Sitting of 30 September 1942

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

  DISABLED PRISONERS OF WAR (REPATRIATION)
  Mr. Tinkerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made with other countries for the repatriation of permanently disabled prisoners of war?
  Mr. Lipsonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has under consideration a further attempt to effect with the German Government an exchange of disabled prisoners of war?
  The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): Conversations have been proceeding for some time, through the channel of the Protecting Power, but I regret that I am not yet in a position to make any further statement.
  Mr. Tinker: I understand that last time negotiations broke down because of the disparity in numbers. That was a breach of international law, but the German. Government did not want to send back more men than they got from us. I hope that if that is the only consideration it will not be allowed to stand in the way.
  Mr. Eden: I fully understand my hon. Friend's feelings and his point. I think he will understand me if I say that I would rather not discuss the matter in public, because that might have some effect on the course of the negotiations.
  Mr. Lipson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that everybody is delighted that the negotiations are going on and wishes him every success?

  ITALIAN ANTI-FASCISTS
  Mr. Ivor Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why he has ruled that the British Council may not
  746
  support the scheme for an anti-Fascist Italian centre in London, analogous to the Allied centres already established by the Council?
  Mr. Eden: My hon. Friend overlooks the fact that Italy is not an Ally but an enemy Power, and my hon. Friend's analogy does not apply. The British Council, whose activities, in any case, are cultural and not political, have lent their support to national centres of Allied countries and of occupied countries whose National Councils are recognised by His Majesty's Government.
  Mr. Thomas: Has the Foreign Office given any support to the Austrian centre, which is analogous, and why does the Foreign Office frustrate every attempt by anti-Fascists to organise themselves, whether in a fighting force, by a newspaper, or in a centre?
  Mr. Eden: I do not accept a single one of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, and I repeat that we are not necessarily prepared to encourage enemy aliens to organise in this country.
  Mr. Gallacher: Will the Foreign Secretary consider giving Austrians the status of friendly aliens, instead of treating them as a defeated enemy?

  FIGHTING FRENCH (M. CHARLES VALLIN)
  Mr. I. Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent His Majesty's Government provided facilities for, or approved of, M. Charles Vallin, Vice-President of the Fascist Croix de Feu, coming to this country; and whether M. Vallin has come to represent the Croix de Feu point of view in the Fighting French movement?
  Mr. Eden: It would not be in the public interest to make any statement in regard to M. Vallin's journey to this country. As regards the last part of the Question, M. Vallin is one amongst a number of French personalities with whom the French National Committee have, it seems, desired to consult, but these consultations are of course the concern of the Committee, and I have no information to give on the subject.
  Mr. Thomas: If M. Vallin has come here to represent the Croix de Feu, would the right hon. Gentleman approve of his presence and, activities?
  Mr. John Dugdale: If facilities can be granted to M. Vallin, would they be granted to other people, like, for instance, M. Blum?
  Mr. Eden: Yes; it happens, if my memory serves me right, that M. Vallin came here with M. Brossolette, M. Blum's secretary. The representative Governments or National Committees who bring these people here must take that responsibility.
  Mr. Graham White: Is it not open to M. Vallin, like everyone else, to undergo a change of heart?
  Mr. Eden: There is always more rejoicing, etc.

  POST-WAR AIMS (SIR S. HOARE'S SPEECH)
  Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the recent speech of His Majesty's Ambassador in Madrid, delivered in Chelsea, suggesting that the Allied nations should make it more clear what our post-war aims are for the new Europe; and whether he will make such a statement?
  Mr. Eden: The hon. Member will perhaps have seen an account in the Press of a speech which I made at Leamington last Saturday. Parts of this speech dealt with the objectives of our foreign policy, and others with the organisation of relief in Europe.
  Mr. Davies: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the speech of our Ambassador in Madrid warrants the very serious consideration of His Majesty's Government, and that His Majesty's Government, along with the Governments of the other Allied nations, should carry out the suggestions of our Ambassador and make the fact public to the people of Europe?
  Mr. Eden: The observations of our representatives abroad always receive the careful thought of His Majesty's Government.
  Mr. Shinwell: Has the right hon. Gentleman noted the observations of our Ambassador in Madrid on the need for speed in order to achieve victory?

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Air Training Corps
    Mr. Snaddenasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that travelling expenses of Air Training Corps cadets between their homes and training centres has been refused by his Department; that this decision is gravely affecting the progress of the Air Training Corps in the remoter areas; and will he reconsider this matter?
    The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. As for the second and third parts, I appreciate that boys living in remote districts may be at a relative disadvantage, but this tends to diminish as more units are formed.' The whole question has been most carefully considered, and the conclusion reached that it would be unwise, for reasons already communicated to my hon. Friend, to alter the present practice, which is in line with that of the Sea Cadet Corps and the Army Cadet Force.
    Mr. Snadden: Does the Secretary of State not realise that this is an attempt to shift the responsibility, which is a national one, on to the local authorities? Should not this expense be borne by the Government when it is a national responsibility?
    Sir A. Sinclair: My hon. Friend is mistaken. He will realise that there are much stronger arguments for the practice, of which I have informed him.
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that the segregation of selected boys by organising them in school flights apart from the general local squadrons introduces an unfortunate suggestion of class distinction, and that any gain in having a school esprit de corps is far outweighed by the loss of what should be a common comradeship in a great service; and whether he will reconsider this?
    Sir A. Sinclair: The Air Training Corps is organised into open and school units on grounds of practical convenience.

    749
    The greater part of the training in the open units is done in the evenings, while that of the school units is undertaken in the day-time. For this reason, it is not practicable to make any general change in the present arrangements, but a gradual amalgamation of open and school units is taking place where circumstances permit.
    Mr. I. Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that the present system of financing squadrons of the Air Training Corps by means of capitation grants leaves many squadrons unable to meet their headquarter expenses and compels them to rely on public charity; and whether he will revise the system in such a way that all headquarter expenses are borne centrally?
    Sir A. Sinclair: With regard to the first part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. W. Joseph Stewart) on 28th April, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy. As for the second part, experience has shown that the present system of capitation grants administered locally has worked well. It was adopted after full consideration of the alternative of direct reimbursement of expenses, and I do not consider that there would be any advantage in changing it.
    Mr. Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this system leads squadrons to concentrate upon scholastic examination, which is not necessarily the best test of efficiency? Would he consider basing the per caput grant on a 75 per cent. attendance at classes and parades?
    Sir A. Sinclair: I fully realise that there is a case for a change, but this case has been most carefully considered, and we have decided to stick to the present system.

    Aerodromes (Civilian Residents)
    Mr. John Dugdaleasked the Secretary of State for Air, whether alternative accommodation has now been found for the civilians living on the aerodrome of which he has been informed; and whether there are any operational aerodromes on which civilians are still allowed to live?
    Sir A. Sinclair: Alternative accommodation for the civilians referred to in the first part of the Question has not yet been
    750
    found. The answer to the second part is that a number of civilians are employed in various capacities on operational aerodromes. In addition, it does occasionally happen that alternative accommodation cannot be found for civilians whose houses have been included within the boundaries of an aerodrome, and that they have to be left temporarily in residence.
    Mr. Dugdale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this case, and possibly in others, the civilians are able to get out at night when the aerodrome is closed, and that they go into the public houses in the village and explain that the aerodrome is closed at night for operational reasons? Does he think that this is satisfactory?
    Sir A. Sinclair: I was not aware of that fact until, my hon. Friend informed me of it. The position is that the movements of these civilians, as they live in a protected area, are, of course, under the control of the officer commanding the station. Now that my hon. Friend has brought these facts to my notice, I am having inquiries made.

    Flying Boat "Clare" (Loss)
    Mr. Simmondsasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can make a statement with regard to the loss of the flying-boat "Clare"?
    Sir A. Sinclair: The flying-boat "Clare," belonging to and operated by the British Overseas Airways Corporation, was, unfortunately, lost from causes other than enemy action while on passage from West Africa to the United Kingdom with all on board numbering thirteen passengers and six crew. An investigation is being held into the causes of the accident, and as soon as a report is available I will consider whether a further statement can be made. I am sure the House would wish to express its sympathy with the relatives of those who have lost their lives.
    Mr. Simmonds: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that a number of the aircraft of British Overseas Airways are much over age, and would he, therefore, see whether some action can be taken to increase the number of modern aircraft available to the Corporation?
    Sir A. Sinclair: I can assure my hon. Friend that this point has been for some time very much in my mind, and that such action as he has in mnid has already been taken.

    Murdered Officers, India
    Mr. Simmondsasked the Secretary of State for Air the number of officers and airmen of the Royal Air Force who have been murdered in India since the recent proscription of the Congress Party?
    Sir A. Sinclair: I regret to say that in the casualty lists so far available for the period in question two R.A.F. officers are reported as having been murdered.
    Mr. Simmonds: Can my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that the dependants of these men will receive exactly the same treatment as the dependants of officers and men killed in action?
    Sir A. Sinclair: Yes, Sir, I will consider that most carefully and sympathetically.

    Gien (Bombing Photographs)
    Mr. Purbrickasked the Secretary of State for Air (1) what were the reasons for releasing for publication the photographs of Gien as before and after the bombing, which were not representative of the same target, thereby gravely misleading the public;
    (2) in view of the fact that the photographs of Gien, which were recently released by the Air Ministry for publication, showed some 2,000 odd tanks in situ, why they were never bombed before they were removed?
    Sir Herbert Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Air (1) whether, in view of the misapprehension caused by the publication in the Press of the two photographs of Gien, described as before and after bombing, he will ensure that, in respect of any future photographs of this kind released by his Department, the dates will be indicated on which the photographs were taken;
    (2) whether the results of the bombing at Gien indicated that the target was vulnerable, lightly defended and easily found?
    Sir A. Sinclair: The House will appreciate that any explanation of the reasons why this target was not bombed sooner must be of value to the enemy. The priority which should be accorded to different targets must be decided in the light of all the circumstances, including operational and other considerations which cannot, for security reasons, be divulged. It may, however, remove misapprehension
    752
    if I confirm that this particular target was selected for attack in accordance with the priority which its relative importance was held to warrant. The photographs referred to were chosen for publication because of their suitability for reproduction and comparison. For the rest, I would refer to the reply which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Stretford (Flight.-Lieut. Etherton) on 10th September.
    Mr. Purbrick: Is it not definitely misleading to the public to publish the photograph of a target showing thousands of tanks before bombing and then showing another photograph after bombing with only a few tanks left? Is not the inference that these tanks have been bombed and that that is the impression created elsewhere, and is it not gravely misleading?
    Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sir. It is quite clear in the photograph that these tanks have not been very much damaged by the bombing. It was known, of course, that the tanks were dry, without petrol in them, and therefore there was not likely to be very much havoc among them. The object of publishing the photographs was to show the tremendous damage that was done to the buildings, and they were photographs chosen for one reason, -and for one reason only, because they were the best photographs available as being sharp and such as would reproduce easily in the Press.
    Flight-Lieutenant Ralph Etherton: Had not all the tanks gone to Libya and to the Russian front and so were not on the target any longer?
    Sir H. Williams: Is it not true that the first photograph showed about 2,500 tanks on the site and that after bombing took place from 80 to 85 per cent. of the tanks had gone and therefore were not available to be bombed?
    Sir A. Sinclair: The point of choosing the photographs, as I have informed my hon. Friends, was to show that the buildings had been destroyed. That was what they brought out.
    Hon. Members: No.
    Sir A. Sinclair: My hon. Friends must accept it from me that that was our object in publishing the photographs, to show that the buildings were bombed, and we

    753
    published the photographs which were capable of exact reproduction in the newspapers.
    Sir H. Williams: Were not these the very tanks which enabled Rommel to get his victory in Libya and which you failed to bomb in time?
    Mr. Purbrick: On a point of Order. Mr. Speaker. Has Question No. 21 been answered? I want to know why these tanks, which were in this place 12 months ago, had not been bombed?
    Mr. Speaker: That Question has been answered.

    Discharged Personnel (Cash Allowances.)
    Mr. Bellengerasked the Secretary of State for Air what amount of cash a man is entitled to on discharge from the Air Force in lieu of civilian clothes?
    Sir A. Sinclair: An airman on discharge receives £2 12s. 11d. if he elects to have cash instead of the suit of civilian clothes and cap to which he is entitled.
    Mr. Bellenger: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this figure is less than what the Army pays to a discharged soldier, does not he think it desirable that all the Services should be equalised, and will he therefore take steps to see that the airman gets at least the same as the soldier?
    Sir A. Sinclair: My hon. Friend is quiet right. It is slightly less because our contract price for the civilian clothing is slightly less than that of the Army. Actually the Ministry of Supply is now about to place the contracts both for the Army and the Royal Air Force, and therefore I do not doubt that the amount to be paid for the cap and the jacket will be the same in both cases.

    Attacks on Germany (Results)
    Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the Secretary of State for Air whether the inquiry recently announced into the comparative cost, effectiveness and value of night raids and daylight attacks, respectively, by the Royal Air Force upon Germany has been completed; and if he can give the House some indication of the results of both types of attacks?
    Sir A. Sinclair: The results of all air operations are closely and continuously examined in my Department, but there has been no specific inquiry of the nature
    754
    referred to by my hon. Friend in the first part of the Question, nor has there been any authoritative announcement to the effect that there has been such an inquiry. All the information which can be given about both day and night attacks without disclosing useful information to the enemy has been promptly published.
    Mr. Stewart: Does not my right hon. Friend recall that about three weeks ago an announcement appeared in the weekend Press to the effect stated in the first part of my Question? It is to that official announcement that I was referring.
    Sir A. Sinclair: I do not think that any announcement appeared. There was a report of an interview which might have given my hon. Friend this impression, but I have told him the fact that these matters are under constant study and examination, and there is no specific inquiry needed.
    Mr. Stewart: Will my right hon. Friend take care that his publicity department do not issue announcements such as that to which I have referred?
    Sir A. Sinclair: I think that all my hon. Friends have had the experience of reading announcements and speeches which sometimes have been misinterpreted.
    Captain Peter Macdonaldasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will make arrangements for Members to have an opportunity of seeing aerial photographs of the effect of bomb damage on targets in Germany?
    Sir A. Sinclair: If it is the wish of the hon. and gallant Member and other Members, I will certainly consult my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works and Planning, with a view to securing the consent o. Mr. Speaker to showing a collection of such photographs in the near future in one of the Committee Rooms.
    Mr. Purbrick: May we also have some photographs at the same time of Gien?

    Aerodrome Sites (Northern Ireland)
    Dr. Littleasked the Secretary of State for Air whether in choosing sites for aerodromes in Northern Ireland, he will see that they are selected in such positions as to prevent interference with, or the removal of, any church buildings?
    Sir A. Sinclair: In choosing sites every endeavour is made to avoid the need for demolishing church buildings, but I

    755
    cannot of course give a guarantee that it will always be possible to avoid interference with or the removal of church property.
    Dr. Little: Has my right hon. Friend been able to adopt any plan whereby the removal of a church building in County Down can be obviated?
    Sir A. Sinclair: No final decision has been reached. I cannot give my hon. Friend any undertaking, but I shall certainly strive to prevent the necessity for the removal of this church.
    Dr. Little: Is the Minister aware that many of our churches are surrounded by aerodromes and cemeteries and it is. a very serious matter?

    Air Crews (Training)
    Mr. Liddallasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that strong feeling exists in the Royal Air Force that serving men who have been approved and are awaiting re-mustering for air crews, in some cases 12 months or more, should now be given priority of training for these duties over civilian entrants who might simultaneously be drafted in to take their places temporarily; and whether he will reconsider the whole position?
    Sir A. Sinclair: The names of men volunteering for duty as pilots, navigators or bomb-aimers, whether from within the Service or direct from civil life, are placed on a roster according to the date on which they are accepted for air crew training. They are then posted for training when their turn comes. Wireless operator/air gunners have first to be trained as wireless operators on the ground and after such training are employed on ground duties until required for air crew training. In their case, too; a roster is maintained. Other air crew members are drawn almost entirely from serving airmen. I am afraid that the course proposed by my hon. Friend would involve the uneconomical use of training facilities which are required to produce men for the essential maintenance trades.
    Mr. Liddall: Could not arrangements be made for giving some training to these men which would give them encouragement and help?
    Sir A. Sinclair: These wireless operators, who are employed on ground duties are employed on most important duties where we wish them to be.

    Enemy Daylight Raids (Counter Measures)
    Sir Leonard Lyleasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will consider adopting the procedure of catapulting fighter aeroplanes from a few specially selected points in the South-East, South and South-Western areas to do something to check the growing number of tip-and-run daylight raids by enemy aircraft?
    Sir A. Sinclair: I can assure the hon. Member that new methods of countering enemy air attacks of all kinds are being constantly studied. It would not be in the public interest to say more.
    Sir L. Lyle: While I appreciate that there are many other calls on Fighter Command, does not my right hon. Friend think that much more energetic measures should be taken to deal with these daily raids, which are causing, in the aggregate, many casualties and a certain amount of distress?
    Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sir. I cannot help wondering whether my hon. Friend knows how energetic the measures are that we are taking at the present time.
    Sir H. Williams: Why do they always blow the siren rafter I have heard the bombs drop when I am on the South coast?

    Dive-Bombers
    Mr. Purbrickasked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the important successes attained by the enemy during the past three years by the use of dive-bombers under suitable' conditions, and the fact that we have just now commenced to employ this form of bombing, he will make a comprehensive statement as to the reasons why we have not hitherto adopted this form of warfare; and whether those members of the staff who regarded the dive-bomber as obsolete or ineffective are still employed?
    Sir A. Sinclair: I gave the House a full review of the policy in regard to dive-bombers in the statement which I made in introducing the Air Estimates on 4th March last. I cannot usefully add to that statement.

  DEER CARCASES (PASSENGER TRAINS)
  Mr. Snaddenasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport, to state what arrangements have been made by his Department in regard to the transport of deer carcases by passenger train during the current season?
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): Yes, Sir. It has been arranged that special vans for this traffic will be provided by the railways at selected loading stations on certain days of the week, and that the vans will be attached to passenger trains. On the day before the vans are required, the senders will tell the stationmasters at the loading points how many carcases they propose to send. The minimum load will be one ton per van. I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to a preventable waste of food.
  Mr. Snadden: Would the Parliamentary Secretary give wide publicity to that announcement?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I will do my best, and I hope my hon. Friend will do the same.

  ROAD HAULAGE SCHEME
  Major Lyonsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (1) whether, in the course of the investigation made, or being made, into the working of the Government Road Haulage Scheme, Sir Frederick Heaton has met, or taken evidence from, the Advisory Committee as representative of the Hauliers National Pool;
  (2) when the report of the investigation into the working of the Government Road Haulage Scheme, made by Sir F. Heaton, will be presented; and whether evidence from the road haulage industry has been invited and taken?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: When he decided to avail himself of the special knowledge and experience of Sir Frederick Heaton in this matter, my Noble Friend did not ask him to conduct any formal investigation into the working of the existing scheme. Accordingly, Sir Frederick Heaton took no evidence from the Advisory Committee, and no report will be published.
  758
  I would, however, remind my hon. and gallant Friend that the Advisory Committee have always been at liberty to express their views on the working of the scheme direct to my Noble Friend.
  Major Lyons: Is it not a fact that when the statement first appeared in the Press that this inquiry would be held, a report had been completed by Sir Frederick Heaton? What was the point of making this sham inquiry?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: With great respect, I think my hon. and gallant Friend is incorrect. My Noble Friend asked Sir Frederick Heaton for an expert individual opinion on matters which he was then considering. My Noble Friend receives many individual opinions, and is always glad to receive them from any quarter', provided they are constructive and intended to promote the war effort.
  Major Lyons: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether Sir Frederick Heaton will consider any evidence that the Committee bring forward so that he can make another report in order to make his first report into some resemblance to a proper report?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I have already explained that Sir Frederick Heaton was not taking evidence at all. My Noble Friend, who has to make the decision, will certainly take into consideration any evidence which the Advisory Committee may lay before him.

  PROPAGANDA TOURING VAN, NORTH LONDON
  Sir Austin Hudsonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he is aware that an allowance of five gallons per week each is granted to two loud-speaker vans used for party propaganda by the Communist Party of Great Britain, that the vans have been touring the streets of North London agitating for an immediate second front; and whether he will divert this petrol to some purpose more useful to the war effort?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: The Regional Transport Commissioner was assured that the vans would be used to encourage the increase of production and the recruitment of women. He therefore allowed five gallons a week for each van.
  Sir A. Hudson: Does the hon. Gentleman really think that merchant seamen should be asked to risk their lives to bring petrol here for party propaganda?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I have no information except that which the hon. Gentleman has just given me about propaganda, either for a second front or party purposes. I suggest, however, that if he desires to pursue the political aspects of the matter, he would perhaps do right to take up the question with the Minister of Information.
  Major Sir Ronald Ross: Is it not generally desirable that the Ministry of War Transport should make some inquiries to see that allowances of petrol are being properly used?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: We make inquiries for the purposes for which this petrol was asked, and we received assurances. We have no information of the kind now stated except that which has been put to me to-day.
  Sir R. Ross: Has the hon. Gentleman made any inquiries himself to see whether petrol is being properly used?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I have not had time to make inquiries, but I certainly will.

