. It is quite true that part of Scotland may have a climate substantially colder than any part of England, but it is also the case that many parts of Scotland—the southwest coast of Scotland, Wigtownshire and so forth—enjoy a climate substantially warmer than, say, the High Peak of Derbyshire where the Forestry Commission operate on a large scale. You cannot take a line on the map and say that different conditions apply north and south of that line. I am not in a position to say more than that. I have answered to the best of my ability the questions my noble friend has asked, and for his convenience, perhaps, I may summarize what I have said. To his first question the answer is definitely "Yes." The Government do realize its importance, and are considering it very carefully. As to the second question, although it may appear to be a lunatic policy to employ these men from the Tropics in Scotland, there are, in fact, substantial reasons why that is being done. The woods are not there for them in the south to cut down, and the woods are there in the north. If we find that these men do get pneumonia and so forth, they will be shifted. The third point raises an important question of policy about which I am not yet in a position to reply.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I desire to support the noble Duke's Motion, although it is with great temerity that I, as a mere Englishman, intervene in what is largely a Scottish debate. The noble Duke told me about his Motion, and as I have experience of forestry in the extreme south, and having heard what he has said, I have no doubt that most reasonable men would support the Motion. With regard to the importance of timber, the noble Duke who replied for the Government completely disarmed us by accepting the proposition whole-heartedly, and pointing out; wisely and truly, that the Government of which he is a member are destroying the hopes of forestry by unwise taxation. I

733
hope that, in his private capacity, he will represent to the Government, of which he forms a part, that this is really an urgent matter, and that if they want to save the climate of this country from the grave dangers and disasters which have occurred elsewhere, they must think again on this question of how it is possible, under our present land system, for any owner desiring to do it to preserve the forests of this country.
We are all at one there, but I am afraid we part company when the noble Duke, who answers for the Government, says that there is much to be said for retaining our present system, which involves the employment of the natives of British Honduras, who live on the Equator, either in the fastnesses of Sutherland or for that matter in any of the high lands in England. This cannot be right. Some of your Lordships may have thought there must be a reason which we have not been told that makes it possible to employ a denizen of British Honduras to cut down trees or do other forestry work of the kind here. We know what the climate is on the 1000-foot line in the British hills and especially in Scotland.
When I was a boy they started sending troops from India to occupy the Portsdown forts near Portsmouth, and we were told then—I remember it well—that the medical authorities said it was very bracing for them. I suppose the noble Duke was told that it would be bracing for the people of British Honduras in Scotland, but he was too wise to introduce that argument. I warn the noble Duke he had better get these men from Honduras out quickly because of what happened in the case of the Portsdown forts. There the men got on very well being braced during the months of September, October and November, but when it came to the month of December they began to die of pneumonia, and when it came to the second December disasters followed. That was long before the present Paymaster-General had anything to do with such a matter. Our authorities had to abandon the whole plan and it has never been adopted since. I make this prophecy, that unless the Government give up this experiment, which was described by the noble Duke, the Duke of Sutherland, as being sheer lunacy, they will be landed into the same controversy; not
734
at once, because it takes a little time to break down the natural resistance of these strong people, but you cannot continue the experiment for long. As was pointed out to me by the noble Lord, Lord Southborough, when he was permanent head of the Colonial Office, it is no use pretending there is no difference between the effects of the climate in high latitudes and in low latitudes.