  OVERSEAS AIR SERVICES (SPECIAL TRAINS)
  Mr. Keelingasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he is aware of the waste of coal and man-power in running special trains to and from airports for British Airways passengers who could be carried in the ordinary trains; and whether he will ask the Railway Executive not to authorise such trains as long as special trains for holidays are refused?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I cannot accept my hon. Friend's suggestion that the running of these trains involves a waste of coal. They were authorised because the traffic could not economically or conveniently be carried by the ordinary trains. Apart from that consideration, my hon. Friend will, I am sure, recognise the urgent importance of making the overseas air services as rapid and as reliable as possible. They are not used for pleasure or recreation, and the running of special trains in connection with these overseas services cannot properly be compared with holiday services.
  Mr. Keeling: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that when people see these special trains running—on one day last month there were fewer than 15 passengers—they find it very difficult to believe that the Government are in earnest in their appeal for coal economy? Will he look again into a matter which constitutes a scandalous case of unfair privilege?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: With great respect, I cannot accept the suggestion that this is unfair privilege. I have looked into it very carefully. Nearly every day the addition of the air service coaches to an ordinary train would mean double heading the ordinary train, with a loss of engine power and engines which could be used for heavy freight traffic. This service is only for people engaged on urgent Government work, and if they missed their plane it would be very much against the national interest.
  Mr. Keeling: That is not true.
  Mr. Shinwell: But are we to ask miners to provide coal so that these people can have special privileges?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I have explained that in our view this does not involve a waste of coal. It is, possibly, a coal economy.
  Mr. Shinwell: Why?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Because light passenger engines, instead of heavy passenger engines, are used.

  ROAD DIRECTION SIGNS
  Mr. Hannahasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether, to facilitate lorries getting through towns, he will consider allowing the police to put up temporary direction posts at important road centres that can be instantly removed if circumstances so require?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: As I said in answer to my hon. Friend on nth September, the replacement of direction signs must depend upon military considerations. The subject is now being reviewed, and until the necessary decisions have been made, I regret that I cannot add to my previous reply.
  Mr. Hannah: Are we not showing far too much consideration for the convenience to the invader?

  BUS ROUTES (PRIORITY PASSES)
  Mr. Murrayasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether, in the light of further information supplied to him, he is now prepared to give instructions for the issue of priority passes to members of local authorities and approved persons on business who reside at intermediate points on omnibus routes so as to enable them to attend the various meetings of their respective authorities and generally attend to their public duties?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I am looking into the specific cases which my hon. Friend has just sent me, and I will write to him about them as soon as possible.
  Mr. Murray: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind when making this inquiry that many of these men have to get up between two and three o'clock in the morning and stand in queues for as long as three-quarters of an hour while seven or eight buses pass them before they are picked up? These men not only give their services to the local government but do their ordinary work in the mines.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I am most anxious to make it possible for these men to do their public work as well as their other work, but it is a complicated matter, and each case has to be dealt with on its merits.

  MINISTRY OF INFORMATION

    Letter Censorship
    Sir John Mellorasked the Minister of Information, to what extent are censors authorised to disclose to other Departments the contents of correspondence?
    The Minister of Information (Mr. Brendan Bracken): Censors are not authorised to disclose to other Departments the contents of correspondence except, as regards internal mail, instances of breaches of operational security, and, as regards other mails, certain clearly defined categories of information necessary for the performance by the Department concerned of its part in the war effort.
    Sir J. Mellor: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, am I correct in understanding that disclosure is limited to matters affecting security and does not
    762
    extend, for example, to evidence of minor offences against the ordinary law?
    Mr. Bracken: I would like notice of the latter part of my hon. Friend's supplementary Question, but I think his assumption is probably accurate.
    Mr. A. Edwards: Is not the Minister aware that the Treasury frequently communicate with people after having received information from this Department?
    Mr. Bracken: The postal censorship is of great value, because it enables people who are trying to evade their responsibilities in war-time to be prosecuted.

    Allied Propaganda (Co-ordination)
    Dr. Russell Thomasasked the Minister of Information whether he is now satisfied with the co-ordination of Allied propaganda?
    Mr. Bracken: No, Sir. "Satisfaction" is a word which has been expunged from the vocabulary of the Ministry of Information. But I see no cause to be dissatisfied with our relations with the Information Services of our Allies.
    Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Does my right hon. Friend mean that the Ministry of Information neither gives nor feels satisfaction?
    Dr. Russell Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend consider whether the time is propitious for setting up an Allied propaganda council for the purpose of unifying Allied propaganda, which is very important?
    Mr. Bracken: We are in the closest possible touch with the Information Services of all the Allies, and particularly our Russian and United States Allies, and when the time comes we certainly will set up a council; but it would be a mistake to do this in a hurry. It requires time and patience.

    "British Ally"
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Information whether he has any information to give hon. Members on the reception accorded in Russia to the paper, "British Ally"?
    Mr. Bracken: I have received a good deal of information about the reception given to the "British Ally" in the U.S.S.R.: certainly the great bulk of it is very encouraging.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this periodical is being received by Soviet troops with derision, and has he not seen the statement of Paul Winterton in the "News Chronicle" on the subject?
    Mr. Bracken: Far from its being received with derision by Soviet troops, I have much better information, and I see that letters of congratulation have been received from many Red Army men at the front. I have seen the article b. Mr. Paul Winterton, and all I can say about Mr. Paul Winterton is that even newspaper correspondents are not infallible.
    Mr. Shinwell: In view of that statement will the right hon. Gentleman allow hon. Members to see the periodical?
    Mr. Bracken: It is in the Library, in Russian, so that the hon. Member can see it.
    Mr. Shinwell: As my vocabulary does not reach the heights of my right hon. Friend, could he not have a translation made; otherwise, how are we to judge whether the periodical is good, bad or indifferent?
    Mr. Bracken: The best method of judging that is to remember that this publication has sold out to the utter extent of the edition published, and thousands of potential readers have been disappointed. That is the best possible test.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: On a point of Order. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is proper for the right hon. Gentleman to answer my Question in answer to a supplementary question?
    Mr. Thorne: Will the Minister have a translation put in the Library?
    Mr. Bracken: I do not think I can go to the expense of having a translation placed in the Library. The Ministry publishes various publications, I should think in 40 or 50 foreign languages. We should have to employ many translators in order to put these translations in the Library, and as I do not think they would be extensively read, it would be a waste of public money.
    Mr. Shinwell: Has the Minister himself read the publication in Russian? Does he understand it?
    Mr. Bracken: No, Sir.
    Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Minister of Information whether he will place in the Library of the House copies of the "British Ally" published in Russia?
    Mr. Bracken: Yes, Sir; the first four issues have now reached this country, and photostat copies are in the Library.

  POSTAL FACILITIES, LONDON
  Mr. Brookeasked the Postmaster-General whether he has any plans this winter for mitigating the inconvenience caused when the last collections of letters take place generally at 4.30 p.m. in outer and 5.30 p.m. in inner London?
  The Postmaster-General (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I am not aware that the arrangements which were in force in London last winter caused any serious inconvenience to the public, and in order to meet the conditions prevailing during the long hours of darkness, I propose to make the same arrangements this winter.
  Mr. Brooke: Could there be a larger number of principal post offices where a slightly later collection is made so that anyone who really needs to post letters later can find a post office with a later collection within reasonable reach?
  Mr. Morrison: I should like to consider that.

  RAILINGS REMOVAL
  Mr. Cluseasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning the approximate number of houses from which iron railings have been collected; the total tonnage so far recovered; the number of houses in respect of which compensation claims have been received; and to what extent claims at a rate in excess of the standard rate of compensation of 25s. per ton have been made?
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning (Mr. Hicks): At the end of August last the iron railings had been removed from approximately 2,000,000 houses and the weight of metal recovered for scrap was 310,315 tons. Compensation had been claimed in 307,000 cases. Of these only 27,000 were for sums at a rate in excess of 25s. per ton, but 20,000 had now been settled within that rate. The small balance of 7,000 cases remains.

  765
  Negotiations in respect of these cases are now proceeding, and I am glad to be able to say that, apart from incidentals, it has not hitherto been necessary to pay compensation at a rate in excess of 25s. per ton.
  Mr. Bossom: Can my hon. Friend explain how many tons of this iron have already been used and how many still remain in the collectors' dumps?
  Mr. Hicks: No, Sir.

  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (WALES)
  Mr. Pearsonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning whether, in view of the backward state of planning in the Welsh counties, he will immediately appoint a Welsh regional advisory committee to co-operate with his Regional Planning Officer for Wales; and whether, in connection with the promised legislation for town and country planning, he will make provision for a separate planning department for Wales and Monmouthshire?
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning (Mr. Henry Strauss): My Noble Friend is aware of the backward state of planning in some Welsh counties, and this is one of the problems to which the recently appointed Planning Officer for Wales is giving his attention. The possibility of appointing an advisory committee on town and country planning in Wales will not be overlooked, but, before my Noble Friend took such a step, he would desire to consult the Advisory Council on Welsh Reconstruction Problems. In answer to the last part of the Question, I am not in a position to make a statement regarding forthcoming legislation, but the position of Wales will be borne in mind.

  SERVICE PAY (INFORMATION TO PRESS)
  Mr. De la Bèreasked the Prime Minister whether, in connection with the Debate on Army Pay on 10th September, he will institute inquiries why advance information was given to some sections of the Press on the evening of 9th September, which appeared in the morning Press oh 10th September just
  766
  prior to the Debate which took place, which gave an outline of the Government's intentions, and had not been made available to Members of the House of Commons prior to the holding of the Debate?
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): I am informed that in accordance with a well-established practice, which has proved useful in securing informed editorial comment, a representative of the Government gave off-the-record information and guidance to the Press and answered questions about the Government's intentions on Service pay.
  Mr. De la Bère: Is not my right hon. Friend a very old and experienced Parliamentarian, and had he not been in office, would he not have been the first to complain about this? Is it not impossible to uphold the prestige of the House in Debate if information is given out in the Press on- the very morning on which the Debate is held and has to be repeated over and over again? I am sure my right hon. Friend will sympathise with my protest in this matter, as he has always shown such very great concern for upholding Parliamentary traditions.
  The Prime Minister: I hardly know how to acknowledge my hon. Friend's remarks.

  POST-WAR PLANNING
  Mr. Storeyasked the Prime Minister whether steps are to be taken to implement the recommendations contained in the Final Report of the Expert Committee on Compensation and Betterment?
  The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave yesterday in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolver-hampton (Mr. Mander).

  NORTHERN IRELAND (ARMED RAIDS FROM EIRE)
  Major Sir Ronald Rossasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of recent attacks by armed parties from neutral territory and the ease with which enemy agents can at present get information as to British and United States Forces in Northern Ireland, an effective boundary under military control will now be established

  767
  between the United Kingdom and neutral land frontiers; and whether the censorship and control of travel at present in force between two portions of the United Kingdom will be transferred to traffic and mail between the United Kingdom and neutral territory?
  The Prime Minister: The primary responsibility for dealing with criminal outrages, including those in which the criminals use arms, rests on the civil authorities, who can call for the assistance of the military authorities if need arises. Appropriate arrangements have been made in Northern Ireland for the provision of such assistance if required. I understand the Government of Northern Ireland are satisfied that the situation is well in hand. As regards control of the land boundary careful examination has shown that such a scheme as my hon. and gallant Friend suggests would not be the best method of preventing leakage of information. For this purpose other measures are taken which I am advised are more appropriate and effective. It would not be practicable to adopt the proposal in the last part of the Question to dispense with the existing control over traffic and communications from Great Britain.
  Sir R. Ross: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that the responsibility for the defence of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, from attack from without is an Imperial responsibility of the Government of the United Kingdom, that these attacks were from without, and that at the present time there is no serious attempt made to prevent information from Northern Ireland, even as to the passage of convoys which are visible from the coast of Antrim, from going down to organised enemy organisations in Eire?
  The Prime Minister: I have never pretended to regard the situation as satisfactory, but the arrangements made go a considerable way to mitigate the danger.
  Professor Savory: How long are His Majesty's Government going to tolerate the murder of our constables on the border of Eire, as happened at Clady, County Tyrone, on 5th September? Will not my right hon. Friend give vent to his righteous and well-expressed indignation?
  The Prime Minister: I see no reason to withdraw my trust from the regular processes of British justice.

  DIEPPE OPERATIONS
  Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the Prime Minister whether he has now been able to consider the full reports from the Service Departments on the Dieppe raid and, in particular, upon the support afforded by the Royal Air Force to the Army; whether he is satisfied that that support was adequate and effective; and whether any further measures are to be taken to meet the demands of the Army for still closer support from the air arm in future actions?
  The Prime Minister: During the course of the operation the Military Force Commander made a signal which included the statement that air support was "faultless." The answer to the second part of the Question is "Yes." As regards the third part of the Question, the problem of air support for the Army is under constant examination.
  Mr. Shinwell: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information regarding the performance of the tanks that were landed, and is the report encouraging?
  The Prime Minister: I have not in my mind at present any special information on the subject. I understand that they were held up by the altogether unexpected strength of blocks at the ends of the streets, which it had not been anticipated they would not be able to destroy by the fire of their guns. I have not any other particular item in my mind on the subject. They were, I believe, Churchill tanks, which no doubt explains the friendly interest in their performances, but I have not heard that they acquitted themselves with any marked lack of propriety.
  Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give some attention to the matter of the gun mountings of these Churchill tanks that were used in the Dieppe raid?
  The Prime Minister: They are under the most continuous study, change and improvement. A very large number in this country are being tested in every way, but the point that the hon. Gentleman has made will, I am sure, attract

  769
  the attention of the Service Departments concerned.
  Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the Prime Minister whether he will explain how the House should reconcile the announcement made on 8th September that most of the Dieppe invading force came back with the official statement of the Canadian Minister of National Defence that, of 5,000 Canadian troops involved in the raid casualties totalled 3,350, of whom 2,717 were killed or missing?
  The Prime Minister: In my Statement of 8th September, I was referring to the assaulting force as a whole, the greater part of whom were brought back by the Royal Navy. There is no inconsistency with the statement of the Canadian Minister of National Defence, who was referring only to casualties among the Canadian troops who took part.
  Mr. Stokes: Will the right hon. Gentleman make any general statement on the total losses during the raid?
  The Prime Minister: Some statement has been made in Canada. I do not know whether we need be so very meticulous in giving the exact figures. The enemy have made their statement, and they do not know how many we got back safe. I do not think there will be any advantage in it, but the losses were very heavy and went up to nearly one-half.
  Sir H. Williams: The losses were five-sixths of the Canadian Force, therefore the total force was 6,000, and the casualties appear to be more than half.
  The Prime Minister: There seems to be some discrepancy in the arithmetic, but the facts that I have given are correct. When I say five-sixths, I am bound to say it might have been four-fifths. I did not myself divide the figures. It may be that between five-sixths and a half there might be some small discrepancy. If so, I greatly regret it.

  INDUSTRIAL WORKERS (MERITORIOUS SERVICE AWARDS)
  Mr. Hall-Caineasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider making recommendations for the creation of an order of efficiency which could be conferred upon industrial workers, male or
  770
  female, in recognition of meritorious service in the advancement of the war effort in factory or workshop?
  The Prime Minister: Proposals of this kind have recently been very carefully examined. It is considered that a more extended use of the existing awards would be preferable.
  Mr. Hall-Caine: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the United States a similar order has had very great effect?
  The Prime Minister: I have asked for reports about that.

  CHINA (PARLIAMENTARY MISSION)
  Mr. R. Morganasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the Parliamentary deputation to Chungking, he will consider asking both Houses of Parliament to pass a resolution of sympathy, encouragement and good will to China to be sent there with the deputation?
  The Prime Minister: The suggestion made in my hon. Friend's Question was carefully considered. It was felt, however, that as the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker had been asked to select the personnel of the delegation it would be appropriate if the delegation were supplied with a joint letter signed by the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker to General Chiang Kai-shek expressing the admiration and sympathy felt by the British Parliament and the British people both for the Chinese people and for General Chiang Kai-shek in particular as China's leader.
  Mr. A. Edwards: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the effect which a letter signed by the Lord Chancellor might have in that country?
  The Prime Minister: I think we should not in any way depart from precedent in entrusting our representations in these matters to the highest authorities in both Houses of Parliament.
  Mr. Stephen: Does not the right hon. Gentleman remember the record of the Lord Chancellor?
  The Prime Minister: If I were to try to remember everyone's record, I should be fully employed.

  ABSENTEEISM (MINERS)
  Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Prime Minister which Department of State is now responsible for initiating the prosecution of miners for absenteeism?
  The Prime Minister: In England and Wales prosecutions for infringement of the Essential Work (Coalmining Industry) Orders, as recently amended, will be instituted by the Ministry of Labour and National Service, acting in consultation with the Ministry of Fuel and Power. In Scotland such prosecutions will be in the hands of the Lord Advocate.
  Mr. Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether we have helped the production of coal by prosecuting and imprisoning miners for violating these orders?
  The Prime Minister: These questions have been decided by the House, and it is in pursuance of legislation and with Parliamentary authority, that this action has been taken.

  SYNTHETIC RUBBER
  Mr. Parkerasked the Minister of Production whether, in view of the fact that the basic materials required for the production of Neoprene synthetic rubber are coke and limestone, he will reconsider the possibility of erecting a plant for the production of this material in this country?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Production (Mr. Garro Jones): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. The basic raw materials for the production of Neoprene are available in this country; but the relative effort required for the erection of a plant with a substantial output and the length of time necessary to get it into production are such that its erection in this country would not, having regard to the production already arranged in the U.S.A., be justified.
  Mr. Ivor Thomas: Would it not be more advantageous to erect a plant for such rubbers as Buna and Buryl?
  Mr. Garro Jones: All these questions have been carefully considered, having regard to other claims upon the plant and material available, and it has been decided that this is one of the cases where
  772
  manufacture could best be entrusted to the United States.
  Mr. James Griffiths: Will my hon. Friend consider the possible developments and production of rubber as a by-product of carbide from the works now functioning in this country?
  Mr. Garro Jones: I should not like to say that we have reached finality in our consideration of the subject, and, should any new circumstance arise, the policy will be reconsidered, but at present we are quite satisfied with the arrangement made to produce in the United States.
  Sir H. Williams: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the people of the United States are profoundly dissatisfied with the arrangements made for the production of synthetic rubber there?
  Mr. Garro Jones: I think there is a good deal of dissatisfaction on all kinds of subjects in both countries. We have to weigh all the considerations.
  Mr. Levy: Is my hon. Friend aware that the present method of manufacture of synthetic rubber is most extravagant and that there are many processes by which it could be made in this country far more economically than that to which the hon. Gentleman has referred?
  Mr. Speaker: We cannot pursue the subject any further.
  Mr. Parkerasked the Minister of Production to what extent the discussions with the United States Government leading up to the decision only to erect one type of synthetic rubber plant in this country revealed serious difficulties over patent rights; and to what extent they played a part in that decision?
  Mr. Garro Jones: No difficulties regarding patent rights have been encountered in the consideration of this subject.
  Mr. Shinwell: Is it not true to say that the patent rights are held by foreigners, including the enemy? Is not that the position?
  Mr. Garro Jones: That is another question. I did not say that there were no patent rights. I said that they had not given rise to any difficulty. All the main patent rights are held in the United States, but they have not affected our consideration of the subject at all and have not stood in the way of our decision.

  POST-WAR WAGES (STABILISATION)
  Mr. Craven-Ellisasked the Paymaster-General whether consideration is being given to a policy of maintaining basic wages at the level prevailing at the close of hostilities with a view to preventing prices falling to a depression level after the war?
  The Paymaster-General - (Sir William Jowitt): The Government are giving active consideration to measures necessary for a policy of stabilisation after the War which would avoid both depression of prices and inflation. In framing such a policy the question of the level of wages is one factor which must be taken into account.

  CIVIL AVIATION (COMMITTEE)
  Mr. Simmondsasked the Paymaster-General whether there is any official committee investigating the problems of post-war civil aviation; if so, upon what date it was appointed and when it last met?
  Sir W. Jowitt: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which was given yesterday to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. A. Duckworth). The Inter-Departmental Committee on Civil Aviation was appointed in August, 1941; it last met in January, 1942, and thereafter submitted certain questions for the opinion of His Majesty's Government. These questions are now being considered.
  Mr. Simmonds: Does it not really show, as this Committee met last in January, 1942, and as this matter is of vast importance to the Empire after the war, that it is not being-taken as seriously as it should be?
  Sir W. Jowitt: No, Sir, it shows no such thing. It shows that the matter is one of extreme complexity and difficulty, and its importance can hardly be overrated.

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Wholesale Trade, South Wales (Staffs)
    Sir Reginald Clarryasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what steps his Department are taking to ensure that men and women trained and of good physique are allowed to be retained by the wholesale food firms
    774
    in South Wales and Monmouthshire; whether this is taken into consideration when staffs are drafted from this trade to munitions and new staffs sent; whether these areas are included in the arrangements between the Ministry of Labour and his Department for the wholesale food trade; and whether he will consider a scheme on lines like the sweet manufacturing and other trades, in view of the overstrain felt by the food trade resultin in a number of physical breakdowns to the workpeople employed?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane): The answer to the first part of the Question is that the present procedure for considering what staff, if any, shall be withdrawn from firms in the wholesale food trade provides for essential workers to be retained unless alternative arrangements for distribution are possible. Such alternative arrangements may include the provision of suitable substitutes. In all these matters the local officers of the Ministry of Labour and of my Department are working in close liaison in all parts of the country, including South Wales and Monmouthshire. The answer to the second and third parts of the Question is in the affirmative and the answer to the fourth part af the Question is in the negative.

    Tomatoes (Distribution)
    Mr. Hannahasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in view of the unfairness of the present distribution of tomatoes, he will consider some rationing system similar to that applicable to onions?
    Mr. Mabane: As the present distribution of tomatoes is not unfair and with the able and willing co-operation of the trade has proved to be highly satisfactory, my Noble Friend sees no reason for my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Mr. Hannah: Do the Government think that those views are universal?
    Mr. Mabane: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Cluse: Were there not great variations in the supply of tomatoes in areas two or three miles apart?
    Mr. Mabane: On the whole the distribution has worked far better than might have been expected.

    Potatoes (Bread)
    Miss Rathboneasked the Parliamentary Secretary to he Ministry of Food how the recommendation to eat more potatoes and less bread can be reconciled with the necessity for using less fuel; and why, as a means towards this end, potato flour is not being used in making the national loaf?
    Mr. Mabane: The principal consideration in reaching the decision to encourage an increase in the consumption of potatoes and a decrease in the consumption of bread was the saving of shipping. I would remind my hon. Friend that the manufacture of flour and the baking of bread consumes' fuel and power, and while an exact equation is clearly impossible it must not be presumed that the cooking of additional potatoes would consume more fuel and power than would be saved as the result of a corresponding reduction in the consumption of bread. The manufacture of potato flour, even if it were wholly satisfactory as a dilutant of bread, also consumes fuel and power.
    Miss Rathbone: Is my hon. Friend aware that the mere announcement of this Question produced a storm of approval from housewives? Is it not the case that potato flour was used in the manufacture of the national loaf in the last war, and why should it not be used in this war?
    Mr. Mabane: Potato flour was not used in bread in the last war. Cooked potatoes were, but that is another matter. Potato flour uses a great deal of fuel, power and heat in drying the potatoes preliminary to the manufacture of the flour. It is not certain therefore that there would be any economy of fuel in making it.
    Mr. Maxton: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that if bread continues to be as unpalatable as it is— [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—the change to potatoes can be achieved without any propaganda at all.
    Mr. Mabane: Any other country in Europe would be glad to be able to eat our bread.

    Registered Customers (Transfers)
    Mr. Norman Bowerasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in cases where one retail food shop purchases the business of another, he will give the registered customers
    776
    of the latter the choice of reregistering with another shop, provided there is one nearer their homes than the shop whose business has been purchased?
    Mr. Mabane: Yes, Sir. This is the present position except in cases where a transfer might conflict with approved arrangements for the rationalisation of retail deliveries.

    Prosecutions, Wealdstone
    Mr. Thorneasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he can give any information about the 57 summonses at Wealdstone on 15th September against Donald Hirstshaw for using 26 tons of flour to make dogs' food; and what action he intends taking about the matter?
    Mr. Mabane: Donald Hirstshaw and certain other persons and firms were prosecuted at the instance of my Department at the Wealdstone Police Court on 15th September on 57 summonses under the Milled Wheaten Substances (Restriction) Order, 1940 and other Orders, in connection with the illegal disposal of flour and certain feeding stuffs. All the defendants were committed for trial to the Central Criminal Court. My hon. Friend will appreciate that it would not be proper for me to make any further statement at this stage.

    Caterers (Light Refreshments)
    Mr. Reakesasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware of, and prepared to veto, the practice of certain café proprietors in the Manchester and Merseyside areas of refusing the service of tea and coffee during certain hours of the day unless an order is given for a substantial meal?
    Mr. Mabane: There would appear to be evidence that certain caterers refuse to serve light refreshments at certain times, on the ground that their staff and accommodation are fully occupied in the service of substantial meals. This would not appear to be an unreasonable condition, but if my hon. Friend can supply me with further details of the practices he has in mind, I shall be glad to have them examined.

    Aerated Waters, Northern Ireland
    Dr. Littleasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether,

    777
    as the trading in aerated waters in Northern Ireland is different from Britain owing to the _ fact that a large trade is done by certain manufacturers with domestic consumers, he will withdraw the condition imposed on Northern Ireland traders that no delivery is to be made to the premises of any domestic consumer, as this means the closing down of firms whose trade is largely a domestic one?
    Mr. Mabane: I cannot agree that the trading conditions in Northern Ireland are different from those in Great Britain, and there would appear to be no ground on which Northern Ireland manufacturers should be exempt from the general direction not to deliver soft drinks to the premises of domestic consumers. Firms whose trade is largely domestic can still reach their customers through retail shops.
    Dr. Little: Will my hon. Friend institute inquiries to see how many manufacturers do a large domestic trade?
    Mr. Mabane: Certainly, Sir.

  BILL PRESENTED.
    INDIA AND BURMA (TEMPORARY AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL,
    "to make temporary amendments as respects the government of India, to make certain other amendments in the Government of India Act, 1935, and to make temporary provision as to certain matters connected with Burma"; presented b. Mr. Amery, supported by the Attorney-General; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed. [Bill 43.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  PROLONGATION OF PARLIAMENT BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This is the third time that it has been my duty as Home Secretary to move a Bill for the prolongation of the life of the present Parliament by a further year. I think that the House will give general assent to the passage of this Bill. The Parliament Act, 1911, substituted five years for the seven provided by the Septennial Act, which still remains in form on the Statute Book as amended by the Act of 1911. In the Prolongation of Parliament Act, 1940, which I had the honour of presenting to the House, we substituted six years for five within the terms of the Parliament Act, 1911. In 1941 we could not, as a matter of drafting, follow the phraseology of the Act of 1940 so we repealed the provision of the Parliament Act which provided five years instead of seven, leaving the Septennial Act operative. We now proceed to amending the Septennial Act by providing that this Parliament will last for eight years instead of the seven provided in that Act.
  The reasons for the continuation of the life of the present Parliament are well known to the House. The registration of electors has been suspended during the war, the reason being that the large amount of administrative and clerical work involved, apart from the considerable amount of work involved for the various political parties, would not be an economic use of our resources or manpower

  811
  in time of war. Further, the conditions of war itself make a General Election very undesirable if it can possibly be avoided, because the conduct of a General Election would in itself involve an enormous use of man-power, a diversion of the national effort and the stimulation of a good deal of controversy at a time when national unity is a matter of vital importance. And, rather contradictory of that argument, the controversy itself would be a little difficult to stimulate in a healthy sense, because the nation is essentially united on the prosecution of the war. All political parties are agreed that our first duty in this situation is to prosecute the war and to win it. Therefore, the issues in a General Election would be somewhat difficult, if a General Election were to take place.
  There is, of course, the further possibility that in the middle of the election the enemy might—or might not—undertake heavy bombing raids, which would be a. little disturbing to the peaceful conduct of election meetings and all the other activities associated with a General Election. Therefore, the House has accepted what I think is the common sense of the situation—that if it can be avoided it is inappropriate and undesirable that a General Election should take place during the course of the war. I may say that the enemy has taken some interest in the possibility of a General Election in this country, and certain enemy broadcasters have expressed views about it. The House may be interested to know, in case it has escaped the attention of Members, as I hope it has, what enemy broadcasters have said about a continuation of the life of Parliament. Towards the end of July English-speaking announcers on enemy broadcasting stations said:
  "The holding of a General Election would not only be a good idea but is also necessary. So far the nation has not been consulted about anything connected with this war. We were not even asked whether we wanted to go to war over the question of Danzig, nor has the nation been asked whether the war should continue. The nation was also not asked if it were prepared to go to war with Japan."
  I do not know that anybody else asked us whether we wanted a war with Japan. One broadcaster said that the snowball vote which his station was advocating would force our Prime Minister to agree to a General Election. This was a reference
  812
  to a broadcast in May last in which the British people were asked "to start a new and louder demand for a General Election, a people's vote." That argument comes strangely from a country in which General Elections have been abolised, in effect, ever since the Nazi régime was in operation, but I read it as a matter of interest in the course of international controversy.
  Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Surely that broadcast was quoting a section of the English Press word for word.
  Mr. Morrison: I do not think it textually quoted any portion of the British Press. Whether the English Press has used much the same argument I do not know, and in view of the controversies which I have had with the British Press in the past, I have no wish to enter into that sphere of controversy.
  So much for the provisions of this Bill in regard to the United Kingdom Parliament. There is a new and unaccustomed provision in this Bill, which was not included in the two preceding Acts, as regards the House of Commons of Northern Ireland. The Government of Ireland Act, 1920, in Section 14, Sub-section (4), provides that the House of Commons of Northern Ireland shall have a life limited to not more than five years. Under this legislation the life of the House of Commons of Northern Ireland expires on 1st March, 1943. Therefore, it is necessary that this House should legislate as regards Northern Ireland, because the life of the Northern Ireland House of Commons is dependent upon legislation of an Imperial character. The considerations as to a General Election for the House of Commons in Northern Ireland are quite similar to, broadly speaking, on all fours with, the arguments for and against a General Election in this country, and it would be wrong, I think, that the Imperial Parliament should extend its own life and deny to the Northern Ireland House of Commons the right to extend its life. I think the arguments which are applicable to Great Britain are applicable in principle to the conditions in Northern Ireland, and it seems to me logical, reasonable and right that Parliament here should authorise the extension of the life of the Northern Ireland House of Commons.
  Mr. Maxton: They have not a Coalition Government there.
  Mr. Morrison: That is not necessarily a determining factor. Moreover, the elements out of which you make a Coalition Government in two countries are not exactly the same. But I do not wish to be drawn too far into the domestic political affairs of Northern Ireland, which seem to me to be the business of Northern Ireland and not of the British House of Commons.
  Mr. Maxton: But has not the right hon. Gentleman had representations from Northern Ireland on this matter? He must not put a Bill before us saying we are to interfere with the internal affairs of Northern Ireland, and then say that we must not do so.
  Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend's argument is quite wrong. This House must make provision for Northern Ireland—unless this House makes no provision. [Laughter.] I see the superficial reasons for that merriment, but if we do not make any provision for Northern Ireland, then we are by that inaction denying rights to the Northern Ireland House of Commons which we are proposing to take for the British House of Commons. It seems to me that that would be intolerable. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) is a very keen advocate to-day—I did not know it before—of the principle of Coalition Government.
  Mr. Maxton: The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands me.
  Mr. Morrison: He now wants to impose by coercion a coalition form of Government upon Northern Ireland. It really does come to that. While I am always prepared to be surprised by any new departure in policy on the part of any hon. Member of this House, that proposal does give me more surprise than is usual in the varying attitude of hon. Members of this House.
  Mr. Stephen: That is poor logic.
  Mr. Morrison: No, I think the logic is absolutely perfect, even judged by Scottish standards. What is the implication of my hon. Friend's observations? It really involves this, that I, as Home Secretary, the Minister officially concerned with Northern Ireland affairs, should say to the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland that I was prepared to
  814
  recommend to Parliament a Bill which permits the prolongation of the life of the Northern Ireland House of Commons if he would arrange to form a Coalition Government in Northern Ireland, but that if he does not do so, I would not recommend such legislation. I know the present Prime Minister sufficiently well to believe that his answer would be the same as the answer I should give if I were Prime Minister of Northern Ireland. I should say: "Home Secretary, that is not your business. The nature of the Government of Northern Ireland is the business of the people and Parliament of Northern Ireland and not yours." I think that answer is conclusive, I think it is democratic, and I think it would be wrong if I were to be drawn into the essentially bureaucratic and anti-democratic tendencies which I am surprised to observe in my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that if the right hon. Gentleman said to the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, in the language which he himself has suggested, "If you agree to a coalition, I will agree to the prolongation of the Parliament" and if the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland said "No," then the right hon. Gentleman would reply, "All right, let the people of Northern Ireland decide"?
  Mr. Morrison: I observe with very great surprise my hon. Friend opposite using the term "democracy" now and again when his fundamental political principles are essentially anti-democratic. He believes in the abolition of democracy. But if I said what he has suggested, what would it mean? It would mean that I was bringing a Bill before the Imperial Parliament for the prolongation of its own life and saying to Northern Ireland, "You shall not have any similar right unless you form a Government of a type which meets with the approval of the Imperial Parliament." That, I say, would be essentially wrong and improper.
  Mr. Maxton: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the real point on which I interrupted him earlier as that interruption apparently provoked the very cruel attack which he has made upon me personally? He was saying that the principles which governed the position here were precisely the same as those which applied in Northern Ireland. I interjected that there was one essential

  815
  difference, namely, that the parties in Northern Ireland had not united to form a Government. The principal Opposition party in Northern Ireland desires a General Election, and the right hon. Gentleman says "No, you cannot have it."
  Mr. Morrison: I did not refer in my observations to the fact that there is a Coalition Government in this country as being a consideration for the prolongation of the life of Parliament.
  Mr. Maxton: No, but the right hon. Gentleman made a very strong point—a point the strength of which I probably appreciate as much as anyone in this House—that the essential unity of all the major political parties in this country was one of the reasons why they did not need to go to the country.
  Dr. Haden Guest: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us what evidence he can bring before the House that the Northern Ireland Parliament wishes to be prolonged? We have been told nothing at all about that.
  Mr. Morrison: If my hon. Friend will study the terms of the Bill, he will see that I have provided for that.
  Dr. Guest; Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether they do or not?
  Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend does not seem to have read the Bill. If he assures me that he has done so, I will believe him, but I am afraid that he has not, because the Bill specifically provides in terms, that this permission to extend the life of the Northern Ireland House of Commons is inoperative, unless a Resolution is passed by the Northern Ireland House of Commons. I think that completely meets the point raised by my hon. Friend.
  I could, of course, go into the internal domestic situation in politics in Northern Ireland, and, if necessary, I will, but I do not really want to do so, because I stand on the point of principle that this Parliament has conferred upon Northern Ireland the right to have a Parliament—a House of Commons and a Senate—and having done so, it seems to me absolutely contrary to British traditions, at any rate since the times of George III, that we should then proceed to interfere with the
  816
  internal politics of that Parliament which we have constituted. I prefer to stand upon that point of democratic and British constitutional principle, rather than go into the question whether it would be practicable to make a Coalition Government out of the Parliamentary situation in the Northern Ireland House of Commons, on which much could be said. The Bill provides that the life of the Northern Ireland House of Commons may be extended for a further year and a further year only; and it also provides that that continuation shall be contingent upon a Resolution being passed by the Northern Ireland House of Commons.
  We did consider whether we would recommend to Parliament that this Parliament itself should, by direct legislative enactment, extend the life of the Northern Ireland House of Commons. It would have been perfectly competent for the Imperial Parliament so to do. This House, together with the other branch of the Legislature, is the author of the Government of Ireland Act and it would have been perfectly competent for the Imperial Parliament to have passed legislation directly and conclusively providing for the extension of the life of the Northern Ireland House of Commons. But we knew that there, was a difference of opinion in Northern Ireland about it. Representations have been made through certain British channels competent to receive opinions, that it was undesirable that that should be done. Indeed, some took the view that there should be -no continuation of the life of the Northern Ireland House of Commons. In those circumstances, I thought it right, and I believe this view will commend itself to the House, that the effective decision in the matter of whether the life of the Northern Ireland House of Commons is to be extended or not should be the decision of the Northern Ireland House of Commons itself as it is, effectively, the decision of the British House of Commons in this country. Accordingly the Bill so provides.
  It may occur to hon. Members that the Bill should have provided also for the continuation of the life of the Senate of Northern Ireland. That is not necessary for two reasons. One is that the life of the Senate lasts for eight years, but half of the Senate is re-appointed each four years. The last appointment of half of the Senate

  817
  of Northern Ireland took place in 1941, and is not again due till 1945, and therefore no problem arises as regards the Senate during this period.
  Sir Hugh O'Neill: Technically they are re-elected not re-appointed.
  Mr. Morrison: I was coming to that point about re-election. My right hon. Friend is, of course, right. But as regards time no difficulty would arise in any case until 1945. It is the case that the actual election of Members of the Senate of Northern Ireland is by the Northern Ireland House of Commons. There is no election by the people. It is an election by the Northern Ireland House of Commons and consequently, the point really does not arise in connection with the Senate, where no public election takes place.
  That, I think, describes the provisions of the Bill which I commend to the House. It will be recalled that in 1940 and 1941 points were raised as to the possible discussion and consideration of our electoral system and rather important and large scale electoral reforms in this country, including the fundamental method of electing Parliament. I think legislation will be necessary for the registration of electors preparatory to a General Election. In any case, whether or not legislation is needed, that preparation would have to be made, and would take some time and the Government gave an undertaking which I now repeat that we would provide facilities for suitable Parliamentary discussion of the electoral system, so that the House between the time when we can see that the life of this Parliament must end and the occurrence of a General Election, will have a reasonable and proper opportunity of discussing any electoral reforms or changes which hon. Members may think desirable. Having explained the provisions of this Bill as applied to the Imperial Parliament and to the House of Commons of Northern Ireland, I have nothing to add, except to hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading and pass it through all its stages as soon as convenient.
  Sir Stanley Reed: Before the right hon. Gentleman concludes, could he inform the House how many new Members have been elected since the last General Election?
  Mr. Morrison: I am afraid I could not.
  Mr. Arthur Greenwood: On the outbreak of war this House generally agreed that war conditions made it well nigh impossible for us to conduct Genera] Elections on any sort of satisfactory basis. In my opinion that situation still continues. Although the House fully admits the difficulties of a House of Commons that gets older and staler with the passage of time, this is one of the consequences of the war situation. Therefore, I have no objection to Clause 1 of the Bill. As to Clause 2, I am influenced and convinced by the argument used that the right we have taken to ourselves cannot well be denied to Northern Ireland. That argument is reasonable. Of course, the circumstances are somewhat different. Representations have been made to me by people who think as I do politically, and who came from Northern Ireland for consultations. They have a case which really ought to be put in this House.
  It is not fair to impose upon Northern Ireland a Coalition Government if they do not want one, but the truth is—Northern Ireland Members here will no doubt admit it—that there is a good deal of ultra-party activity inside the Northern Ireland Government. They are bitterly Conservative. All the elements of political controversy are still alive in Northern Ireland, and, in these circumstances, the members of my party take the view that it would be right and proper to have a General Election. At the same time, I accept the fact that a minority cannot be allowed to dictate to a majority. I accept the logic of the situation that the decision must be taken by the Northern Ireland House of Commons, unsatisfactorily constituted as I believe it to be.
  Professor Savory: Why?
  Mr. Greenwood: I could not stand at this box if I had not strong views about the Conservative party. That is why I am here. I am entirely against the Conservative party.
  Professor Savory: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to reflect upon the constitution of the Northern Ireland House of Commons.
  Mr. Greenwood: No, Sir. I expressed my regret at the composition of the Northern Ireland Government, as I am quite entitled to do. I am not raising unnecessary political controversy, I hope. The view I put to my hon. Friends in Northern Ireland was that it is impossible for us to deny to the Northern Ireland House of Commons, if it so wishes, the right to continue its own life. I am glad that the provisions of Clause 2 confine it to a year. A year from now I might wish to press rather harder than I am willing or anxious to do to-day that, if the political situation further deteriorates, if the bitterness deepens and if a desire for cooperation does not increase, the political situation is a really live one and that the only solution obviously is a General Election. I see the difficulties about that position, and, with reluctance, I accept the Second Reading of the Bill. I know my right hon. Friend will appreciate that the Bill will not be accepted unanimously by the people of Northern Ireland. There are political elements who oppose the prolongation of Parliament, on grounds which seem to me to be justified, to some extent.
  Sir Hugh O'Neill: The Home Secretary made the position very clear with regard to the necessity for the Bill, and I do not think there is very much' that I can say about that point. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, though he approves of the provisions of the Bill with regard to this House of Commons and the House of Commons of Northern Ireland, nevertheless raised one or two points which require a word of comment from a Member representing Ulster. It has always seemed to me a curious thing that the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, provided, absolutely in terms, that the life of the Northern Ireland Parliament was to be a certain number of years. I do not know whether that is common form in all Constitutions and whether the Statutes do so provide. I have not looked up the point. One would have thought that the normal thing would be to say that the first Parliament should last for five years, and the term after that should be left to the local Parliament to decide. However that may be, the right hon. Gentleman made it clear that, as things are, the matter rests entirely with this House and that, unless action is taken by this House, there must be a General Election in Northern Ireland next March. As has been pointed out, it
  820
  would not seem fair to deny to the Parliament of Northern Ireland the same rights in this respect as are possessed by this House.
  I should like to give one or two reasons, some of which have been already mentioned by the Home Secretary, why a General Election in Northern Ireland now would be most undesirable and, in many ways, nearly impossible. Nearly everybody is agreed—we may hear some words on the other side in this Debate—that an election for this House during the war would be undesirable, and almost calamitous. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] For one reason alone, that we are operating upon a very old register. The register on which the by-elections take place is that for 1939. Since that date large numbers of young people have reached the age of 21. They have become entitled to vote, but they have no vote, because we have a register which is three years old. Would hon. Members suggest that it is right to elect a new Parliament on that register? Clearly it is not. The register which applies here applies also in Northern Ireland. There is no separate register in Northern Ireland. The only register there is that for the Imperial Parliament. Elections to the local Parliament there take place on the register which operates also in the case of elections for this Parliament.
  I happen to be a member of a committee which is sitting now to go into the whole question of possible reform of the registration laws and of redistribution. The committee was set up by the Home Secretary. Obviously, I cannot say anything about what the committee are considering, except that I think it will not be very long before they make a report to the right hon. Gentleman. I can say that the figures which have been before us have been sufficient to convince me that an election now, in war-time, under the register of 1939, would be nothing less than a farce. Exactly the same applies in Northern Ireland. Large numbers of men in the Forces would not be able to vote, and large numbers of working men would not be able to vote. The same considerations apply as regards the diversion which would take place from the general war effort, which is being pursued in Northern Ireland just as it is in this country. I do not think anything remains to be said on this argument that you ought not to prolong the life of the Parliament of Northern