With regard to the argument of the noble Duke, the Duke of Sutherland, that it would be wise to set up a Forestry Commission for Scotland, it seems to me he made out an overwhelming case. Surely it would be wise for Scotland to be advised in this matter by Scottish people and Scottish people only. Scotland is very different from England, especially in the matter of forestry. I have not had the opportunity of talking to my friends on these Benches on this aspect of the matter, but I should think they would agree that Scotland would be much better served if they had a Scottish Commission of their own. They would avoid such mistakes as putting people from British Honduras on to the slopes of the terrible hills in Sutherlandshire, and they probably would avoid other problems which are peculiar to Scotland. For all these reasons I strongly support the noble Duke. I would remind him that it is only an act of reciprocity on my part, because only a fortnight ago he pointed out how much better they manage the Home Guard and Civil Defence Forces in Scotland than we do and expressed the hope that England would follow their example. I, in return, say to him that here in England the Forestry Commission do very well for us, and they have not put any people from British Honduras on to our forests as yet! I hope the noble Duke will have the same good treatment from a purely Scottish Forestry Commission as we have had in southern England. I beg to support the noble Duke to the best of my ability.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, I am very pleased that the Duke of Sutherland has had a supporter from one of the southernmost parts of England, but although I wish to support the noble Duke in most matters, I think I must correct both him and Lord Mottistone about the inhabitants who have come from British Honduras. It is not a recent experiment, as the Duke of Buccleuch, who I believe

735
is to speak later, will tell you. These men have been for well over a year in Dumfries hewing timber. The customary temperature of Sutherland in the winter is probably a great deal lower than it is in Dumfries, but, as I have every means of knowing (because in my capacity any road that is blocked by snow has to be immediately reported to me), I can assure your Lordships there were just as many road blocks by snow in Dumfries this last winter as there were in Sutherlandshire. It was the hardest winter we have ever had. The temperature went down to below zero, yet these natives stood it very well. I do not say some of them did not go to have hospital treatment, but they stood the temperature very well. As regards their health I think that we in Scotland, who had the opportunity of observing them, were, if I may say so, agreeably surprised at the way they did stand up to the climate. I take it that the real reason we have to employ them is lack of man-power. We have got to make the best use we can of the material provided for us and if the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, assures us that the reason these men came to Scotland was that we wanted to employ them en masse and not scatter them among the population, I for my part think that is a very good answer and one which satisfies me.
As regards the first part of the Duke of Sutherland's Motion, I think we are all agreed that the Duke of Devonshire has reassured us in every way, but the part of the question to which I particularly want to call your Lordships' attention is the last part in which the Duke of Sutherland advocates the setting up of a Forestry Commission for Scotland. With that suggestion I am in whole-hearted agreement. I do not want to bring in any political controversies by pointing out what is a self-evident fact, that Scotland is a country and not a region, but I do want to point out that it is a country with different customs, different local authorities and a great many different laws to those in England, and I should have thought myself that the Forestry Commission would have been only too pleased to have their labours in Scotland taken from them and given to another Commission. May I give one instance showing the difference in the laws of the two countries? If you sell land in England you
736
sell it without the timber, but if you sell it in Scotland the timber goes with the land or must go. There are totally different laws and customs particularly, as I say, in regard to local authorities and agriculture.
I have also another reason for saying why I should like to see a separate Forestry Commission. We have a Secretary of State for Scotland and if there is a Forestry Commission we shall thus have a mouthpiece in the Cabinet, and be in a very much stronger position to put forward our plans or our views and have them listened to by the highest authority. At the present time we have a Forestry Commission of which one quarter—two members—represent Scotland. The Forestry Commission in its inception was largely due to the vision and the foresight of the late Lord Lovat. I suppose Lord Lovat knew more about forestry than anybody in the kingdom of his tithe. He started the Commission and his hope—he often talked to me on the subject—was that the Forestry Commission would be enlarged until it became a Government body with a spokesman in the Government. What do we see now? Lord Lovat was succeeded first by Lord Clinton and then by Sir John Stirling Maxwell, who stands very high in his knowledge of forestry and all that forestry means. But now we have Sir Roy Robinson, a distinguished civil servant, at the head of the Commission.
Please do not think that I want to speak in any derogatory manner of the good work that Sir Roy Robinson does, or the good that is done by the Forestry Commission, but I want to point out the difference between the Forestry Commission at the present moment and the Forestry Commission which the late Lord Lovat hoped would emerge in the fulness of time as a Government Department. As the Duke of Devonshire says, we have no one here to answer for the Commission in this House, and I do not know who answers in another place. The Paymaster-General—it seems a peculiar title for anybody who is looking after the Forestry Commission—is said to be going into the whole matter. I earnestly hope that the Government will favourably consider the Duke of Sutherland's Motion, and I am glad that the Duke of Devonshire has not bolted or barred the door.