  821
  Ireland because there is no Coalition Government there. I do not intend to go into that matter in detail, because, as my right hon. Friend to clearly stated, that is obviously a matter for the local Parliament and Government and nobody else. But I would draw attention to the fact that the considerations there are the same in many respects as they are in this country, with this fundamental difference, that the minority party in Northern Ireland, or the great majority of that minority party have, I believe, taken their seats in the House of Commons, but having done so, and incidentally qualified for the small remuneration they receive there, they have never appeared again, and they do not attend the House of Commons. You cannot yet a representative Coalition Government unless that section of the community is included in it.
  Mr. Stokes: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us why they will not attend Parliament?
  Sir H. O'Neill: I am afraid I cannot oblige the hon. Member as to why they do not. I presume that for some reason they do not consider that the Parliament is representative.
  Mr. Hopkinson: Can the right hon. Gentleman now tell us why they draw their salaries in that case?
  Sir H. O'Neill: The fact is that they do not attend. I suppose it might be said that there is, of course, a Socialist party in Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend referred to the fact that some of them had made representations to him and to his friends here. They are perfectly entitled so to do. It might be said, Why are they not taken into coalition; why do not the Government take some Labour men to form part of the Government, as has been done in this country? I think the answer to that would surely be that if that were done, it would not be a National Government; there would simply be two parties concerned, and the largest minority party of all, which, as I say, does not even attend the House of Commons, would not be in the Coalition Government; therefore it would be completely and entirely unrepresentative. In those circumstances I do not think there is any alternative but the one which the
  822
  Government adopted, namely, that they should give to the House of Commons of Northern Ireland the right possessed by this House of deciding whether or not it wishes an extension of its life.
  Mr. Graham White: I do not wish to make any observations with regard to the second part of the Bill, which affects Northern Ireland, beyond expressing agreement with what has been said that it is impossible for this House to deny to Northern Ireland a right which it claims for itself. Further I think the House is satisfied that the conditions which make it difficult, if not impossible, to hold a General Election in this country are also applicable in similar degree to Northern Ireland. My hon. Friends and myself regard this Bill as an inevitable but rather regrettable piece of legislation. I am bound to say that my right hon. Friend, I think, carried the House with him in the arguments he addressed to his in introducing the Bill. I was not, however, particularly impressed with the argument which he mentioned about the use of man-power which might be involved in a General Election, because if it should so happen that this Parliament was out of touch with the sympathies or the mind of the country, no question of man-power at all would be comparable in importance with the immediate necessity of bringing Parliament back into the confidence of the electorate. Even the Prime Minister has said in this House that conditions are possible and conceivable in which even in war-time there might be the necessity—the lamentable necessity—of having an election.
  Mr. H. Morrison: The hon. Member will recall that I was careful to say that a General Election was exceedingly undesirable if it could be avoided. I did leave the door open for constitutional possibilities.
  Mr. White: I am in complete agreement with my right hon. Friend on that point. I was about to remark that it was with that unfortunate possibility in view that the Government very properly decided to consider how an election could best be held in conditions of emergency so as to allow, under those conditions, the best possible reflection of the mind of the people. I hope it may not be long before we hear something about the work of the Committee that was appointed.

  823
  My hon. Friends have always attached very great importance to Section 7 of the Parliament Act, which reduced the life of Parliament from seven years to five. We think it an essential thing in the working of democracy that Parliament should be revived and refreshed by frequent contact with the electorate, and no one can deny that this Parliament has for too long not enjoyed that salutary and refreshing experience. It is said there is criticism of Parliament to-day, and it is said that it does not represent the people. There may be some truth in that, but if Parliament wishes to represent the people, it can do so. It rests with the Members. They go to their constituencies, and there is no reason why they should not be in touch with, feeling among their electors and receive their support. On the other hand, if electors are not satisfied with the representation they have in Parliament, I think that even in these days they could find some means by which they could obtain some satisfaction.
  I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend renew an undertaking which he had given on a previous occasion with regard to the consideration of methods by which Parliament might be elected in the future, and I was glad also for what I think was implicit, that we should not have an election within a few weeks of the termination of hostilities before a proper register could be made and before the electorate could judge the general situation. It is of the utmost consequence for the future constitution of the Government of this country that the next Parliament should not only represent the mind of the people but that it should be fully conversant, as far as Members can be who are now occupied with war work, with the problems we shall have to face. I recollect the General Election of 1918, which I regarded as a disaster—I forfeited my deposit—in those days that was a disaster—but in the next Election that mistake was rectified. Speaking with all seriousness, I feel that it is of the utmost consequence that arrangements should be made which will enable an Election to be held in the proper atmosphere, and by whatever methods may be found desirable, to enable the Parliament which is elected to represent the mind of the people. We therefore, regret, but still recognise the inevitability of this Measure.
  Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: I took no part in the discussions on the previous Bills on this subject in 1940 and 1941, because I felt that no great harm would be done if this Parliament served what would have been its allotted span under the old Septennial Act. I have always felt that seven, rather than five, years should be the life of a Parliament. However, that is by the way. This Parliament is now about to enter its eighth year. In a year's time this House will be of the same age as that which was dissolved immediately after the Armistice in 1918. I want to put this question to the Home Secretary; I shall not complain if he replies that it is hypothetical, but I should be very grateful for an answer. At this moment, I imagine, very few people are prepared to bet a modest shilling on the possibility of hostilities ending before the time laid down in this Bill. Neither would many people have done so in August, 1918. I have a very clear recollection of coming home from the East at that time, when everybody was talking about the coming Allied offensive in 1920 and how effective it was going to be. Suppose, hypothetical though it may be, that this war should come to the same sudden unexpected and happy conclusion as in 1918 after this Act has been in operation for four months. [An HON. MEMBER: "Some hopes."] So they said in 1918. Suppose that that happens. Is it intended that the House shall avail itself of the full 12 months' extension?
  The hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. G. White) spoke of the circumstances of the election of 1918. He described it as a disaster. It was regarded at the time, I believe, as something of a political racket. I myself voted by proxy from Egypt, where I was then stationed. It may interest the hon. Member for East Birkenhead to know that I very much pained my Liberal father by posting him my proxy with instructions to vote Tory—which instructions he faithfully carried out. Should hostilities conclude, it is important that decisions should not be taken over the heads or behind the backs of the men in the Services. I will mention two issues, both extremely controversial. The first is the treatment of the German people on the occasion of their defeat. I may say in passing that in the Service circles, of all ranks, in which I have been fortunate enough to mingle there appears to be a swinging majority for the views expressed

  825
  with such refreshing forthrightness b. Mr. Frank Wolstencroft, of the T.U.C., and by Lord Vansittart.
  Sir Richard Acland: Not in the ranks.
  Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: The hon. Baronet has not been in the ranks for some time.
  Sir R. Acland: Oh yes.
  Lieut. - Commander Braithwaite: Judging from the news in this morning's paper, he is now engaged in what might be called a backward march. Whether it be true or not that that is the view of the Services, it is not a matter with which this Parliament should proceed without reference to the electorate. It is also important that the framework of the post-war Britain—again there will be controversy about this—should not be settled over the heads or behind the backs of the men who come home with victory on their banners. For instance, the electorate should be consulted as to whether the new Britain is to be built on a consolidation and extension of the system of State control. I gather from my postbag that the women electors have views on that subject which may be disappointing to the hon. Baronet. At any fate. I rise to ask the Home Secretary whether he can give some indication of the Government's intentions on that point. I feel that the time has come for setting up a Speaker's Conference, and for machinery on the model laid down at the time of the last war to be set up. Redistribution will be much more difficult than in 1918, owing to the wholesale evacuation from the towns. The electoral system will need to be considered. I hope very much—if it is within the terms of Order to say so—that if such a Speaker's Conference is set up it will immediately turn its attention to reducing the expenses of candidates and throwing open the doors of this House to men of ability and small bank balances who are now in the Services.
  It has been hinted by the hon. Gentleman opposite that there is something immoral, if not indecent, in what is described as a "khaki" election. I am an advocate of a "khaki" election, of the men in the Services being brought to the polling booths at the earliest possible moment. I have always felt that if the election of 1918 was a disaster, it was
  826
  so not on account of any instructions given by the electorate, but because of the failure of the Coalition Government to carry out their mandate. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said, "Here I have a Parliament eight years old: I want a fresh mandate to go to the Peace Conference." He had a perfectly reasonable request to make: "Hang the Kaiser, and squeeze the Hun until the pips squeak." I have always regretted that those two things were not done. I believe that many of our present distresses are due to that fact. I am certain that the epileptic of Berchtesgaden would have thought twice about plunging the world into war had Kaiser Wilhelm been hanged instead of being allowed to live on until he was four score and more. Many people in the Forces think that Hitler will live on in much the same circumstances of comfort as Mahatma Gandhi. I believe—and I think that the hon. and gallant Member for Preston (Captain R. Churchill), who is trying, Sir, to catch your eye, will say the same—that we have to-day a Prime Minister of sterner fibre who will see that these criminals are brought to justice. But he should be reinforced by the electorate. Therefore, I rise to ask briefly that should hostilities end within 12 months there will be a rendezvous at the polling booths between Parliament and people at the first possible moment after the guns have ceased to speak.
  Sir Richard Acland: I rise to ask the Government for a rather different assurance. It is usual to say that Members can be refreshed and inspired by talking to their constituents, although when they talk to their constituents their minds generally are so solidly made up that nothing that their constituents can say will change them. This House is the obstacle standing between the British people and the proper prosecution of the war by the proper methods. It is immaterial to say that we are all united in our determination to win the war and that therefore there are no differences between us. That amounts to exactly what the late Prime Minister used to say to us between 1935 and 1939, that there were no real differences on foreign policy because we all wanted peace. We all want peace, but there happen to be complete differences of opinion as to the best means of obtaining

  827
  peace. Of course, we all want to win the war, but there happen to be complete differences of opinion in this House, passionately and sincerely held, as to the best methods of achieving victory.
  The majority of the Members of this House who are to-day re-electing themselves and usurping to themselves the functions of the electorate think it correct to prosecute this war by all the means which just fall short of interfering with the big-business-as-usual structure of our present country. They do not understand that this war is a revolution for democracy at all. They think of it as a sort of painful interruption after which we shall get back to 1939, and perhaps a little more so, managing it a little more cleverly than before. It may be asked, What does it matter whether hon. Members understand this war correctly providing they are actually fighting it with' the utmost possible vigour? The fundamental political views of hon. Members of this House are to-day affecting the way in which this war is being fought, not only the morale of the people, and heaven knows I can tell a sufficient story out of my admittedly rather long ago experience in the ranks of the amount of frustration caused by the fact that We "seem to be led by people who are leading us back to the 1939 conditions.
  There is a big story to be told about the morale of the people of those days, and if this war is prolonged I do not believe these people will fight through all the sacrifices that may be imposed upon us if they are merely told over and over again what they are fighting against and if they are never told what they are fighting for, except in the terms of woolly promises, which, I regret to say, are all that they get from the members of the present Government. Leaving out all that on the morale side, physically the war effort is impeded by the political ideas held on the opposite side of the House, by the majority of this House which is to-day re-electing itself. For example, we are squandering, I do not know how many, thousands of man-hours per year, as well as shipping space and raw materials, producing paper to advertise unobtainable goods. This is being done, but it is absolutely fantastic. We are doing that because hon. Members opposite regard it as quite natural that private firms should be
  828
  able to use our resources and spend money which should come in under Excess Profits Tax, and do so in order to keep up their own private post-war profitability and goodwill. Take another example. Let me assume that in the course of producing certain engineering products it becomes apparent to the managing director of a certain factory that three machine tools will not be required in his factory for the next six months. Does that managing director take the initiative in ringing up and writing and making representations to find out what other factory could make use of his machine tools?
  Mr. Stokes: Yes, he does.
  Sir R. Acland: My hon. Friend will admit that they are mighty few and that it is on the other side, in far too many cases, that every step is taken to disguise the fact that there is surplus machine capacity in particular factories. That is quite certain, and it is because the men who run these factories are running them under those who are thinking in terms of post-war profits. Let me take another example, which is really a much bigger one. We have not been able to do after three years of war what the Chinese did in two years, and that is, to get materials of war manufactured by backward, illiterate and unskilled people. Why? It is not because we are not clever. It is because we are governed by people who are frightened by the development of too much industrial capacity even in Colonial and Indian countries. So I insist that, apart from morale, the physical war effort is to-day impeded by the political ideas of the majority of this House which is reelecting itself. On one issue after another you hear it repeated, "Here is a policy which will solve this problem; why is it not done?" and we say "Is Winston against it?" "No, he is wondering whether he can get it through this House." Take coal. When it was reported to the Government, as it has been, that the overwhelming majority of the people actively desire fuel rationing, for what reason was that turned down other than——
  Mr. Speaker: These subjects regarding the whole conduct of the war are hardly proper for the discussion on the Second Reading of this Bill.
  Sir R. Acland: I submit that when we are on the question of taking very substantial

  829
  constitutional steps we ought to examine very carefully the grounds for doing so. I would like to turn to another matter. We were perhaps justified in taking this step in 1940 and 1941 by the fact that hon. Members supporting this extension could correctly say that there was no real evidence on the part of the people that they wanted anything other done. Take the position a year ago. There was no substantial demand inside any political parties for any other policy than the renewal of the present Parliament. If you look at by-election results for the 12 months leading up to October, 1941, such candidates as had opposed the Government on one issue or another, almost without exception, had been treated with the kind of respect which the British democracy always shows to anybody who wants to put any view before them, but when it came to polling day all those who stood against the Government, without exception, had been left with their deposits. There was only one such candidate in the 12 months leading up to October, 1941, who received a vote which could be called other than derisory. It is that situation which has changed since last this House considered this matter.
  Since then in two political parties very substantial minorities have expressed a desire for the ending of the present state of affairs, and when electors have had an opportunity of expressing their views it is most noticeable that they have given to Independent parties of all kind much greater support than in any previous year. Four of these Independent candidates have been elected to this House. I myself have been more interested in by-elections where I felt candidates were expressing views more in accordance with mine, and I offered personal support to three candidates who stood for Parliament and who seemed to be talking sense and having the right outlook on the situation.
  In these three by-elections, of which two were fought against the Government successfully, the total anti-Government vote was 37,000, and the total Government vote was 30,000. In 1935, in those same constituencies, the Conservative vote was 46,000, and other votes together were 27,000. In other words, in those constituencies there was a turnover of 9,000 votes per constituency against the views which are held by Members on the other side of the House. So it looks to me as
  830
  if any Member on the other side of the House who holds his seat by a majority of less than 9,000 is probably not now representing any substantial number of electors.
  Mr. Magnay: Is it not a fact that while Independent' candidates succeeded on the question of opposing the Government, every one insisted that he supported the Prime Minister just as much as his rival?
  Sir R. Acland: I do not think that is quite true of the candidates in the by-elections in which I took part. I think they would say that while supporting the Prime Minister personally as leader of the nation they were vigorously opposed to him as leader of the Conservative party and violently opposed to the policy which was being pursued. In these three constituencies the majority of our fellow citizens supported the candidates who took that view. They did not support the official Conservative candidates. In other words, you have to reckon with the fact—I do not regard this evidence as conclusive [Laughter]. I ask hon. Members not to laugh when I say that there is beginning to accumulate now powerful evidence that this country does not want this war to run any longer under the dominance of their political ideas. If that is to be achieved, this House must be renewed.
  The Home Secretary says we cannot have a General Election, and I agree that his arguments are very strong. That is why my hon. Friends and I have put on the Paper a Motion—which cannot be discussed in detail now—in order to indicate that there are some alternatives to the one policy of preserving this House and to the holding of a complete General Election. The particular alternative we suggest—and I do not want, to defend it line by line-is that it is not impossible to make substantial arrangements for citizens over 21 to vote in by-elections. This can be done by ration books, registration cards arid in many different ways, and it is not impossible to begin a policy of deliberately causing Members of this House to be selected in some way—perhaps alphabetically or by ballot—to take their seats in rotation and stand for re-election if they are so minded. It would be possible for one-third of the Members of this House to re-submit themselves to the electorate

  831
  in the next 12 months so that at any one time there would not be more than six by-elections pending.
  Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Does not the hon. Baronet think that that should first apply to such constituencies as Barnstaple, where he himself was elected as a Liberal but has since declared himself to be an Independent? Should not the hon. Baronet submit himself to the electorate?
  Sir R. Acland: Hon. Members have left parties for which they were elected, and nobody has suggested that they should face by-elections.
  Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Surely the hon. Baronet's conscience suggests it?
  Sir R. Acland: The suggestion that I should face a by-election because I am not supporting the policy for which I was elected applies to every Member of this House except, perhaps, one or two on this side.
  Captain Randolph Churchill: And on this side.
  Mr. McGovern: You were nominated.
  Captain Churchill: That was not my fault.
  Sir R. Acland: It applies to those Members who were elected in 1935 and who are sitting on the other side of the House. They were elected to resist the onward march of aggression. Five weeks afterwards they decided it was not worth resisting, and five years afterwards they found it was worth resisting. However, I am quite prepared to face a by-election, but I think others should do so at the same time. Unless this Government will give us some assurance that in some way or other steps will be taken before next October by which this House shall begin to be renewed I propose to vote against this Bill.
  Captain Randolph Churchill: I do not propose to follow the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland). I listened to his speech with great pleasure, finding that' his gestures and the sinister modulation of his voice conjured up before me a picture of a former Member of this House who is now detained in gaol, namely, Sir Oswald
  832
  Mosley. I support this Bill with great diffidence, a diffidence which seems to be shared in all quarters of the House and which, perhaps, should be most strongly marked in those Members to whom the hon. Baronet referred, who were elected in 1935 on the policy of rearmament, collective security and sanctions against Mussolini. I can quite understand these people feeling great diffidence in wishing artificially to prolong their Parliamentary lives. I feel diffident for the reason flung at me just now—and which has been flung at me before—that I was returned to this House without a contest. Well, I would like to make the personal observation in passing, that it was through no fault of mine. Indeed, I am one of those rare people who enjoy electioneering. I made quite a habit of it at one time, in the days when it was not quite so easy as it is now for Independents to get into Parliament. Scores of agents and thousands of pounds were expended in making sure that I did not enter the House. I think that some hon. Members who have spoken in this Debate might not have quite such an easy passage if such tremendous sanctions were applied against them. I have another reason for diffidence. Now that the Archbishop Of Canterbury has entered the sphere of party politics and the Lord Privy Seal is changing places with him and offering spiritual guidance to the Church of England, I am not sure that it will not be considered very bad taste for a mere politician to make a speech on a political subject.
  Despite these natural inhibitions, there seem to me to be good and solid reasons for supporting this Bill. The mechanical difficulties of holding a General Election at this time have been dwelt upon and are, indeed, manifest. I do not say they could in no circumstances be overcome. If ever this House should exhaust its capacity to carry, on the war, we would have to have an election whatever the difficulties; and obviously, with the great movements of population, it would have to be done in a different way from elections in the past. I see no reason why it should not be done on the ration cards.
  But there are three objections to having a General Election at this time which seem to me to be more cogent than all the technical inconveniences. In the first place, there is no great issue upon which an election could be fought. The hon.