I am not only thinking of the present, I am thinking of the future, and I would

737
like to give just one instance of what may happen. Mr. Mathers, the Labour Member for a Scottish constituency, asked the Prime Minister recently if the Crown lands in Scotland could not be dealt with by the Secretary of State for Scotland or by the Scottish Department of Agriculture. Instead of the favourable reply which had been hoped for, he got a non-committal reply. Not only the Conservative party in Scotland, but I believe every shade of political opinion in Scotland has been in favour of that transition; yet I see from something which appeared in the Glasgow Herald, which is generally very well-informed on these subjects, that owing to some law passed rather hurriedly in 1906 there will be a certain difficulty in getting the Crown lands passed to the Secretary of State for Scotland. In igo6 there were very few Crown lands in Scotland, now they cover a very considerable acreage. In 1906 it was thought that the acreage was so small that it was not worth while for the Secretary of State for Scotland to enter any caveat against the Crown lands being administered by Whitehall. Thirty years afterwards the situation is very different, and I hope very much that in thirty years' time our successors here will not say that it was due to the lethargy of the representatives of Scotland that a separate Commission for Forestry was not set up for Scotland.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: My Lords, there has been, and always will be, a ready welcome in Scotland for help from all parts of the Empire, and it has been the wish of the population in Scotland to offer the same friendship and hospitality to the men of the British Colonies as to those from other countries. There are, however, one or two points which ought to be borne in mind by the Government. It is perfectly correct that climatic conditions in the winter have been found very unpleasant by these men, and it has also to be recognized that the advantage from bringing them here, owing to their rather slow rate of timber production, is not very great. Further, I would urge on the Government that they should watch very closely the delicate social problems which inevitably arise when you settle in this country numbers of Creoles and Carib Indians from the Tropics.
I hope that the proposal for a separate Forestry Commission for Scotland will not
738
be proceeded with, and I will try to show that it is a step in the wrong direction. I am sure that a very big majority of those who have devoted themselves to forestry and timber production in Scotland, and who have been helping to formulate proposals for a future forestry policy, would advise that there should be only one authority. It does seem essential to have one policy for the United Kingdom and one authority to carry it out, but within that authority there might be opportunities for bringing confidence to Scotland without the necessity of having a second authority. At the same time, the speeches of the noble Duke and the noble Earl do show as a fact that must be acknowledged that there is a definite body of opinion in Scotland which advocates a separate Forestry Commission for Scotland. I would like to suggest to the noble Earl who represents the Forestry Commission that he and his colleagues can meet the demands from Scotland and can restore confidence in the Commission by allowing a strong representation of Scotland on the Commission, and by arranging such devolution as they can with executive powers.
One of the best results of the noble Duke's Motion to-day and of recent notices throughout the Press in Scotland has been that far greater public interest is being shown in forestry. I feel sure that this will be welcome to all members of your Lordships' House. There is a great need for a policy after the war for the production of good timber on a large scale. There is need not only to secure an ample supply of timber for normal use but to provide a much bigger reserve than formerly for time of war, and at the same time to establish a happy and thriving woodland population. Under the proposals that have been submitted by the Royal Scottish and the Royal English Forestry Societies, forestry and timber production will secure their natural place in the economic life of the country, and the more important and enlarged forestry authority will be able to exercise a wider influence in securing the execution of a satisfactory policy and greater continuity. There is also the necessity for a forestry sense in the minds of woodland owners, the nation and Parliament, and it should become in future the fashion of the majority instead of being despised as the fad of a few. There will be a place for national and private forestry, and

739
there will be room for a big contribution by everyone.
I am confident that if owners are asked to replant after the war and to provide reserves of timber the response will be tremendous, provided that Parliament frames a national forestry policy. I would affirm on behalf of landowners in Scotland that it is our intention to carry out to the full our obligations as trustees in the ownership of land and to replant and re-afforest these woodlands which we are being obliged to fell to-day in the national interest. In peace-time there is not much sympathy or encouragement for forestry, and in war-time these woodlands, which many of us have endeavoured to grow successfully for the provision of good timber, are ruthlessly massacred. We are thankful to be able to assist the nation by the provision of timber, but I do not think that any of your Lordships have heard or observed anywhere a word of thanks or acknowledgment to those people who have provided the timber that is so essential now. I do not suppose it is generally realized to what an extent, and how sadly, any long-term future forestry programme is completely shattered by felling within three or four years timber which should not be felled for another forty years or more. I hope the Forestry Commission will give every sympathy to the suggestions which have been put before them and will meet the desires and needs of Scotland without having a separate authority.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I am very sorry that I cannot agree with my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch in the speech which he has just delivered. In the few remarks which I propose to make I hope that nothing that I say will lead anyone to think that I do not believe that the Forestry Commission, as at present constituted, have done their best, and are doing their best, to carry out their duties both for Scotland and for England. I do believe that to be the case. But we shall be faced in the future with a very different set of conditions to those even which obtained after the last war. During this war very large areas of forest have been cut down; far larger areas than in the last war. Even patches of wood, small plantations and so on have been taken away in the interests of the national need. The planting after this war there-
740
fore will be on a very much larger scale than anything that was done after the last war.
As the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, has said, in Scotland we have very different conditions, and laws also I may say, to those subsisting in the south. We have different conditions under which our woodlands grow. We have far larger areas which are growing on the hillsides at levels which are very much higher than the usual levels in the south. Consequently we have a different set of conditions even so far as forestry itself is concerned. Scotland is very sparsely populated compared with England; our agricultural conditions consequently are different from the agricultural conditions of the south. The linking together of the afforestation of Scotland with agriculture is again on a different scale and under different conditions from those which obtain in England. If that be the case is it not logical that, just as in England there is a Ministry of Agriculture alongside the Forestry Commission, dealing with these two questions under the same roof, in Scotland we should have a separate Forestry Commission settled in Edinburgh under the same roof as the Scottish Board of Agriculture? To me that seems to be a logical conclusion and a conclusion which will lead to far more facile and far more efficient functioning than with a Ministry and a Commission whose headquarters are in London.
We have at the present moment a Committee or Commission sitting—of which Lord Balfour of Burleigh is the head—considering the question of sheep hill-farming. I should not be at all surprised, knowing the conditions in both the south and north of Scotland, if that Commission were to recommend that these hill-farms, which are doing very badly indeed, should be converted to forestry. I venture to suggest that with a Commission sitting in Edinburgh composed of Scotsmen who understand the conditions in Scotland and are expert in all the matters connected with the topics upon which I have spoken from the Scottish point of view, it will be necessary to set up a very much larger and much more important body in Scotland for dealing with this question. I suggest that if that is a separate Commission we shall get very much quicker and very much more efficient administration. But

741
I do not mean to suggest that there should be no liaison at all—as my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch suggested may be the case if you had a separate Forestry Commission in Scotland—between England and the Scottish Forestry Commission. That would be absurd. I should expect the closest liaison to exist between those two Commissions, and that they should give each other all the information winch they possess and help each other in every way possible. I do feel, however, that in Scotland there is a strong body of opinion, which has been voiced in this House to-day, in favour of a separate Scottish Forestry Commission, with a view to planting after the war what is required in Scotland, and with a view to the more effective management of afforestation. I venture to hope that the Government will take note of this, and will consider setting up a separate Commission as soon as possible.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, I understand that my noble friend Lord Radnor is going to reply, and I should like to take this opportunity in public of urging him to use what influence the Forestry Commission have with the Ministry of Supply to allow those who are trying to replant to get an issue of wire fencing within a reasonable time of their applying for it As your Lordships know, without a certain amount of wire fencing it is quite impossible to replant in rabbit-infested country; and the time which it takes to get leave from the Ministry of Supply to obtain wire fencing frequently delays planting. In my own case I was thrown out a whole Year by the long correspondence which I had with the Ministry of Supply. The Forestry Commission want replanting to be done, and they should surely be able to influence another Government Department to see that that policy is carried out. If my noble friend will use his influence in that direction, a great many people will be grateful.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, I speak with sonic diffidence as a Forestry Commissioner, because I have not held that position for very long; but whereas that is a disadvantage in one way it may prove to be an advantage in another, in that I can look on the problems which have so usefully been brought to our attention by my noble friend the Duke of Sutherland in perhaps a rather more impartial
742
way than would have been possible had I been a Forestry Commissioner of long standing. I will first answer my noble friend Lord Mersey. I will certainly do all I can to bring influence to bear in the direction which he suggests.
I should like next to deal with one part of the noble Duke's Motion which, so far as the Forestry Commission are concerned, is really irrelevant to the whole problem, and which has, I think unfortunately, loomed rather large in the earlier speeches in this debate—I mean, the question of the employment of natives of British Honduras. My noble friend who spoke for the Government dealt with this matter at some length from the Government point of view, but I think it is only fair that your Lordships should know that the Forestry Commission as such have no responsibility whatever for the employment of those natives of Honduras, and their employment, therefore, cannot be used as an argument for the formation of a separate Forestry Commission for Scotland. The facts of the case are that up to February, 1941, the Forestry Commission were responsible for the home supply of timber, acting as, agents for the Ministry of Supply. After that date the Ministry of Supply took over the organization which had been set up by the Forestry Commission, and which was a going concern and working satisfactorily. Before the Ministry of Supply took over that organization, however, the Forestry Commission had arranged for the Newfoundland forestry unit and for the Canadian Forestry Corps to come over to this country; and, as the noble Duke, the Duke of Sutherland, stated, and as I know from my own information, those two units are doing most excellent work.