  833
  Baronet the Member for Barnstaple has told us that he sees great issues and great controversies, but there are not honestly many people who would come forward to support his view. As long as we maintain the party truce, which I firmly support, because I consider it to be the foundation of the Government's stability, an election at this time would be a farce. It is quite true that there might be a few better Members of Parliament returned, but only a handful. When the hon. Baronet was talking with such pride and gusto of those candidates—his nominees, I rather gathered—whom he had brought into the House with his able electioneering methods—personally, I welcome the presence of some of them here—I thought he might have borne in mind another reason they got in; they were very much superior candidates to those whom they were opposing. In my view, the electors nowadays do not at these elections vote for this party or that party, or this policy or that policy; they vote for the best man. If there were a General Election, no doubt some of the older and more wrong-headed members might disappear, but recent experience offers no guarantee, on either side of the House, that they would not be replaced by others older and more wrong-headed than themselves.
  This brings me to my second argument, namely, that the sort of people who are needed in Parliament, who would like to stand for Parliament, and who certainly would receive great support from the electorate, are not available at the moment. I refer to those in the Fighting Services. I have been surprised to find how many young officers and men in the ranks have told me that after the war they mean to go into politics. I have heard this from all sorts of people to whom such an idea would never have occurred three or four years ago. If there were an election at this time, hardly any of them would be prepared to stand. They are more interested at the moment with the work they have in hand. Therefore, I believe that those of us who, for one reason or another, are here in the House are in a special degree the trustees of the political future of those who are to-day in the Fighting Services. I personally hope that after the war many of the older Members of all parties will make way for younger men. There are actually, I believe, some 60 Members of Parliament
  834
  who have announced that they do not intend to stand again at the next election. If they know of anyone who would like to stand and who would come forward in their constituency, and whom they think would be a good candidate, I think it' would be a graceful gesture if they were to clear out now.
  I have never been in the past a booster of youth. I have never tried to make out that youth was the greatest asset and what we needed most in politics. I have been more against the old women of politics than against the old men—and many of the old women of politics are still under forty. But I am bound to say my view has changed a bit during the last three years. I have been amazed to find the extent to which young people are waking up to their political responsibilities, and on political issues I believe that to-day the greatest cleavage is not between rich and poor, not between Tory and Labour, but between young and old. The young people of to-day distrust the doctrinaire shibboleths of the past and are prepared to face problems of war and of peace with an objectivity and a lack of prejudice which, I fear, is sadly lacking among many of the older generation, both in the Services and in civil life. Therefore, I assert that it would be a farce to hold a General Election at which so many of the best potential members would be precluded from standing.
  Thirdly, it would be wrong to hold a General Election without first having a Redistribution Bill and, still more important—the matter has been referred to—a Bill for Electoral Reform. This is a very vexed topic. Personally, I should like to see such a Bill drawn up by some impartial committee, perhaps presided over b. Mr. Speaker. I would like it really to be an impartial committee. By that I do not mean an all-party committee in which the three parties would haggle out a compromise between their conflicting electoral interests and try to discover which abuses they could manage to keep by conceding abuses to the other parties too. But in so far as there is to be any party rivalry in this matter, which would be inevitable, I should like to see each party recommending the sweeping away of those abuses from which it profits most itself. There are a number of electoral abuses from which the Labour Party profits, but as I am not a member of that party, it

  835
  would be ungracious of me to deal with them; but I would like briefly to indicate some of the electoral abuses from which the Tory Party profits and which should be prohibited by law before we have another General Election. Of course, the greatest scandal is the black marketeering in constituencies, the sale of seats to rich men, that goes on. It is a scandal to the party and to the House of Commons, and it brings representative government into great disrepute. I would like to see the amount of money that a candidate or member can expend on political organisation severely limited. I would like to see election expenses limited——
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): A discussion on electoral reform would be out of Order on this Bill.
  Captain Churchill: I was only trying to give an illustration of some of the considerations which should be borne in mind if the House is to take this very serious step, which we all face with such diffidence, of prolonging our Parliamentary lives.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member must not forget that when he mentions these things other hon. Members are entitled to answer, and therefore, a Debate may arise.
  Captain Churchill: I submit to you. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that some of these matters have already been referred to and it is because they have been referred to that I thought it my duty to refer to them. I will pass on from this difficult topic without any further illustrations, but with one quotation I came across a few days ago:
  "In vain may heroes fight and patriots rave,
  If secret gold creep on from knave to knave."
  For these reasons, I have no hesitation in supporting this Bill, but I trust all hon. Members who do so will feel that they have now an added sense of responsibility for the vigorous prosecution of the war. The credit of the House does not stand high in the country to-day. But I believe that, with all its faults, this House will still redeem itself in the eyes of the country and in the pages of history if, despite its shabby origin and its feckless conduct in its earlier years, it henceforward plays a valiant and faithful role and
  836
  proves that it has no other motive than pressing forward to victory.
  Mr. Edmund Harvey: I am sure the whole House has listened with interest to the thought-provoking speech that we have just heard. I wish, on behalf of a group of Members in different quarters of the House, to express the satisfaction that we feel that the Home Secretary has again explicitly renewed the pledge he has given on two previous occasions on behalf of the Government. I take it that he can say, as the Bellman said in "The Hunting of the Snark," "What I tell you three times is true." Three times the Government have now given a pledge that, before we have another election, they will secure to Parliament an opportunity for the proper consideration of methods of electoral reform, which we think of the utmost importance if Parliament is to succeed in being worthy of the great tasks before it.
  We all feel hesitation in voting for this Bill, and I am sure the Government must be reluctant to bring it forward, yet the considerations which have already been urged are overwhelming in their general effect as to the undesirability and the grave difficulty in the way of a General Election now. But that is all the more reason why we should take steps in time to see that, when a General Election comes, it is taken under proper conditions, that everyone who is entitled to take part in it shall have the opportunity—Service men and others now far away from their homes and young people of both sexes at present not on the register—but above all we should see that the method of election, both as regards the size of constituencies and the form of election which is in force at the time, shall be truly worthy of the spirit of democracy and shall really give the opportunity to the Parliament of the future to represent every considerable section of opinion in our midst. It is because of that that I rejoice—and I do not speak for myself alone—at this thrice repeated pledge. I hope the Under-Secretary of State will make a little clearer and more explicit than the Home Secretary was able to do the method and the time that the Government suggest for carrying out that pledge, which is one of the utmost importance to the whole country.
  Mr. Clement Davies: With one exception every speaker has said that he was in favour of the Bill because it was undesirable and difficult and then, to repeat the words used by the hon. Member for the Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory), calamitous to hold a General Election at this time. This is a most tremendous step that Parliament is called upon to take. I am glad to hear the word "democracy" once again used by one or two speakers. This House has no reason for existence apart from democracy. It is composed of the elected representatives of the people, and they have to be elected. What the House is proposing to do is to re-elect itself again for another period longer than has ever been given before, with one possible exception in the last war.' How many more times is this kind of Bill to be brought before the House? The hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland) seemed to think that it would be necessary to extend the life of Parliament for another three years, because the suggestion is that we should go out a third every year, which will take us to the end of 1946. By that time this Parliament will be 11 years old—a Parliament elected in 1935 on what one might call a peace issue and a Parliament which continues in existence for another three years and enters on the biggest war in history, and from time to time is called upon to extend its life. Since 1935 some 200 Members have left the House—either died or been moved to other regions. Since the war nearly 100 Members have come into the House, not having been elected in the ordinary way, being nominees not even of a party but of a party machine.
  Major Sir Edward Cadogan: How many have been contested elections?
  Mr. Davies: I could not say, but quite a small proportion, and, where they have, the people have expressed their views pretty strongly with regard to the party machine nominee. One or two phrases fell from the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Preston (Captain R. Churchill) who spoke last about the future. May I call attention to the present? He spoke about what was happening in the case of his own party in regard to the purchase of seats. What happened with regard to the nominated Members who have been brought here?
  838
  Many of them are the rejected of the past. When they had to stand for an election they were rejected by the very people whom they now say they represent. May I say a word to the party above the Gangway? One cannot help observing that the new additions to this House are men who have certainly reached well beyond the years of discretion. It looks to me as if the House is now being treated, I am certain not by the party but by the party machine, as a sort of home for pensioners.
  Mr. Tinker: Will the hon. and learned Member consider the peculiar position of the Labour party? The men who come to this House for the Labour party are men who have had to fight their way in the trade union field, and they get on towards middle age before they receive recognition. Our party, therefore, consists of the elderly type more than any other party.
  Mr. Davies: The Labour party should, especially at this time, see that the younger members of the party are brought to this House. That brings me to what I regard as such a serious situation. There are millions of young men to-day offering their lives for democracy and for the continuation of this House—men who are now in the neighbourhood of 27, 28 and 29 and have never voted at all, men who must have their views not only with regard to the present but with regard to the future. They are not being consulted at all until the whole thing is over. That is the serious part of the matter.
  It is all very well to point out the difficulties. The only real difficulty that has been mentioned is that of registration. The Government, however, have had two years in which to' consider this matter. It is supposed to be in the hands of a committee. Why does it take that committee so long to report? I can well understand the great difficulties of holding an election under the old franchise where the qualifications depended not upon persons but upon property. Now, when we have universal suffrage and every young man and woman has a vote, I can see no great difficulty in ascertaining the views of the people. Even the Home Secretary said that this was not impossible. There is difficulty, but no impossibility. Then what prevents us from testing the opinions of the people to-day? It is said that there is no main

  839
  issue before the people. What is meant by that? We are all agreed that the war has to be fought to a finish and that we have to go on fighting until the enemy is defeated. That is the aim, but on the methods by which we shall pursue that aim there is great difference of opinion. It is said that some of us may have changed our views. If we have it is because of disappointments for which we are not responsible. For example—and I make no apology for referring to it again—the Act of 22nd May, 1940, put all power in the hands of the Government over both property and persons. We thought that that was the method that was to be used in order to achieve the aim we all have in mind, but it has not yet been put into effect. That might be a major issue. In fact, it has been an issue at many of the by-elections against the nominated candidate of the Government, when, although that candidate has had the support of the three party machines, the people expressed their views in favour of the Independent who wanted a more vigorous and wholehearted prosecution of the war.
  It is said that we must not hold an election in the middle of a war. It is interesting that Northern Ireland has to be introduced into this Bill. But for the fact that Northern Ireland obtained its legislative authority from an Act passed in this House, and but for the fact that this House can alter its mind about past legislation, there would have to be a general election in Northern Ireland next March. Everybody agrees that that would be more difficult and perhaps more undesirable than in any part of the world because of domestic difficulties. That election, however, would have to be held but for the accident that this House can extend the time of the Northern Ireland Parliament. The constitution of this country is elastic and we can alter things from time to time. America is in the war, but elections for Congress will have to be held in a short time. American soldiers and sailors are in various parts of the world, and their views will have to be taken. Should the war continue until 1944 the most stupendous election of any in the world will have to be held in the United States for the choice of President for the following four years. The United States cannot alter their Constitution. They have to face up to these
  840
  matters, and difficulties that may arise during a war do not prevent them. To turn to our own Dominions, Canada has held an election in the middle of the war, Australia has already held one and is threatened with another, and New Zealand has held one. Therefore, the argument that we cannot hold a General Election during the war does not interest me.
  What I am anxious about is that this House should represent the true views of the people of this country. What has been happening during the -last two years? It has been said that the world of 1939 is dead, never to be revived. The right hon. Gentleman himself referred to it in his speech. We are looking forward to a new future. We are all agreed that there must be no more vague promises to youth that is offering its life, promises which are not going to be carried out. I agree that there ought to be an end to clichés and shibboleths and that there ought to be concrete undertakings. All kinds of committees are sitting, and all kinds of reports are coming out. We have had the Barlow Report, the Scott Report and the Uthwatt Report. We are to have in a short while the Beveridge Report. Do the Government propose to implement these reports, or do they propose to leave them until the Greek Kalends with a promise that after the war something will be done? I warn the House that no promise made during a war and not carried out during the war has ever been implemented when the war is over. If you do not put these things into effect now they are mere shibboleths and promises held in front of the very people who are dying for us. I can think of no greater treason or greater crime than to deceive the youth that is offering its life to-day. If we mean to build a new life for them, a new world, it is time we began now. The Government are asking the House to prolong the life of this Parliament for another 12 months. They have not consulted the people as to what they desire. I am afraid that this Bill will be given a Second Reading and that we shall go on for another 12 months. I beg and pray the Government, if they get that extension, to tell the people what they intend to do and undertake to bring in the necessary legislation which will enable us to obtain the opinions of the people wherever they may be. We are fighting the battle of democracy. Then

  841
  let democracy be true unto itself. It cannot be with a stale, old House of Commons.
  Mr. Leslie: Reference has been made to the fact that my party elect elderly men to this House. Why do they elect elderly men? Because of their practical experience in the everyday life of the people. I know from my own experience that it is a big asset to serve an apprenticeship on local authorities, and I wish it were possible for every Member of Parliament to serve an apprenticeship on local authorities before coming to this House to pass Acts which local authorities have to carry out. I did hope that when the Government were considering electoral reform they would pay some attention to the question of proportional representation.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member cannot go into the question of proportional representation. That might be in Order on a question of electoral reform, but it is not in Order upon this Bill.
  Mr. McGovern: I have listened to this Debate in order to find substantial reasons why the life of this Parliament should be prolonged. Reasons both for and against have been given, many of them very sound though there were others which would not hold water. The Bill is one to give not Members of Parliament only in this country but in Northern Ireland freedom from facing the electorates. There are people in this House who might say that those who belong to a minority party might during a war-time election be submerged by an avalanche of action based on unreason; but I am not enthusiastic for this Bill. I realise that it is always the desire of elected people to prevent themselves from having to face those who elect them, and to prolong their lives in so far as they can. It is nothing new for executive bodies, both Parliament and others, to seek to prevent themselves from having to meet their electors. The Bill before us does not, as the Home Secretary points out, rule out the possibility of an election during the time of war, but we all realise that popular opinion in this country, and I am the first to admit it, has been to a large extent behind the Government in this war effort. It may be that the people of the country are wrong in their conception, but the fact is that they believe
  842
  that we are fighting for something real. There are differences of opinion about the methods of carrying on the struggle and about modifying the system during the period of war in order to conform to the propaganda-case made out for a continuation of the war. But if an election is going to be held in this country, certain things will have to happen, because otherwise the election would be a complete farce, and there is nothing worse than giving people the feeling that you are bending to the will of democracy while at the same time, behind the scenes, you are preventing democracy from expressing its mind.
  Before we could have a General Election we should require to have at least two of the parties in this House separating from the Government and agreeing to fight out in that election the policy to be pursued, even though both might be in favour of the war. One party might go to the electors and say they were in favour of utilising to the full the Bill which was brought into the House, as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) reminded us, in May, 1940, promising to take over the land and machinery and instruments of production to conduct the war, but which has never been in the slightest degree put into operation. It might be that a section of the House would go to the electors and say "We are in favour of the war, the war is being fought out and in our estimation for something real—for the survival of freedom and for great ideals and to initiate a new order," and therefore, as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery also said, during the period of war these reforms should be carried out, because otherwise they will never be secured—unless the electors take a hand in a more extreme way. Therefore, an election would require to be based on something real and not a sham.
  Are we to have a "coupon election," in order that the Government may get rid of a few difficult Members in the House? Are we to have the Conservative party, the Labour party, the Liberal party and the Communist party parading this country with banners showing Winston Churchill and Joe. Stalin, and asking the electors to rally round those banners and saying that anybody who does not accept those two leaders should be rejected by the electors? That would be a conspiracy

  843
  against the electors and against democracy that would not be tolerated in any decent society. Such an election would not he an election. Again, if the parties are going to separate, are they to come together again during the war after having denounced one another; and if afterwards they were to come together with a, policy of compromise, that, again, would be the worst form of democracy, because it would prove the unreality of the struggle from which we should just have emerged.
  Then there is the question of evacuees. All those who have been evacuated would have to be given an opportunity to vote—although that is not impossible. Every soldier in this country and every young woman who has been taken into the Forces or into munition work in various parts of the country would also have to be given an opportunity to vote. Next, there is the question of the constituencies. In going around the country I see large housing areas which have been devastated by bombs. Many of them have been reduced to a skeleton. Therefore, we should have to consider whether there was to be a redistribution of some kind in the areas where that had happened. If we were to decide upon having an election many of these questions would have to be dealt with before we could go to the electors. The Home Secretary has admitted that it would not be impossible to hold an election, and, indeed, it is not desirable at all times to prevent an election from being held. Conceivably an election could take place to-day—I do not know—and the minority opinion in this House could be excluded; and it could then happen that in 12 months' time, with a tremendous bombing campaign and the massacre of a second front, that that minority opinion might become the dominant opinion in the House and the country, and might demand that the Government and not the minority should face the electors. During a period of war, reason is not the dominant thing that operates, because we are often fighting on a negative policy. We are not fighting on anything real. The issues are put up by the Press, the politicians and the pulpit. There is always the theory that we are fighting for freedom, democracy, civilisation and Christianity. That has always been stated to the electors, often to lead them to their own destruction. I
  844
  am not discussing whether the issues just now are completely real or not. They are real in the minds of some people' in this country, and that is sufficient. A large number of people in this country believe that they are fighting for something decent in life, and I honour and respect in every way the people who believe it.
  We cannot rule out the possibility of having to face the electors. Therefore, preparations should be made at this stage. You are compelled now to introduce stopgap Bills from year to year, saying that it is undesirable to have an election—that is all you are saying, and you are not saying that it is impossible—to go to the poll, separate and fight one another. In case there should be a clamant demand by the people of this country for an election, you should now be preparing the machinery that will give the democracy the utmost opportunity of voicing its view in a decisive way. That would give us real democracy in this country.
  On the first occasion, we challenged a Division in connection with this legislation, but the House overwhelmingly accepted the point of view that there should not be an election. At that time, the country accepted that view also, to a large extent. We carried the matter to a Division and recorded four or five votes. We were a very small minority. We accepted the position. The hon. Baronet has put forward a suggestion that one-third of the House should retire each year, with the result that in three years you would have a completely new House of Commons. There is nothing real in that suggestion. It means that it would be at least three years before the people of this country all had an opportunity of expressing their minds and that the Prime Minister, the leader of the Labour party, and, if there is a Liberal party, the leader of that party, would issue mandates asking for the support of their nominees. All the machinery of the parties would be turned against those who might really be the best candidates because they refused to accept the Nazi discipline which would order the people of this country into a herd to elect a gang of "Yes" men, to support the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member must not discuss the Motion which is on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland).
  Mr. McGovern: I will accept any restrictions you like to impose. I am only trying to answer the hon. Baronet's point whether or not there should be an election and am trying to say that his suggestion was not a substantial argument for the holding of an election. It could give a completely false picture. The issues would be put to the electors by those who have the executive authority in the country, and not only by the representatives in this House. They can go on feeding them from the Ministry of Information, the Press and the B.B.C., with completely falsified statements in order to justify themselves remaining in authority. While the electors are being lied to, they are not getting the fair picture which would give them the democratic right to select Members of Parliament.
  Therefore I say that during the time of war the issues are not real, especially when you have a combination of political parties. The desire of those who get to the Front Bench is to remain there. It does not follow that the aims of the electors' and those of the Executive are in common. The desire of the electors is to win the war in the shortest possible time and to preserve peace in society, including the various opportunities they wish for expressing themselves. The conception of the Government may be: "How are we to prevent the electors knowing the real position, in order to go on maintaining ourselves on the Front Bench?" During normal times there is a greater opportunity. There is a keen fight waged in the constituencies as to whether you are to preserve the state of things or to transform life in some fundamental way. In my estimation that is the basis of the real political struggle, but unless we get all the points I have mentioned satisfied, it becomes an unreal struggle. All that happens during war-time is that, under the guise of national necessity, the desire of the Executive is asserted to exclude the minority opinions of people who cannot be dragooned, and to give a coupon to those who accept existing institutions. Unless those conditions are fulfilled, there is no case at the present time for a General Election, which would be a fraud and a sham on the people of this country.
  I pass to the question of Northern Ireland. It surprises me that there is a parallel in the Bill between Northern
  846
  Ireland and this country. There is no conscription to-day in Northern Ireland and no national government. I realise the difficulties of having a national government in Northern Ireland but if democracy is functioning in Northern Ireland there is a greater case for a General Election than in this country, particularly because of the fact that the Government in power in Northern Ireland have lost every by-election since the last General Election.
  Major Sir Ronald Ross: That is not true. The hon. Member should look into his case properly. It has not lost all the by-elections. A number of the by-elections were even unopposed because nobody could be found to oppose the Unionist candidates.
  Mr. McGovern: That may be a good debating point outside, but not in the House of Commons. The hon. and gallant Member knows that we are talking about contested elections, which is a different thing. The Government have lost all the contested by-elections.
  Professor Savory: Only two.
  Sir R. Ross: The Government lost only two.
  Mr. McGovern: Including the one for the Prime Minister.
  Sir R. Ross: It was won by a Unionist man.
  Mr. McGovern: Will hon. Members give me an opportunity to complete the point?
  Sir R. Ross: The hon. Member must be accurate.
  Mr. McGovern: I am trying to be accurate.
  Sir R. Ross: The hon. Member is not very successful.
  Mr. McGovern: I met some Conservatives from Northern Ireland, and among them were some who were discontented with their representation in this House. I was asked to meet a number of Conservatives, and I felt I was in for a hot time. I had a very pleasant time, because I sat and listened to them fighting about the Government. There was only one Member of this House at a lunch of seven or eight people who supported the Government. I met a large number of members of the Council, including the Lord Mayor

  847
  of Belfast, and I never heard such denunciation. Everyone of them believed there should be a General Election to clear out the old gang, who were said to have misused their power in Northern Ireland. Do not let us have any humbug. The people who are urging a General Election in Northern Ireland are not Nationalists or Labour people but Conservatives. I was asked by the Lord Mayor and a large number of Conservative members of the City Council to voice their opposition to a continuance of the Northern Ireland Parliament when the Bill came before this House. They say that there is as near Nazi dictatorship in Belfast as in any part of the world. They are demanding that this old gang should face the electorate. There is an uprising in Northern Ireland of people in the Unionist party who believe that this old gang has come along for its own ends at election times and hammered the big drum and confused all the issues with ignorance and prejudice for its own ends. They say that this should be ended.
  There was this spectacle in Belfast of putting in, against the will of the City Council, Commissioners to run the city and take complete power out of the hands of the elected persons, against the wish of all parties and all individuals, including the tremendous majority of opinion in the City Council. They objected to the Government putting in Commissioners, because they said the Northern Ireland Government was the most corrupt public body there was in any part of the country. I listened to a two days' Debate among Conservatives on the point in Stormont. I went to Northern Ireland wishing to know what was happening. I had some difficulty originally, but latterly, through the toleration of the Home Secretary, I was allowed to go. I was prepared to meet everyone who had a point of view and discuss it with him. Although I hold my own opinions strongly, I am not intolerant, and I will have a cup of tea with any man and discuss with him his point of view, especially, as a Scotsman, if he supplies the tea. I say there is this demand in Northern Ireland for a General Election. One or two Labour people I met said that they were no party to the agreement for the suspension of elections in Northern Ireland. They want—and this is the strongest point they make, and with which I disagree—a
  848
  National Government to be formed. I was rather suspicious that some of them were more anxious for a position in the Government than that democracy should function. Therefore, I am not voicing that point too strongly.
  I will only say that I recognise all the difficulties in Northern Ireland and that I am not putting up the case for the Nationalist members or the Labour minority. I am putting up the case made by the strongest party in Northern Ireland that the Government of Northern Ireland have forfeited the confidence of the people of Northern Ireland. While the members of this party would still maintain this minority body, would maintain a desire for a British union, and would maintain the desire for a separate Northern Ireland Parliament—I am not denying that—at the same time they say that vested interests in Northern Ireland are using the electors and have tricked the electors, and that the electors wish to voice their opposition. They claim that they have the men who could become an alternative Government of Independents, who could come together in Northern Ireland. I saw the Stormont Parliament in operation. If the operation of this Parliament was of. the same kind democracy would The in a short time and would deserve to do so. Any Member who likes to reply may do so, as I am not making wild suggestions but am stating the claim of a great majority of the Belfast City Council, who are Unionist business people, and others I met, including doctors and lawyers, who were all Unionists, who said, "In your British Parliament voice your opposition to the continuance of the Parliamentary life of these people who have so misled the nation and Northern Ireland, and are leading Northern Ireland almost to a process of democratic destruction."
  The Government in this country have at least the political support of the people of this country, no matter what they get in the coming year. In Northern Ireland they have forfeited that support, and I say in relation to this Measure that they should fulfil in Northern Ireland the same test as do the Government in this country. The Northern Ireland Government should be sent to the electors. In this country before the Government go to the electors there should be some machinery for giving democracy an opportunity to function.

  849
  I also consider that it is high time that in this House Scotland had a greater voice in its destiny than it is getting to-day. Scotland should not be tied to the coat tails of England all the time, not being able to decide how Scotland is to function electorally. The Secretary of State for Scotland ought by now to be getting from the Government powers, if he has not already got them, to convene the Members of Parliament for Scotland to devise ways and means whereby Scotland will get democratic expression in the future, and get the views of democracy in the clearest way possible. I am a believer in real and not sham democracy. If real democracy is put into operation in this country, it should command the support of every right-thinking man and woman throughout the country.
  Major Sir Ronald Ross: I have listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern). It differed in some respects from what I had expected. It was, if I may say so, a very reasonable speech, and a speech founded on some personal contact with the affairs of Northern Ireland quite recently. But the hon. Membere has fallen into a trap. There has recently been a violent conflict between the City Council of Belfast and the Northern Government, a conflict which I am often profoundly thankful does not in any way affect me as representing an entirely different part of Ulster. In the course of that conflict the Northern Government have said to the City Council exactly the same things as the Council has said about the Northern Government to the hon. Member for Shettleston. The Northern Government came to the conclusion that the Council was not doing its job. Now in reprisal the City Council has got a powerful advocate in the hon. Member. He has put their point of view to this House. I think a discussion as to the opinion, of the citizens of Belfast of one another is possibly a matter which might be considered to be out of Order on this Bill, but I am merely informing hon. Members that the hon. Member who has just spoken gave a very honest point of view of some members of the City Council, who feel rather sore at the Government of Northern Ireland having considered them to be unfit for their jobs.
  I am not expressing an opinion one way or the other, because I should hate
  850
  to be involved in any such controversy. One remark which the hon. Member made surprised me very much. He said, almost as a taunt, that there was no conscription in Northern Ireland. That is partly his fault. Not only did I speak in favour of conscription in Northern Ireland, but I voted and told against my own side in favour of conscription in Northern Ireland, which looks as if I were less subject to the dragooning of the Whips than I ought to be. In fact, Ulster was the only place represented in this House whose Members at that time did not cast a single vote against the conscription of their electors. In England, Scotland, and Wales, there were- Members who felt, quite sincerely, that conscription for National Service was unnecessary, and who, therefore, voted against it. We were voted down, and now some people are inclined to taunt us because we did not get our way.
  Mr. McGovern: I did not mean to do that.
  Sir R. Ross: I do not think the hon. Member did. That has a distinct bearing on this question. It is bad enough that the soldier in the Libyan desert should be unable to take part in the government of the country, by electing Members to this House; but it is notorious that in Northern Ireland there is one party at present, represented by the Government of Northern Ireland, which stands behind the Government and people of Great Britain in the prosecution of the war, and another, the principal Opposition party, whose main plank is to join a neutral country. As voluntary service is the rule in Ulster, it happens that, with very few exceptions, only people of one point of view enlist and are sent away. In this country people of all parties are called up, the only considerations being age and the rules in force for National Service. In Northern Ireland, with voluntary enlistment, you naturally get in the Services a great predominance of people of one particular point of view, those whom we call the loyal men—the others, I think, call themselves the patriots—joining up. To hold an election in Northern Ireland would be far worse than to hold one here. It would deprive volunteers who are serving of their civic rights because they are fighting for their country, just as a large number of my constituents are doing, headed by the man who was

  851
  Mayor at the beginning of the war. That is a situation peculiar to Northern Ireland.
  As regards the charge that the Northern Ireland Government is grossly unpopular and does not represent the opinion of the people, I think criticism of Governments is customary in war. Everybody has a bad time, and the people like to blame somebody. A good deal of criticism has been levelled against the Government of Northern Ireland, but they have lost only two by-elections in the whole period, and in one case the successful candidate claimed to be as good a Unionist as his opponent, but an independent one, while in the other case I do not think there was anything in the election address of the successful candidate which was contrary to the main principle of Unionism. We must remember that we are speaking of a Parliament elected two years after this Parliament. If we give this Bill a Second Reading and do not apply it to the far more recently elected Parliament it will be another case of injustice. To my mind, there can be no justification for making a distinction between the two Parliaments, and any factors which are peculiar to Northern Ireland rather strengthen the case for prolonging the Northern Ireland Parliament's life.
  Mr. Tinker: I realise that, for three reasons, we cannot very well have a General Election now. In the first place, it would be very difficult to get a fair indication of the electors' opinions, owing to their being scattered and to there being no complete Register. Secondly, a real election would take so much preparation that it would divert a lot of work from the war effort. Thirdly, an election would bring so much bitterness that the war effort would be, to some extent, neglected. Is it fair that we should establish ourselves as the sole arbiters of whether we should be here or not? Are we to put ourselves back into what everybody regards as a respectable and well-paid job? We are the final deciding body, and I am prepared to say to the people, "I have voted myself back because I could see no other course open at the moment." If I felt that there was any feeling in the country against the war effort, or against the conduct of the war, I should say, in spite of everything else, that there should be an election. If I thought that 40 or
  852
  50 per cent. of the people wanted a change in the direction of the war, in any way, I should say that, whatever the consequences, we must get the opinion of the people. But none of the Members who have been returned in by-elections recently has been opposed to the war effort. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. Brown), if I may mention him, came here as an all-out supporter of the war effort, and every other Member who has been returned in a by-election has had a similar policy; so there is no question as to what the people want.
  If there was an election the decision would be in favour of the war effort, but there would be a radical change in the constitution of the House, from the party aspect. I may be egotistical, but I believe that the Labour Party would come back in a majority, supporting the war effort, however, and social reform. Because of that fact, I want the overwhelming Conservative majority to realise that they are in a favoured position. They comprise between 60 and 70 per cent. of the House of Commons, but that does not say that they represent the feeling in the country on social reform. Therefore, while we are occupying this position in the House of Commons, I want us to be a sort of Council of State and to get away from party lines and to ask ourselves what the country wants, and what the country is anxious about apart from the war effort. Is there any kind of social reform that it wants? I put it to Members opposite that they are not playing fair with Members on this side of the House with regard to the question of social reform. If they are to keep Parliament as it is at present constituted and want the good-will of Members on our side as well as of the country itself, it is as well to realise the feeling in the country. One of the points that is agitating the mind of the country at the present time is that of workmen's compensation, which, had there not been a war, would have had to have been dealt with.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): There has been a Ruling given by the Chair that these matters should not be the subject of discussion on this Bill.
  Mr. Tinker: One has to try and define the reason why there should be no election, and we have to put these matters to the other side, as we feel that the majority ought to help us in our difficulties. When

  853
  we go before our own people they want to know why we are not to have a general election. That is why I was illustrating one or two features which I thought were germain to the question of what the House of Commons ought to do in constituting itself a sort of Council of State.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I recognise the difficulties of the hon. Member, but I think he will realise that, if I allowed him to discuss that matter, there would simply be no limit whatever as to what could be discussed in this Debate. I am afraid that he must reserve those details for his defence before his own constituency.
  Mr. Tinker: I know how difficult it is in a Measure of this sort to bring in other matters which are not actually dealt with in the Bill, but I feel that it is an opportunity when one ought to try and stress the difficulties. If I am outside your Ruling. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I will leave it at that, but I can see no sound objection at this moment why we' should not agree to this Bill.
  Mr. George Griffiths: On a point of Order. Mr. Deputy-Speaker. We bow to your Ruling, Sir, but surely a Member can express the reason why he desires Parliament to be lengthened. I am afraid that if I got up I should be out of Order a dozen times.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Then I can only hope that the hon. Member will not get up. The unfortunate part of it is that the Chair is given a certain responsibility to make the Debate a really practicable one and to confine it to the real issue before the House, and I am afraid the decision of the Chair on these matters must be accepted.
  Mr. Griffiths: It is possible in this world that even the Chair may possibly be slightly mistaken sometimes.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have not the least doubt that that is so. If the Chair makes a mistake, the House is usually very good to the occupant of the Chair. We are all human, and we all make mistakes, but I am afraid the Rulings that are given must be accepted and not debated.
  Mr. Tinker: I was saying that I could see no sound objection to this Bill at a
  854
  time like the present. I have some doubt as to whether we are doing the proper thing in regard to Northern Ireland. We are putting it to Northern Ireland that there are certain things to do, and I question whether we ought to take that right upon ourselves. The hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) has come back from Northern Ireland and has told us that the view of the people of Northern Ireland themselves is that they want a General Election. If that is their view, they ought to have full power to decide. Apart from that point, if there is a Division I shall go into the Lobby in support of the Government.
  Mr. William Brown: I rise to oppose the Bill and to state the grounds upon which I think the Bill is wrong and ought to be rejected by the House of Commons. The case which the Home Secretary made out for extending the life of the present Parliament consisted almost entirely of a recital of the mechanical difficulties of holding a general election in war time. I do not deny that there are substantial difficulties in the way of holding an election at this time. But I believe that there are ways and means of overcoming these difficulties. I see no reason at all why we must conduct an election on an out-of-date Register. It would be perfectly proper for this House to direct that we should have an election on a different basis, such as has been mentioned in this Debate, for example, on Food Cards, Identity Cards and so on. Neither do I agree that there would be any considerable waste in man-power. If we want to run an election with a very small expenditure of man-power, we can do it by utilising the local post offices. There is a post office in pretty well every town and village in this country, and if the election was spread over a period of two or three days, there are no mechanical or man-power difficulties in the way of holding an election if we want to do so. There is a difficulty about the Armed Forces, but I would remind the House that that difficulty will exist whenever we hold an election, unless the election is so far postponed after the end of the war that demobilisation will have been completed. I do not know whether I am right or wrong here, but I cannot see anything like a complete demobilisation of the British Army for a long period of years after the war comes to an end. If the

  855
  Home Secretary's case is sound on that point he is really pleading for a postponement of a General Election to the far-off, dim, and speculative future. But granted that there are mechanical difficulties the question that the House has to ask itself is:
  Is this Parliament so completely representative of the British people that, without any sort of change, it should vote itself into another year of office here? Or is it so unrepresentative of the British people that, whatever mechanical difficulties may be put in the way of holding an election, we ought to try to overcome those difficulties in the interests of securing a more representative Parliament to-day? I ask myself that question, and I have no hesitation whatever in giving the answer. It is that this House is so unrepresentative at the present time that it ought to stop at nothing in the way of overcoming mechanical difficulties in order to give us a fresh Parliament. That is my answer to that question, and because that is my answer I shall vote in the sense that I have indicated.
  Why do I argue that this House is so unrepresentative? There are several reasons. In the first place, it was elected in 1935, eight years ago. In the second place, it was never elected for the purpose of conducting a war. It was elected for the purpose of maintaining peace, and was ill-adapted for winning a war. Thirdly, the House, I argue, was elected" under false pretences, in the strict and literal sense of those words. I mean by that, that the programme of the Government in 1935, on which the election was fought, was a programme which had no relation to the subsequent policy of the Government that secured the majority. I have a vivid recollection of that 1935 election. I wondered what had happened to the Conservative party that marched as champion of the League of Nations, and the advocate of restraint on aggressor States. They sought the suffrages of Britain on that basis, and on that basis those suffrages were given to it. Having secured their majority, they went back on every major item in their election programme, and I say that in the strict sense of the word, the majority of Members of this House of Commons have been elected under false pretences and ought not to be occupying their places to-day.
  856
  The next reason why I hold the House to be so unrepresentative is that the Government's mandate, obtained by false pretences, expired in 1940, since when they have extended their life-time year by year without so much as the by-your-leave of the electorate. Another reason why I hold the Government to be unrepresentative is that under the party truce most of the by-elections which have occurred through the natural processes of death have been filled without elections by persons selected in the back-rooms of the party caucuses and imposed on constituents by private arrangement. I think there have been about 60 unopposed returns to this House in the last few years. In those circumstances the electors have had no say whatever.
  Finally, I want to add to the point made a little earlier in the Debate by the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland), who, I notice, did not include me among those by-election candidates who met with his approval. However, I give him my approval. He said that during the last 12 months there has been a great change in the outlook and spirit in constituencies, as, indeed, has been evidenced by the return of such independent candidates as my hon. Friends the Members for Maldon (Mr. Driberg), Wallasey (Mr. Reakes) and others., He said that there was now a great volume of opinion in the country which desired Parliamentary change. I go further. I say there is a political and spiritual revolution growing in Britain at the present time, and I say that that revolution does not, and cannot, find its expression through the organised parties in this House. It is finding two new means of expression in Britain to-day. One is by the support of independents at by-elections and the second is by such things as that which occurred last Saturday, when 40,000 Englishmen were unable to get into the Albert Hall to attend a meeting. They did not want to go in to support the Government. They wanted to go in to indicate the gap which existed between Governmental outlook, and spiritual and social necessity, in Britain. In those things you have clear evidence of the unrepresentative character of this House, at the present time.
  Now I want to give a positive reason why we should have an election. I want an election in Britain to destroy the political truce. I hope that is categorical

  857
  enough. That is the answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Preston (Captain R. Churchill), who asked what issue there was to put to the people of Britain. This is the issue I want to put to the people of Britain. Do you, the electorate, believe you can win this war on the basis of a political truce between the two Front Benches which precludes a radical solution of every problem which will be thrown up in the course of this war? I affirm that the political truce is the biggest single political liability in the way of winning this war that exists in Britain to-day, and I want to destroy it. War is the total crisis of a community. Within the total crisis that war represents, war precipitates a series of particular crises. One day it is Man-Power. Another day it is Coal. A third day it is Production for the war. A fourth day it is Finance, A fifth day it is something else, and so on—a series of particular crises within the ambit of the total crisis of war. Now, the prospect of resolving the total crisis of war, depends upon being able to solve the particular crises that occur within the ambit of the bigger crisis, and I say that the continuance of the political truce in Britain precludes the radical solution of anyone of these problems.
  Let us be blunt about it. It is time somebody used blunt language about it here. What is the political truce? It is not only an electoral deal—and that is bad enough—it is something more. The Conservatives say to the Labour men, "Boys, we will not touch your trade union racket," and the Labour men say to the Tories, "Thank you very much. We assure you that we will not hurt the interests of privilege and profit more than we can help." Every problem that arises in this House has to be dealt with within the ambit of that deal between the two sides.
  Mr. Cluse: What about the hon. Member's own union racket?
  Mr. Brown: If the hon. Gentleman will accept the general description that I have applied to this set-up, he can say what he likes about my union, and I will be content. That is not what matters. What matters is that we want to win this war, and I say that the existence of such a joint set-up is an impediment to winning this war, and that Britain would be
  858
  healthier politically if we were to revert to open political warfare. If anybody asserts that this is a representative House, let me ask him one question. Does he believe that if there were an election to-morrow, there would be 460 Conservative Members returned to the House? If any hon. Member believes that, I assert that he is living in cloud-cuckoo land. If one thing is utterly certain, it is that if there were an election there would be a vastly smaller number of Conservative Members returned than we have here to-day.
  Mr. Liddall: That is the hon. Member's idea.
  Mr. Brown: That is my view, and I am expressing it. I never pretended to represent the views of the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall).
  Mr. Liddall: Or my constituency.
  Mr. Brown: Or the hon. Member's constituency. If they tolerate the hon. Member, obviously I could never hope to speak for his constituency. I am making what I conceive to be a serious point, that this House is unrepresentative of feeling in the country at the present time. I will not argue whether the Labour party would come back with a majority. I feel, rightly or wrongly, that one of the features of that election would be the return of a very substantial number of Independent Members. Whatever else is clear, it is clear that if we had an election we would have a very different House of Commons from that which we have to-day, and if that be true, it follows that this is an unrepresentative House.
  The last question I want to put is this. Is it so far unrepresentative, granted that it is unrepresentative, that all the difficulties and possible dangers of a General Election ought to be faced rather than allow the House to go on? My answer, again, is, Yes. We have been told by one hon. Member that' the credit of the House it not high in the country. We have been told in the Press recently that the credit of democratic Parliamentary institutions in Britain is not high, and only a few days ago we were lectured, I think unjustly on that occasion, as to the effect on Parliamentary institutions of the collapse of the War Debate. I do not believe that the sort of incident that happened the other day indicates any weakening of faith in democratic Parliamentary institutions. I am a firm believer in

  859
  democratic Parliamentary institutions, and I believe that Britain is, but if there is a danger to democratic Parliamentary institutions in Britain to-day, the explanation is not that the country is tired of Parliament; it is that it is tired of this Parliament, which is quite a different proposition. In the last decade and a half we have watched the collapse of Parliamentary institutions over pretty well the whole of Europe. I shall not attempt to analyse the reasons for that breakdown, but I assert that one element in the breakdown has been that Parliaments allowed a gap to develop between them and the people they represented which ultimately became too big to be bridged. I see many signs in England, not that England is tired of Parliamentary institutions, but that it does desire the opportunity of getting a more representative House than it has got.
  I agree wholeheartedly with those hon. Members who, earlier in the Debate, said that if this is a revolutionary war—and it is—we cannot win through in a revolutionary war while we try to strangle the social and spiritual revolution inside our own country. We must allow that revolution to work itself out in Britain now, and not after the war is over, and in proportion as we do that; we shall generate the social and spiritual dynamic which is necessary to win the war, and which in my opinion is frustrated by the character of the present Parliament, and the immoral political truce, which provides, as the hon. and gallant Member for Preston (Captain Churchill) said, the basis of the structure of the Government. For these reasons, I hope there will be a Division on the Bill. If there is a Division, I shall vote against the Bill, because I believe it is more important that we should represent Britain than that we should individually prolong our life in this Parliament, which is of a wholly unrepresentative character.
  Mr. Reakes: On a point of Order. In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary is due to address hon. Members on the question of Police Administration in a short time, may we be advised as to the procedure which is likely to follow during the rest of the Debate?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have no information on the Home Secretary's
  860
  engagements outside this Chamber, and I do not think it is my duty to inquire about them.
  Dr. Haden Guest: I feel a great deal of sympathy with the spirit of the speech of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Brown), but I do not agree that the desirable end of revivifying the House would necessarily be attained by having a General Election at this time. What is wrong with Parliament at the present time—and there are a good many things wrong with Parliament—is that it has lost its goal. It is quite true that Parliament has not the respect of the people that it had some while ago, but that is the fault of this Parliament, and it is a fault which this Parliament should correct before it goes to the country. The parties in the country are very badly organised at the present time. The hon. Member for Rugby may think that the organisation of the Independents is so strong that they would be able to put up a large number of candidates and bring new blood into the House. If I thought that I should almost be inclined to support the hon. Member; but I do not think that.
  If there were a General Election in present circumstances, with the parties joined together in a kind of coalition mush, one would find, in fact, that another House elected after that election would be very much the same as this House; the average age might even be older, and the average intelligence quotient might even be less—I hope not, but it might happen. There is no special reason for thinking that a General Election of this time, under the circumstances of a coalition Government, would give a new House with the virility which the House of Commons ought to have. It is the Members themselves who are responsible. For instance, take the incident the other day, when the Debate on the Prime Minister's war statement collapsed after only four hon. Members had spoken. I happened to be one of those four Members. But what happened? That Debate was being treated with disrespect by all -concerned. The Prime Minister made a speech which was, very unusually, a dull speech. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] One hon. Member says it was a boring speech. He can make his own speech and use that word if he wishes.