There were two main questions in the noble Duke's Motion which I think require to be dealt with with some care. The first is the question of the formulation of a plan for the future. The noble Duke who spoke for the Government has already said that the Paymaster-General, who is in charge of all post-war planning questions, has this matter very much in hand, and the Forestry Commission are working in the closest possible touch with him and giving him all the information they can. I can speak on this matter with some personal knowledge, because since I have been a Forestry Commis-

743
sioner almost all the work which I have done on the Forestry Commission has been in connexion with these post-war plans. The Commission realize that it is of vital importance that we should be ready for the time when plans for future afforestation can be put in hand.
Those post-war plans will have to take account of a great many things. Among other things, we have had the effect of two wars, and the resultant devastation of cur woodlands which follows naturally from wars in which shipping plays a very important part. That will, of course, condition the scale of our rehabilitation of devastated woodlands and our afforestation of new land. Another point, which is of great importance from the point of view of the Forestry Commission, is the further provision of forest workers' holdings, which have been very successful in the past and which it is hoped it will be possible to extend considerably in the future: There are ancillary matters, such as education and research, and included in education will be the question of the provision of an adequate advisory service for private woodland owners. There is also the question of the marketing of forest produce, as well as questions of organization and administration. That is a fairly wide subject, but it is hoped to produce in the near future a scheme which is applicable both to private woodlands and to State forests. The preparation of such a scheme, however, is a long and difficult process. Forestry, by reason of the fact that the rotation is inevitably a long one, must look a very long way ahead, and that means devoting care and thought to the matter before any plan which is worth while can be made. The Forestry Commission will perhaps be forgiven, therefore, if they have not yet completed their plans for presentation to the Government.
Over and above that, there is another question which is of immediate moment, and of which noble Lords who have spoken will realize the importance. I think it is quite inevitable, and rightly so, that after the war replanting will have to take place on a very considerable scale—a scale considerably greater than anything undertaken in the past. For replanting, young plants are necessary, and the Forestry Commission have already taken such steps as they can in
744
this matter. There is not only the difficulty of adequate labour, which is involved in almost every operation in these days, but there is also the difficulty of the provision of the necessary seeds. In the past, the Forestry Commission used to look to sources abroad for seed of such trees as Japanese and European larch, Corsican pine and Norway spruce. Those sources abroad are now no longer available, and that has created not inconsiderable difficulty. They have been able to collect a very considerable quantity of the seed of the Scotch pine in this country, and a sufficiency of European larch seed has also been gathered in this country. In addition to that, small quantities of Corsican pine have been collected, and a few other species, but those quantities are nothing like adequate. The seed of Douglas fir and Sitka can be obtained in all the quantities we require from Canada and the United States of America; and—what is perhaps rather interesting—for the first time that it has been recorded, so I understand, the Norway spruce has coned very prolifically practically all over this country, and it is hoped from that source to obtain adequate seed.
The Commission have something like 1,000 acres of nursery, practically all of which is under young trees, except those parks which need some change in the rotation, and in that case some form of foodstuffs is grown, generally potatoes. So that I think it may be fairly said that so far as taking steps for the future is concerned the Forestry Commission are doing everything in their power to ensure that we shall be able to have available, when the time comes for replanting on any scale, a sufficiency of plants for that purpose. I think that should be sufficient to show your Lordships that the Forestry Commission are fully alive to the necessity of having their plans well forward. Those plans, when completed, will be presented to the Government for their consideration and it is hoped that, in view of the experience in the Forestry Commission, the Government will pay due attention to what we have to say.
The next question, and perhaps the most important in the minds of the mover of the Motion and of other speakers, was the one regarding the formation of a separate Forestry Commission for Scot

745
land. It is no new question, and I may say that the Forestry Commission are fully aware that there is a considerable body of opinion in Scotland in favour of such a division of the Forestry Commission. But before I get on to that subject in detail I think perhaps it would be useful to your Lordships if I said something about the work of the Forestry Commission in general, as it will make a background against which your Lordships can form your own opinion of what I have to say regarding a separate Forestry Commission for Scotland. As your Lordships are aware, the Forestry Commission was formed in 1919 after the last war, and I think as a result of the lessons of the last war. It functioned in the first instance over Great Britain and Ireland and, since the Irish constitutional changes, over the whole of Great Britain. It is of interest to note that very soon after its formation—I think it was—1he suggestion was put forward that forestry could quite well be supervised departmentally and piecemeal, as is suggested in the Motion now before your Lordships. That question was carefully considered by the Cabinet of that day and negatived. That puts the history of this question of a separate Forestry Commission right back to the very early days of the Commission.