  861
  It was, for the Prime Minister, a dull speech, and a good many left while he was speaking. The Leader of the Labour party got up to reply, and the Prime Minister did not wait until the end of his speech but left the House, treating the House with contempt. The Prime Minister treats the House with contempt. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Members will not like that, but it is perfectly well known, whatever the Prime Minister's virtues, that he does not like listening to other people's speeches. He prefers to make speeches himself and, when he has waited for a short time for any reply there may be, he leaves the Chamber. In my view, for the Prime Minister not to wait until the end of the first speech from these benches is treating the House with contempt. In those circumstances what can you expect to happen? I have been going about the country a great deal, and I agree that the House has lost much of its prestige. The other day a very distinguished university man asked me what was the matter with the House. He said, "What is the matter with your Prime Minister? You are dominated and hypnotised by him. No one will stand up to him." He said that in the opinion of his university—a very important one indeed—the House was becoming all too like the German Reichstag, too much of a chorus to the Prime Minister and not a meeting of free men exchanging opinions.
  I think that we ought to pass this Bill and prolong the life of Parliament for a time in order that we may get back to the realities of Parliamentary government. I entirely agree that we ought to get away from the Coalition. I am speaking entirely for myself, but I hope that my party will withdraw from the Government and constitute themselves an Opposition and then have a clear-cut Parliamentary government, which ought to be conducted by His Majesty's Government and His Majesty's Opposition. It is only if you have an Opposition selecting matters for Debate and debating matters of crucial importance and giving clear-cut decisions, instead of attempting to avoid them, that you will get back to the realities of Parliamentary government. It is from Government and Opposition that the great traditions of Parliament have arisen. I am speaking as a very ordinary Member, and I speak because those who are in a position of power and authority do not have the courage to face these
  862
  facts. Take as an example, the Motion on the Order Paper approving the Prime Minister's recent statement upon India. That involves a clear-cut division of opinion, which I and many of my Friends hope will be brought to a vote, because it is a clear-cut division between the Tory Imperialism of that speech of the Prime Minister and the democratic commonwealthism which we hold as our view on this side. I understand that some of those who put their names to it desire to run away from it and to have a compromise suggestion brought forward which would obscure the issue and pretend that there is no difference between us and Members opposite, when there is a vital difference which ought to come out into the realities of Debate. Until this Parliament can get away from this Coalition pretence of agreement where no agreement exists, back to the normal form of Parliamentary government by Government and Opposition, we shall not get on as well as we ought to do.
  This is the only Coalition Government in the Empire. There would be no difficulty in getting the full support of the House in the prosecution of the war if we had a Government on that side and a real Opposition on this, and there would be a better opportunity of getting a clear-cut view of what the situation really was. If there had been an Opposition on this side, should we up to this moment have been deprived of information on the tragic series of disasters—Shanghai, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaya, Burma and Tobruk? Why should we be refused information on these matters when information exists? Would it not be better for the conduct of the war if we had these matters discussed openly, instead of behind doors in committee rooms, and sometimes in Secret Sessions? We are deluding ourselves, and in a sense deluding the people—though the people are getting less to believe what is said in the House than they were in the past—by pretending to have an agreement on fundamentals when in fact no such agreement exists. Work together for the war and to prosecute it to the utmost of our ability. Yes, and the way to do that is to have Government and Opposition working together in the normal Parliamentary way. I do not believe it would be good or expedient to have a General Election, not because of the mechanical difficulties, but because this

  863
  House has lost its vigour. But first get back to the vigour of Government and Opposition and free criticism and get rid of the sickening adulation of the Prime Minister's oratory, of which many of us are getting heartily tired. Let the Prime Minister come down to the level of speaking like an ordinary human being instead of an oracle, and we shall find ourselves in a much better condition. Let us by our vote prolong the life of this Parliament in order that we may get back more vitality to our Debates and then appeal to the country.
  Mr. Driberg: I was much impressed by the ability with which the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. Brown) showed how unrepresentative of the people this House of Commons now is. Of course, from his point of view the unfortunate thing is that, the more cogently and the more eloquently he proved his case that the House is unrepresentative, and that if there were a General Election now it would never be returned with such an overwhelming preponderance of Conservatives, the more certain he made it that the Conservative Party would never allow a General Election. I know, as do many others who go about the country and talk to ordinary people, that this House does not represent the true feelings of the people at this time. It is true that probably every point of view among the people is represented here, and I must, as a newcomer, pay tribute to the fairness with which every point of view is allowed to be heard, but the House is certainly not proportionately representative of the people of the country.
  There are undoubtedly strong reasons, as the right hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate emphasised, against having a General Election at this time, but I am rather sorry that the right hon. Gentleman saw fit to use the argument from enemy propaganda. That is now a discredited way of discrediting an opponent.
  Mr. H. Morrison: I do not think I used that as an argument, certainly not unduly. If I may use journalistic language, I merely treated it as news.
  Mr. Driberg: Or perhaps as an illustration. Enemy propaganda, however, is like the Bible, in one way only. You can always find something in it to justify
  864
  any argument. If I may be allowed a personal reference, I am glad to be able to say that the enemy radio propaganda comments on the recent by-election at Maldon stressed the view that I was by no means an altogether satisfactory candidate and that they would not have voted for me if they had been there.
  The House is not wholly representative, but it has in a gradual and limited way been renewing itself from time to time through the natural process of by-elections. It will continue so to renew itself. If the observation is not in poor taste, perhaps I may say that I expect there will be a number of by-elections during the coming cold winter which the Ministry of Fuel and Power has guaranteed to those of us who live in small houses. If a General Election is impossible or is not allowed, we can at least see that these by-elections should within their limits be allowed to reflect as fully as possible the feeling of the people. There are several simple mechanical reforms which would enable by-election results to reflect such feeling more accurately.
  In my own recent experience—and other Members have had the same experience—it was found that there are, broadly speaking, four classes of people who are at present, in effect, disfranchised.
  There are, first, the factory workers whose hours of work, night shifts, and so on, and means of transport sometimes by buses direct from their scattered homes to inside their factories and back again, make it impossible for them to attend the polling booths. There are, secondly, the Armed Forces. It is true that if they are in this country they are able to register as absent voters by a process so extraordinarily complicated that very few hundreds of them have been able to see their way to do it in the last few months. In passing, may I say I was not impressed by the argument against a General Election, advanced by one or two hon. Members, that some of the best people who are now serving in the Forces would not be able to stand for Parliament? There was a by-election recently at Salisbury, and the official Government candidate, now happily among us, was brought back speedily and easily from his military duties in the Middle East in order to fight the election.
  Captain R. Churchill: What I said was that many of the best men whom we would like to see in this House would not wish to stand because they are more interested in what they are doing.
  Mr. Driberg: I believe that many men and women of all ranks in the Forces, not only officers, who could make valuable contributions to our counsels, would feel that this form of national service should take priority over all other forms of service. I am not particularly impressed by that argument against a General Election, but, to resume my point, the Forces should be enabled to vote more easily in by-elections.
  The third disfranchised class are the evacuees and the people who have been sent away to war work at a distance from their homes. They are not allowed to register as absent voters. That point could easily be put right. The fourth disfranchised class are the young people. Nobody under 24 is now able to vote in this nation where adult suffrage is supposed to be in force. If these four classes of people could be re-franchised there would at least be some chance that this House, by the gradual and limited process of renewal through by-elections, would receive more and more representatives of the new line of thought that is forming in the country. This is only a compromise solution. It does not envisage such a complete revitalisation as a General Election should provide. If, however, a General Election is not allowed, I suggest that this method would do something towards restoring to the electors their primary function, which is, of course, to elect and not merely to assent dumbly to the pushing into Parliament of the nominee of a party caucus.
  Mr. Stokes: I want to bring the House back to what the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) said. I profoundly disagree with what he said about the methods that should be adopted towards our present enemies when the war ends. That had nothing to do with the Debate, however, and I only want to put it on record. The hon. and gallant Member made an appeal to the Home Secretary that an assurance should be given that if hostilities ceased before the ensuing 12 months came to an end every consideration and opportunity should be given to the members of the fighting Forces to
  866
  be able to register their votes in numbers on the main issues under discussion. I, like the rest of the House, naturally hope that he has his hope and that the war comes to a conclusion before 12 months has elasped. I want to get a promise out of the Home Secretary of rather a different nature. He very kindly in the course of an interjection was decent enough to say that he was not going to alter the constitution and prevent a General Election in war-time in any circumstances whatever. We are grateful to him for that.
  Mr. H. Morrison: I am always reasonable.
  Mr. Stokes: It is possible that the war will go on for a very long time. What assurance have we from the Government that, if we renew the life of this Parliament, any real steps are being taken to make it possible for a General Election to take place at an early date if the country so desires? It is no use saying that the machinery cannot be devised. A committee has been sitting for some time, and I am not sure that one of its Members did not tell me that the report had gone to the Home Secretary. Cannot the Home Secretary tell us what is the recommendation of that committee, make a categorical statement as to the arrangements that will be made, and state definitely that arrangements are so far in hand that should the people desire it a General Election is possible? In the absence of such an assurance from the Government, I, and I believe some of my friends, will vote against a renewal of this Parliament as a protest if there is a Division.
  Sir H. O'Neill: I am a member of that committee. The report has not yet gone in, but it will be presented very shortly.
  Mr. Stokes: I am very much obliged to my right hon. Friend. I do not want to detain the House by going over the many reasons which have already been given why this Parliament should not go on. I agree to a very large extent with the reasons given why we should let it the a natural death now. I agree with the point of view that it is to a very large extent unrepresentative of the people. I do not want to waste time in examining and analysing the House as it now is, but I think one point has been missed. We have heard a lot about the number of people who are in the Government—the

  867
  Parliamentary Secretaries and Private Secretaries of Parliamentary Secretaries and all the rest of them, who run into several hundreds, and have heard much about Members who have been nominated and not really elected, and mention has also been made of Members who are on active service with the Armed Forces. But there is a pernicious habit which the Prime Minister has established which in my view, and in the view of many others, ought to be stopped, and that is that when it has been found desirable to make changes in the Ministry the Ministers dispensed with do not as a whole come back into this House and become critics of the Government. Oh, no! The Prime Minister does not like criticism, and so they are fobbed off with jobs overseas, put into nice comfortable positions with large salaries. To my mind that is one of the things which has led to the weakness of the opposition and criticism in this House at the present time, and it is not in the national interest. As somebody has said, we are practically reduced to a rubber-stamp Reichstag, with the Prime Minister as dictator.
  A great deal of this Debate wandered on to the ground of Northern Ireland. I reserve for another day, I hope, the remarks I wish to make to some of my Northern Ireland friends on what has been going on over there, but I would enforce what the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) said, that, so far as I can understand from my contacts in Northern Ireland, the majority of the people there would like a General Election. They are sick to death of their present Government and consider it to be a complete fake and a ramp, if the truth were told. About some of the abominable things that that Government does I shall speak on some other day. Mr. Speaker, if I can catch your eye, because some of us feel very strongly about the conditions prevailing there. When I was listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Shettleston and the speech of an hon. and gallant Member for one of the Northern Ireland constituencies the reflection passed through my mind that if we could get rid of Northern Ireland by handing it over to the people to whom it naturally belongs and give Scotland to the Scottish Nationalists perhaps we might get Home Rule for England as a change. I will not
  868
  detain the House longer, but I would emphasise that it seems ridiculous that any reasonable Member of this House should say that a General Election is impossible in time of war. Really! The Home Secretary would not put up with that for one instant if he were sitting on these benches, facing the Government.
  Mr. H. Morrison: The hon. Member is getting indignant about something which I did not say. I did not say that a General Election was impossible in time of war.
  Mr. Stokes: I never said the right hon. Gentleman did say so.
  Mr. Morrison: The hon. Member gets indignant with the allegation that a General Election is impossible in time of war and said that if I were sitting over there I should be just as wild as he is if that view were put forward. I did not say it, and therefore I should not be as wild as he is.
  Mr. Stokes: I am not interested in conducting an argument with my right hon. Friend as to whether he can get wilder than I can. I should be prepared to take him on any day he likes. Nor did I say that he said that a General Election was impossible. I said that no reasonable Member ought to think that a General Election was impossible, and at the beginning of my speech I paid him the compliment of saying that he was decent enough to say that he was not going to interfere with the Constitution to the extent of preventing us from having a General Election if we wished. I do not know why he should want to put words into my mouth or be so touchy and sensitive when I want to maintain friendly relations with him.
  What I wish to emphasise is that if it is possible to have a General Election in Canada, in Australia and in New Zealand, and if it is going to be possible to have one in America, it is nonsense to say that we should sit down and vote ourselves to continue here for ever and ever amen, because it is convenient and comfortable to do so. I appreciate that if there were a General Election now those of us who are known as rebels might probably have a troublesome time, though I do not say that we should be defeated, because I do not think we should; but

  869
  obviously the rubber stamp would get to work, and there would be a lot of compromises and only a small number of really genuine contests throughout the country. I should like to see a General Election because I do not think that this Government or this House really represents the feelings of the people.
  In conclusion, I would remind the House that the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. Brown) referred to the moral and spiritual regeneration that is going on in the country. [Interruption.] After all, there is always hope for all of us, but he did say that this moral and spiritual regeneration was going on, as evidenced by the great demonstration in the Albert Hall the other day. I say to the Government that they are living in something worse than cloud cuckoo land if they do not appreciate that they cannot bring this war to a successful conclusion unless they show a little more moral leadership themselves. You cannot maintain the moral leadership of the world on a negative policy; we have had nothing but negative policy from this Government up to now, no readiness to use all the implements which we in this House have shown them are ready to their hands. This country is in consequence no longer the moral leader of the world, and unless the Government face up to it and take action, then I think they will really and truly be acting as the Assistant Secretary of the Admiralty in America said the other day: they will go on whistling in a graveyard to keep themselves from facing reality.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir William Allen: We all look forward to the Committee stage of this Bill in order to hear the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) giving himself free rein about Northern Ireland, but I would give him a little advice. I hope that he will not fall into the trap into which the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) fell, by getting his instructions or his opinions from disappointed people. I was agreeably disappointed with the hon. Member's speech. I certainly expected that the hon. Member for Shettleston would speak on different lines, but he treated the House to a dissertation on the frailty of the Northern Ireland Government and in addition blamed them very much for their abuse or otherwise of a Corporation of their fellows. I fancy the people for whom he spoke and whom he called the Unionists of Northern Ireland
  870
  were, some of them, members of that Corporation. It is not unusual for Governments or those in authority to dispense with the services of Corporations which are not attending to their business. That is quite a common thing. Such action is not confined to the Government of Northern Ireland. If the hon. Member had gone further South into Ireland, he would have found that a Corporation had been dispensed with in Dublin for many years owing to its having abused its privileges. Indeed, I have frequently heard it said that the time is ripe for someone to interfere with Glasgow Corporation. I do not profess to know anything about it. I therefore say that it is common for those who have the power, to interfere with corporate bodies when, in the opinion of those authorities, the bodies in question are not carrying out their duties as they should. I understand that the hon. Member for Shettleston had a happy time in Northern Ireland, where he visited friends and foes alike, and all were very glad to receive him and give him all possible information.
  I have heard a great deal in this Debate about the possibility of an immediate General Election in England. Does any hon. Member think, judging from the by-elections which have taken place in England with a 30 per cent. poll, that that would be a fair way of judging the opinion of the electorate? Suppose there were a General Election here; have we any guarantee that there would be a poll of more than 30 per cent.? It is obvious that you cannot have a high poll. The reasons have been stated again and again and relate to absentees from the constituencies, such as workers transferred from one constituency to another, members of His Majesty's Forces who are now all over the world. Naturally, you could have only a very small poll. On that ground alone it is absurd to think of having a General Election. In Northern Ireland the reasons are more absurd still. Not only have we, in spite of not having conscription in Northern Ireland, volunteers who joined His Majesty's Forces in large numbers and are now scattered all over the world, but many of our people went to England and Scotland and other places as munition workers. All those people would be unable to record their votes. The idea of a General Election at the present time in Northern Ireland is absurd.

  871
  It is possible that the information received by hon. Members with regard to the possibilities of an election in Northern Ireland has been supplied by people who are disappointed because they have not had an opportunity to take part in the government of Northern Ireland or by members of the Belfast Corporation who have been robbed of some of their privileges, but that condition of affairs is not confined to Northern Ireland. I have from time to time seen Members of this House, occupying a seat on the Front Bench and representing Departments, shelved or dropped overboard, and they have gone to the other side of the Chamber. The speeches they have made from the opposite benches have been as widely apart as the poles from those which they made when they were in Government jobs. I believe there may have been a feeling of disappointment on their part at not being able to carry on their duties. It is just the same thing in Northern Ireland. I have spoken to the same people to whom the hon. Member for Shettleston spoke. I have met people in Belfast streets who have given me the same opinions as the hon. Member has expressed in the House to-day. They were disappointed people.
  Mr. McGovern: I hope the hon. and gallant Member will do me the justice of believing that I can judge people's motives. In addition to the disappointed politicians, the Lord Mayor and 21 Tory members of the Belfast Council, I met 41 individual people, whose names and addresses I have, and a large number of business people who are Conservatives, and they were unanimous in saying that the best thing to do for humanity in Northern Ireland was to give, not the National party or Labour party but the disgruntled Unionist party, the opportunity to withdraw from this Rump Parliament in Northern Ireland.
  Sir W. Allen: I quite agree with the hon. Member about the 41 people. I could give him 141 people in Northern Ireland, but that is very different from having a General Election among a very much larger number of people who are in favour of the Government of Northern Ireland. It would take up too much of our time to discuss what the Northern Ireland Government have done for Northern Ireland, but it would seem almost
  872
  appropriate to do so in view of what has been said by Members of this House and may be said in the future with regard to that Government. There is not a Government in this world who have done more for their people, from the——
  Mr. Speaker: It would not be in Order for the hon. and gallant Member to enumerate the good deeds of the government of the Northern Ireland Parliament.
  Sir W. Allen: I am sorry to have got in the wrong, but I should like to have allayed a little the suspicion which has been created by some hon. Members here in regard to the alleged villainies of the Northern Ireland Government by telling them something of what the Northern Ireland Government have done for people of that country. However, I am satisfied that the Home Secretary has done the right thing in including Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Buchanan: I have had a fair connection with Northern Ireland for a long while, although I have not visited it sufficiently. My objection to continuing the Government of Northern Ireland is that its great population is centred in Belfast. The Northern Irish Government suppressed the municipal machinery of that great city. When we consent to the continuation of the Northern Irish Government we consent to the continual suppression of the democratic government of the city of Belfast.
  An Hon. Member: Nonsense.
  Sir W. Allen: The hon. Member mentioned that Belfast has a great proportion of the population of Northern Ireland. Belfast returns a certain number of representatives to the Northern Parliament, and those members are returned by the working class.
  Mr. Buchanan: I am not disputing that. Please let me state the facts and let us not get turned off by this or that consideration. The fact is that the Northern Ireland Government suppressed the municipal authority of Belfast.
  Sir W. Allen: That is not quite correct.
  Mr. Buchanan: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will correct me if I am wrong.
  Sir W. Allen: The corporation are not suppressed. The Government appointed Commissioners to assist them. The corporation are still in existence.
  Mr. Buchanan: Surely the hon. and gallant Member is more intelligent in his views than that. He does not deny that the Northern Ireland Government have taken away the rights normally exercised by the municipal authority in Belfast.
  Sir W. Allen: That is a different thing.
  Mr. Buchanan: There is a complete difference between that and the British Government. If we had suppressed, say, a great city such as Glasgow, Manchester or any of those towns, it would have been the subject, and properly so, of a very fierce Debate in this House of Commons. If such a step was taken it would only be taken not simply after examination by the Government Departments but after very prolonged and meticulous Debate in this House. Here is a Government that has done a most serious thing, because Belfast forms the main industrial belt and a large part of the population of Northern Ireland, and the Government that represents that mass has suppressed another body, interfered with another body, which has been elected on an equally democratic franchise. If that issue had not been raised, I would not have involved myself in the Northern Ireland Government controversy. But nobody defends local government as much as most of us who sit on this side of the House, an instance being the Home Secretary, whose whole life has been built on local government.
  To-day by our consent to the continuation of the Northern Ireland Government we are consenting to the suppression of the council of this largest city of Northern Ireland. I cannot agree to that. I object to it being in this Bill. If it was to be done, it ought to have been done by a separate Measure, on which we could have examined the work of the Northern Ireland Government, because when we give consent for it to continue, we ought to examine its work, we ought to examine its past, we ought to examine its policy towards local government and democratic elections. I shall not give my consent to the continuation of a Government that has taken a step such as I have been discussing when by doing so I give it sanction to suppress local authority work. I do not want to involve myself in other controversies in Northern Ireland, of which there are many, but I take the view that on the local government issue I am against the continuance of that Government.
  874
  May I say a word or two on the larger side of the Measure? I do not take the view of some of my colleagues about a General Election. May I say a word of caution on a matter which now seems to have become one of the most predominant issues about this Measure in the view of some hon. Members? About having the machinery ready, may I plead with this Government and say that I do not want another coupon election like that of 1918. A former Conservative Member of this House, now deceased, a man well known to us and respected, on one occasion said to me in the Lobby that he thought one of the great disasters of this country was the coupon election of 1918. That was felt by many Conservatives and shared by everybody of an active political mind. I do not want in this "wintry, the moment the war is finished, those who hold executive authority—possibly with victory having been won, and all the great glorification that goes with it—to dominate the whole domestic life, every form of life, in this country. I am not in favour of rushing into a General Election in an atmosphere of that kind.
  May I put to those who clamour for an election this other aspect? I am not bound for. or against an election on any deep personal feelings but if democracy is to function it does not function merely by walking to a polling booth and voting. Democracy has a function more than that. To function properly it must think, it must reason, it must argue. Democracy if it is to function fruitfully must be a democracy which merely does not function at the school polling booth through the placing of the cross. A democracy to function must have the necessary argument, reason—education if you care to put it that way—that is the preliminary to putting the cross on a ballot paper. The cross in itself is not democracy. It is only the last stage of it. Democracy is as much the clash of opinion that goes on before the vote as the vote; that is part of democracy. I doubt whether in the midst of war these things that to me make an intelligent electorate can properly operate.
  Let us face the fact. I am about the last man to look upon the Prime Minister with feelings of deep regard, as most people do. I have not a great regard for him, though I have no disregard for

  875
  him. The Prime Minister has many qualities, but he has other disabilities. On the whole he is there, but take what would happen at the moment in the event of an election. Will anyone say that he does not dominate political affairs in this country? I must confess that the Churchill ticket, as it might be called, would dominate every proceeding, and reason and argument would be gone. May I just say a word about rubber stamps? I have heard much about rubber stamps in the last 21 years. I remember when I sat with my colleagues down there in minorities, fighting Governments, and refusing to obey the Whips. Is a General Election any guarantee that the same set of rubber stamps will not be there after it?
  Mr. Driberg: The Churchill ticket, as the hon. Member calls it, has not been effective in certain recent by-elections.
  Mr. Buchanan: The hon. Member won an election, but I challenge him to say that he would dare to go on a platform and say a word against the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Driberg: I said many things both for and against the Prime Minister in the course of my election campaign. What I mean is that the letter sent by the Prime Minister endorsing an official candidate has not always been effective in by-elections.
  Mr. Buchanan: I will admit that, but not a single candidate would win an election against the Prime Minister. I do not see any evidence of independence. I have been here a long time, and frankly I am terribly cynical. I do not view this party or that party as being good or bad. I have not the faith in politics which I used to have, but I say that an election in itself is no use unless that election is intelligently viewed by the electors, and intelligently voted on by them.
  To-day, I look aghast at what happens. We have a machine on this side. I do not say that with disrespect. It is a powerful and capable machine; let nobody underrate it. Anything which is built out of the trade union movement must be powerful. Let nobody underrate the Conservative machine in this country, either. It is powerful and well-equipped. These party machines are terrible forces to fight against. I am one of the few who has
  876
  fought every political party: Tory, Liberal, Labour, and Communist; so I know how powerful they are. They are powerful when they are apart; God knows what they will be like when they join forces. You have these machines to face, with all the power that they can bring to bear, and then you expect the aftermath of the General Election to be less rubber-stampish than what existed before.
  I am grateful to the Home Secretary, therefore, when he says that we are not to have an election now. I am grateful, indeed, to the Home Secretary for saying anything which means that he will not abrogate Parliament. I expect him to come down one day and advocate that; and if he did so he could make out an attractive case for it, as he can for anything that he does. In fact, the Prime Minister should watch the Home Secretary. One thing which the Prime Minister cannot stand is that anybody else should think himself as good as the Prime Minister. The Home Secretary is beginning to do that, and that is a danger to this Government. Viewing things as they are, I confess that no one on this side can look at the position with an easy mind. Great social issues are neglected. Somebody sneered about Scottish affairs. In Scotland now, in the midst of war, tuberculosis is increasing; housing conditions are like hell—no words could describe them. One hears about fighting the Germans, but last week the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland was asked to get the police to come and protect tenants against rats. When I see these great social issues neglected, I wonder whether this Parliament should go on; but considering the alternatives, I come down, with misgivings, on the side of this Measure. However, the responsibility on the Government is all the more serious. They are given a trusteeship now which in normal times they would never have got. It involves a serious task to see that in their trusteeship the social issues which face mankind should not merely be abated but should be grappled with. I would say to the Government that when they get this power to-day they should not take it as meaning that even this House is in total agreement and that while it desires the carrying on of the war, they must not forget that the greatest issue to the common folk is the happiness in their home lives.
  Admiral of the Fleet Sir Roger Keyes: I support this Bill because if a General Election were held, several hundred thousands of fighting men would be disfranchised, which would be very unfair, since the security of the country, the preservation of our liberties and the very existence of Parliament itself will depend upon the success of their efforts.
  Mr. Montague: The speech to which we have listened from the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) is one to be very much commended for its sincerity and for its challenge to this House to consider first principles upon the question of democracy and this Parliamentary institution. I have heard in the course of this Debate a great amount of disparagement of the House of Commons and of the machinery of democracy. I do not think that all of it is justified. No institution in the world is above criticism. Criticism is always healthy. Self-criticism is healthy, but it should be the result of just those considerations of first principles that have been exemplified in the speech to which I have referred. I would like to get down to the real fundamental question in respect of democracy and Parliamentary institutions in this country. It is important from the point of view of the Measure before the House and of the question of whether there should be an immediate General Election or not. We talk about democracy. Do we think always quite adequately about the meaning of the term "democracy"? If you ask the average Member of Parliament, not to say the average elector in the country, what democracy means, he will tell you that it is the rule of the majority. That is one of the greatest fallacies in existence. Democracy is not the rule of the majority but the rule of all—a very different proposition. I can give the House an analogy in the case of Jeremy Bentham and the utilitarians more than zoo years ago. They coined the famous phrase "the greatest good of the greatest number." It sounded very plausible, and most people had the idea that the greatest good of the greatest number was the conception of democracy and freedom in a country, but bitter experience discovered the fact that the greatest good of the greatest number was not inconsistent with the greatest harm and tyranny for the smallest number. Just as in the case of the greatest good of the greatest number, the idea that democracy means the rule
  878
  of the majority is open to precisely the same objections.
  Democracy means, certainly as a piece of machinery, the final decision of the majority, because there is no better way of administering Government. But democracy means that every section of the community shall be able to take part in government, and taking part in government means not only actual administration but also criticism, advice and persuasion, and the decision of the majority has no right to be taken——
  Mr. Speaker: I do not think it is right to debate the merits of democracy on this Bill, otherwise we should have an endless discussion.
  Mr. Montague: I am subject to your Ruling. Mr. Speaker, and I do not want to offend the proprieties of the House in this matter. I did think, however, that the issue I was putting was related to the subject, and I intended to try to show what it was. I have heard speeches to-day about the conduct of Members of this House and a reference to what took place a little while ago when Members did not remain in the House to hear leading speeches upon the question of the conduct of the war. One thing which ought to be corrected, because of the reaction in the Press and among the people of the country, is the idea that the purpose of a Member of Parliament is to do nothing but sit on these benches and listen to speeches for hours on end——
  Mr. Speaker: I must remind the hon. Member that we are discussing a Bill to prolong the life of this Parliament.
  Mr. Montague: I can only say, Sir, that this point has been mentioned several times during the Debate. It seemed to me to be a prejudiced statement which was disadvantageous and even dangerous to the conception of democracy in this country and to the attitude of constituents to this House. I rose in order to give, as I thought, some kind of correction to the views which had been put forward.
  Mr. Speaker: That shows the danger on my part of not strictly performing the duty of the Chair, otherwise this kind of thing would have been ruled out of Order sooner.
  Mr. Montague: I rose in order to put a correction before the House, but as it is out of Order I will give way.
  Dr. Little: I would like to take this opportunity of saying that despite all that has been said to-day I am quite satisfied that it is in the best interests of Britain that this Bill should pass, and equally in the best interests of Northern Ireland. What is good for Britain is good for Northern Ireland. I want to ease the mind of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) by saying that when I left Belfast on Monday arrangements had been made for the Belfast Corporation to meet to-day. I am not expressing any opinion as to the rights or wrongs of the legislation; all I am saying is that the Belfast Corporation remains in being and that Commissioners have been appointed to assist in the administration of the City. Some of us would be likely to need help, I think, if we found ourselves in the same position. In reply to what was said about Northern Ireland by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), Britain would be a very lop-sided Kingdom if it had not Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland balances the United Kingdom, and with the help of God it is going to remain there for the good of Britain. I want to say to the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) that, quite clearly, he landed in a den of lions. Belfast has four Members in this House, four able representatives, and it is to me passing strange that any of the citizens of Belfast should look across the Channel and ask the hon. Member for Shettleston to plead their cause in this House. It reminds me of the old adage:
  "Far away fields look green."
  I am very glad the hon. Member for Shettleston escaped out of the den of lions and came here to-day as a Daniel come to judgment. My hon. colleague and I represent in this House over 137,000 electors of Down, and not a single one of them has ever hinted to me that he wanted an election for the Northern Parliament. That is my experience, and I think the other Members have had a like experience. Why should we be rushed into an election in Northern Ireland on a stale register, a register that contains the names of so many who have passed away, so many who are in the Forces, a register that does not contain the names of so many who should be there, but who, owing to their having attained their majority since the old register of 1939 was drawn up, would have no right to vote.
  880
  It would be a crime against those young people, and it would give no idea as to the reality of the feeling of the country. In addition, it would take the minds of those engaged in war work away from work which is so important at the moment and turn their thoughts in the direction of a political contest that would serve no purpose and, because of the stale register, give no real idea of the feeling of the country.
  Reference has been made to a Coalition Government, but I think it would take a man far beyond any of us to find a coalition in Northern Ireland. We have 52 members in that Parliament. Thirty-eight of those members support the Government. Eight members compose the largest Opposition party in the House. Two seats are vacant to-day, one of them having been vacant since March, 1939. Three representatives who were elected came and took the oath in March, 1938, and draw the emoluments, but never returned. One member is interned here by the British Government. Two members of that party attend the sittings of the House. There are three Independent Unionists, and three Labour members, each Labour member belonging to his own party. I think it would be very wrong for the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland to choose some representative for his Cabinet from one party as this would give offence to the others. I say that things should remain just as they are. I conclude by saying that "what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander," and what is good for you in Britain is good for us in Northern Ireland. I ask the House to accede to this reasonable request, without trying to make mountains out of molehills—which has been tried by some hon. Members who have spoken—and without seeking to dictate terms wholly unacceptable to the Prime Minister and the Government of Northern Ireland.
  The Prime Minister of Northern Ireland is in his position with the good will of the majority of the electors, and so are the Government. They are holding the fort, they are doing good work, and I do not think the Government are stale or that you should force us into an election. I believe the Northern House will certainly agree if you pass this Bill and authorise them to continue their work for another year. Along these lines the good

  881
  understanding which has hitherto prevailed between the two Parliaments—and good understanding has prevailed between them—will be continued and the spirit of good will will be fostered. I support the Bill most heartily, and I hope there will be no division.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): My right hon. Friend and I would like to pay our tribute to the stimulating and varied character of, this Debate. My right hon. Friend, who is rather an old hand now at introducing Bills of this kind, says it has been far the best Debate' he has had on a Bill of this sort. One might perhaps also say that the variety and nature of the views expressed were some evidence that the House is not wholly unrepresentative of the views of the people. My right hon. Friend made it clear that he was not saying an election could not be held in war-time. Circumstances might arise in which it was necessary for the Prime Minister to advise the King to dissolve Parliament. But in the view of the Government, and in the view, I think, of the majority of "Members, the proposal made in the Bill is a sound one. The practical arguments are, of course, not conclusive, but they have some weight. Undoubtedly the position at the moment is that the country, broadly speaking, supports the Government and the war policy. The Government is one in which all the principal parties are represented, and it would be an unusual form of General Election even if you had one. Some Members object to the Bill because they feel that circumstances might be too good for the Government, who would get a coupon majority more complaisant and more of the character of rubber stamps than the present House. Others suggest that, if you had it, you would get a large influx of Independent Members and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rugby (Mr. W. Brown) might lead a phalanx of Independent Members if Independent Members can be formed into a phalanx.
  Different views are expressed as to what would happen. They illustrate the fact that there would be great confusion. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Preston (Captain R. Churchill) made the point, which I thought had some force, that there would be a good many of the younger men who are at present in the Forces and who are anxious to take their part in politics after the war. Of
  882
  course, there have been some opponents to the Bill. The hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) were against it. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) was on the whole against it. The House in general, however, was, I think, in favour. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Rugby taunts us all. He taunts the hon. Gentlemen opposite, and no doubt they can look after themselves. He taunts the party to which I have the honour to belong, and we can look after ourselves. I will tell him one thing. We are all in touch with our constituencies, and whatever he may say about us, we do know what our constituents are feeling, and in particular their feeling on this question. I believe that in the vast majority of constituencies the hon. Members who speak for them could testify that they—their constituents—do not want a General Election. That is really the main cause of this Bill. I shall not convince those who are opposed to it, but I hope the House will think that I have said sufficient to deal with certain of the points that have been made.
  One or two questions were put. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) asked what would happen if the war came to a sudden end; would we necessarily use the whole time allowed by this Bill? That is not a matter on which one could possibly give an assurance. Be it noted that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) was against what would be called a quick election. Obviously, different views on that matter are held by different Members. Parliament can only be dissolved when the Prime Minister recommends to His Majesty that that should happen. If there were a sudden end of the war, the Prime Minister would have the opportunity of sensing the opinion of the House on this as on any other matter, but it would be impracticable to give any assurance at the moment.
  Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: That was not my point. I asked for an assurance that decisions affecting peace terms and the structure of post-war Britain would not be made without reference to the electorate.
  The Attorney-General: I do not see how one could give any assurance on that point. Some decisions with reference to peace terms will have to be taken at the time of the Armistice, and very important decisions too. One cannot give an assurance of this kind. We do our best to meet the House, and the House has its opportunities of expressing its views. Let me say, as one who has stood at this Box for a number of years, that I think the description of this House as a rubber stamp Reichstag did a great injustice to it and to the power of expression and the argumentative character of hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Holderness raised the same point as to what steps were being taken with regard to the arrangements that would be necessary if we had to have an election in the war or an election after the war. Reference was made to the Speaker's Conference at the end of the last war. The Speaker's Conference was concerned in part—its most important part—with the franchise. That does not arise at the moment. The position is that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has appointed a committee to consider the machinery of registration and redistribution, and it is hoped that that committee will report shortly. When it does my right hon. Friend will consider the recommendations which will cover the points.
  Mr. Stokes: My right hon. Friend the Member for Antrim (Sir H. O'Neill) interrupted me when I was speaking and said that the Committee were putting in their report now—shortly—in a few days, I suppose.
  Sir H. O'Neill: I said that I was a member of the Committee and that they are drawing near to their conclusions. They will present a report reasonably soon.
  Mr. Stokes: Can the learned Attorney-General give us some guidance as to how soon after that report is received it will be possible for the Government to make a statement about it?
  The Attorney-General: I could not possibly do that. In the first place it would not be for me to consider it. When the report has been presented the hon. Member will be able to ask my right hon. Friend about that, but obviously I cannot make any statement on that point.
  884
  I think the speech I have made covers all the points. Unlike some Debates, this was not one in which a great number of questions were left to be answered, and I think I can conclude by making these observations. I think it is true to say that the introduction of this Bill and the extension of the life of Parliament does put a responsibility on all of us, as Members of this House, whether we sit on these Benches or on those, to do our best to keep in touch with our constituents and to see that this House, in spite of the length of its term, remains representative of opinion in this country. We all know that there are questions arising out of the war, and questions that affect the future structure of society and its framework, what is called reconstruction and so on. Many people are thinking very earnestly about those questions and to some extent their ideas are at present in a somewhat confused state.
  None of us has been able to think out those things fully. In these circumstances it may well be that the House as constituted to-day, if it can keep in touch with opinion in the constituencies, can remain a fully representative assembly, possibly even a more representative assembly than if we forced upon the country a General Election which it does not want, and at a time when there would be great confusion as to the issues on which such an election would be fought.
  Mr. E. Harvey: Will the learned Attorney-General deal with one point that was raised by giving a little clearer explanation of how the pledge, repeated by the Home Secretary in introducing the Bill, that an opportunity would be given to the House to consider methods of electoral reform before the next election is to be honoured? Can he say anything about the time or the plan?
  The Attorney-General: I cannot answer about that. We are doing our best. The pledge was given and a committee has been appointed and it is going to report shortly.
  Mr. Harvey: But this is outside the scope of that Committee's work.
  The Attorney-General: But that is the preliminary step. I cannot now add to or subtract from the pledge that has been given.
  Mr. Stephen: The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not reply to any of the points raised regarding the part of the Bill dealing with Northern Ireland.
  The Attorney-General: I think that is really a very short matter, and it was put and I think more or less accepted in the Debate. It seems to me to be quite impracticable, indeed quite wrong, to deny to the Parliament of Northern Ireland the prolongation which we are taking the power to have ourselves. I do not think anybody can dispute that, and I do not think anybody has disputed it.
  Mr. Buchanan: Oh, yes.
  The Attorney-General: If they have, they must keep their opinions, but I believe the bulk of the House accepted the argument of my right hon. Friend on that

  Division No. 22.]

  AYES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

  De Chair, Capt. S. S.

  James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

  Albery, Sir Irving

  Dobbie, W.

  Jeffreys, General Sir G. D.

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

  Dodd, J. S.

  Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

  Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)

  Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

  Jennings, R.

  Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

  Dugdale, John (W. Bromwich)

  Jewson, P. W.

  Beattie, F.

  Dunn, E.

  John, W.

  Beaumont, Maj. Hn. R. E. B. (P'tsm'h)

  Edmondson, Major Sir J.

  Keeling, E. H.

  Beechman, N. A.

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

  Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

  Bennett, Sir P. F. B. (Edgbaston)

  Edwards, Walter J. (Whitechapel)

  Kirby, B. V.

  Benson, G.

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

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Bird, Sir R. B.

  Ellis, Sir G.

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Blair, Sir R.

  Elliston, Captain G. S.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

  Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.

  Entwistle, Sir C. F.

  Leslie, J. R.

  Bossom, A. C.

  Evans, Colonel A. (Cardiff, S.)

  Liddall, W. S.

  Boulton, W. W.

  Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

  Lipson, D. L.

  Bower, Norman (Harrow)

  Fildes, Sir H.

  Little, Dr. J. (Down)

  Bower, Comdr. R. T. (Cleveland)

  Fox, Flight-Lieut. Sir G. W. G.

  Loftus, P. C.

  Bowles, F. G.

  Fremantle, Sir F. E.

  MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Gammans, Capt. L. D.

  Mack, J. D.

  Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)

  Gates, Major E. E.

  McKie, J. H.

  Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