In the years between the two wars, that is, between 1919 and 1939, the Commission did a great deal of work. As your Lordships know, there was nothing in the nature of State forestry when the Commission was originally set up. To-day there are actually 246 State forests, both large and small. The acreage that has been acquired by the Forestry Commission is a matter of some 1,144,000 acres, of which 714,000 will ultimately be forest, and of that figure 434,000 acres have already been planted. That is a fairly substantial achievement in the course of twenty years or so. It is a very large-scale transfer of land from private ownership to public ownership, and a very large change in the user of that land. I think it is fair to say that that considerable transfer of land has been achieved with a minimum of friction. There have, of course, been cases where there has been public outcry over something that the Forestry Commissioners have done, but I do not think it is wrong to say that those are the only occasions when the general public have realized that the Forestry Commission
746
have acquired any land at all, and I think in most of those cases where there has been public outcry the matter has been satisfactorily settled.
In addition to what has been done by the Forestry Commission, there has been in operation a system of planting grants for private owners, and under that some 126,000 acres have been planted by private woodland owners, which is quite a material contribution to the forestry land of this country. Forest workers' holdings, to which I have already referred as being rather an important part of the policy of the Forestry Commission, amount to-day to some 1,471. The system of allowing a forest worker a house and a small acreage of land and guaranteeing him a certain number of days' work a year on forestry work has, on the whole, worked extremely well, and the individuals concerned are leading a healthy and a happy life.
In addition to that, the Forestry Commission have created four national forest parks. That is a departure to which I would like to draw your Lordships' attention, because I think it is a very important departure, and a very useful departure from what might be called ordinary forestry practice. It is a start by the Forestry Commission to fulfil what undoubtedly is a very important social need, that is, access to our countryside. The one forest park which has been in existence longest, that in Argyll, has been tremendously patronised, and it is interesting to note that more people have made use of the hostels there since the war than ever did before the war, though the numbers before the war were very considerable. It is therefore performing a very useful purpose in giving rest and refreshment to people who desire a holiday, and it is hoped that that policy of national forest parks may be ultimately extended to other parts of the country. Scotland of course has not been neglected. Of the 246 State forests 112 are in Scotland. I think it was the noble Duke, the Duke of Sutherland, who assumed that half the afforestable area in the hands of the Forestry Commission was in Scotland. That is not quite so. The actual acreage in Scotland is 276,000 out of 714,000, approximately just over one-third.
Another activity of the Forestry Commission, and a very important activity as it has now unfortunately proved to be,

747
was to make preparations for the war and they were busy on that when war broke out. They had in fact partially completed a survey of our timber resources and of the resources of machinery to deal with that timber when it was felled. They also got out price schedules for standing timber. The system of licensing timber which is enforced to-day was their responsibility. A classification of categories of labour for reservation and all the other necessary preliminaries for the organization of forestry in war-time, and other various requirements were worked out by the Forestry Commission in detail, and are now working satisfactorily. The result was that when war broke out the forestry organization and the timber felling plans for this country were put into operation at once.
As I have already told your Lordships, the timber supply organization was taken from the Forestry Commission in 1941. Since then the Commissioners have continued to administer the forests in their charge and to prepare for reconstruction. In the first place, State forests are being very heavily exploited. State forests actually are being exploited at two or three times the rate of private woodlands, and that means a very great deal of work. In addition to that young plantations have got to be maintained and thinned and kept in proper order, and as far as possible protected against fire, in which respect there must be included a new danger—namely, fire from incendiary bombs. Planting has gone on to the extent that is possible with the restrictions on labour and other difficulties that have arisen, particularly of course the demands of agriculture which are such that much land which would normally in peace-time be afforestable land is being taken under the stress of circumstances for food production, although it may not be really suitable or economic for that purpose. In actual fact the programme has fallen from 27,30o acres in 1939–40 down to 17,100 acres in 1941–42. At the same time one is glad to say that a certain amount of private planting has been going on, and grants have been forthcoming for that purpose. Progress has also been made with certain rather interesting technical problems. One of the most interesting perhaps is deep ploughing as
748
a preparation for afforestry. This has enabled a great deal of land hitherto considered unsuitable for planting to become potentially afforestable land. It also has the advantage that it reduces the amount of weeding necessary, it reduces mortality amongst young trees, and accelerates growth in the early stages.
That is the work of the Forestry Commission very briefly, and that is the background against which I think one must study this problem of separate Forestry Commissions. It is quite true that at the present moment there are only two members of the Forestry Commission who are resident in Scotland, but that does not necessarily mean that there are only two members of the Forestry Commission who have knowledge of Scottish conditions; indeed, I myself up to shortly after the beginning of the war was a landowner in Scotland. Still it is quite true that the proportion of Scottish Forestry Commissioners is rather low, and it is the hope of the Commission that we may in the near future add one or possibly more Scottish members to the Commission. But I would also point out to the noble Duke that there is a statutory provision that one Assistant Commissioner shall be in Scotland, with an office in Scotland. Assistant Commissioners in the organization of the Forestry Commission have a very large responsibility for the ordinary executive work, and therefore there is to that extent at least the semblance of a Forestry Commission in Scotland. I would also point out to the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, who laid stress on the necessity of closer liaison, that the closest possible liaison in forestry work can be achieved by unity rather than division, and that if you want real liaison in forestry between Scotland and England what you need is one Forestry Commission for the two countries.
On the broad question of two Forestry Commissions I would suggest to your Lordships that it is very desirable that this matter should not be considered lightly, or decided without a full knowledge of the facts and of the tasks which will have to confront all those concerned in forestry in our post-war world. It is not easy to say what the post-war world will be like, but I hope nobody will make up his mind without due consideration. There are several conditions which come to my mind. The first, of course, is that forestry and the provision of timber is of

749
national importance. I do not think even the most ardent Scotsman would disagree with me when I say that when one talks nationally we must agree that England and Scotland stand together and are a nation together. Timber is essentially national, and therefore has to be dealt with nationally. Experience in the past war, and still more experience in this war, makes clear the importance that timber has, in war-time, and particularly the important part home-grown timber plays in our war-time economy. I cannot give the actual figures—it is not desirable to do so—but there is no question that the supplies of English timber have reached into some millions of tons, and to that extent imports have been saved and shipping made available for other purposes. These are considerations of national importance and not merely of parochial importance, though I would not like it to be inferred from that observation that Scotland is a parish.
The experience of the Forestry Commission is that it has been found necessary, both in drawing up pre-war plans and in the actual course of timber supply, to have central direction unless confusion is going to result. In no other way can the national needs be supplied satisfactorily and timber directed to where it is required with economy and speed. Indeed it has happened in this war that timber has been moved from Scotland to England, English timber has gone to Wales, Welsh timber has gone to England, and completing the roundabout, I believe England has even had the temerity to export some timber to Scotland. Similar considerations apply to the problem of reconstruction. We have to plan in the first case to meet national requirements and also to see that the proposals we put forward are equitable as affecting landowners all over the country both in England and Scotland. It would create rather a difficult situation should there be a separate Scottish Forestry Commission which gave to Scottish landowners and woodland owners more favourable conditions than those which English landowners could obtain from an English Forestry Commission, or vice versa. That is one more argument in favour of a single authority.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: We have a Scottish Board of Agriculture and that seems to work in with the English Ministry of
750
Agriculture. Why should it be different in the case of forestry?
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I will deal with the question of the Board of Agriculture in a moment. It has also to be remembered that rapid action will be required as soon as the war ends, and it has to be considered whether a change in the administration will facilitate or impede the rapid action that will be necessary. The noble Duke's Motion lays emphasis on the large-scale fellings in the Highlands of Scotland, but I would not like your Lordships to go away with any idea that Scotland is the only country where large-scale fellings have been going on. In fact, English fellings compare with Scottish fellings in the ratio of two to one. Therefore England is rather more interested in this problem of felling even than Scotland.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: Will the noble Earl allow me to say that every single tree in my county will be removed? That is, every single soft-wood tree.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I am not dealing with one county only but with the whole country, and it must be realized that there has been very considerable felling even down to the last tree in several areas, though the fact that large blocks of woodlands are found in Scotland perhaps to a greater extent than in England—largely owing to the foresight and enterprise of Scottish landowners—may make fellings there seem greater than appears on the surface in England. It is the experience of the Forestry Commission that a single service for the United Kingdom has very considerable advantages. Your Lordships will appreciate that if the forestry service were divided into two comparatively small services there would not be very great prospects of advancement for junior members of the staff, whereas if there is one big service a man can go from England to Scotland or from Scotland to England, so that there are more opportunities for advancement and therefore more encouragement to the staff. Similar considerations apply to research. However close liaison there may be between two separate bodies there can be no doubt that research under one authority will be more effective than under two bodies. Another advantage is that plants can be transferred from one country to another as and when required, with no difficulty in the passing of money or the

751
making up of accounts or anything of that sort. All these details, which make for simple working, go to support the argument that a single Forestry Commission has proved in practice to be the best method of dealing with the forestry problem in the two countries.
There is no doubt that forestry has come into considerable prominence as the result of war-time activity. There is equally no doubt, if past experience is to be of any value, that after the war the position will need to be defended, and defended very hotly. Our experience after the last war was that as soon as the need for timber began to diminish and imports became available again, home forestry receded into the background. The Forestry Commission in its infant days was more than once threatened with extinction. At times it was starved of finance and at other times it was overfed with finance. It was only the fact that there was a Commission which was able to speak and speak strongly for forestry, and which did speak strongly, that enabled some form of continuous policy to be pursued in this country. The suggestion put forward is that the Forestry Commission for Scotland should be placed under the Department of Agriculture for Scotland. If I were a Scotsman I should view such a suggestion with the greatest horror.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: I did not suggest that. I suggested that there should be a Department of Forestry under the Secretary of State for Scotland.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: Even if it were a Department under the Secretary of. State I should view it with the greatest horror. The Secretary of State for Scotland has many important questions with which he has to deal and forestry would be to him a comparatively minor one. In times of stress it would undoubtedly be lost sight of and forestry would take its place low down on the list of important things. There would be no one who would really fight for it. If you have a Forestry Commission constituted as it is now, or possibly modified in some way or other, you will find that that Commission, with the whole strength of Great Britain behind it, will fight for forestry in a way that no section of a Department ever can, or will, fight. I hope that particular point will be borne
752
in mind most carefully by those who are asking for a separate Department for Scotland and that they will realize that, although in theory it may seem very nice, yet in practice it may easily prove that the desire for separation may be very harmful indeed to the great industry which they have got in Scotland in their forestry land.
May I finish on a note of warning which has no real connexion with my general argument regarding Scotland but is a general point regarding post-war planning? The Forestry Commissioners are quite clear in their own minds that felled areas of woodland will have to be replanted after the war unless there are very good reasons to the contrary. The attention of the Commission has been drawn to a certain amount of speculation which has gone on in woodlands with the intention of reaping a quick profit by felling the trees on the land purchased, with the intention, of course, subsequently to leave the land derelict. It is only right to point out that anyone who has indulged in speculation of that nature—I do not say all purchases of land for felling trees are purely speculative, but there are cases—
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: Where?
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I am informed that there are cases. It is only fair to point out to any who are doing that sort of thing that they would be wise to consider whether they might not find difficulties in replanting such areas.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I wish to contribute one word only to this very interesting debate. That there is a feeling in favour of having a separate Forestry Commission in Scotland is evident from speeches which noble Lords have made to-day. But I would suggest that from a planning point of view forestry should be handled from one point. Then, if there is anything wrong, put it right at the centre and not by departmentalizing forestry.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: My Lords, I have only to thank His Majesty's Government for stating that they are considering this matter of a separate Forestry Commission for Scotland. I think that is very hopeful, and we shall wait with interest to hear what they have to say about it in the future. It was also stated

753
on behalf of His Majesty's Government that a plan in being made, and is going ahead, for the replanting of limber now being cut down, and for the planting of other timber. I am very glad indeed to hear that this is being done. Those are, in my view, two very important points, and I am gratified to know that they are being considered. In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

PROLONGATION OF PARLIAMENT BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
WELSH COURTS BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
INDIA AND BURMA (TEMPORARY AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

LOCAL ELECTIONS AND REGISTER OF ELECTORS (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT,1932:
URBAN DISTRICT OF BRAINTREE AND BOCKING ORDER.
COUNTY BOROUGH OF BURY ORDER.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Resolution standing in my name be approved.
Moved, That the Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, and laid before the House yesterday, be approved.—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned.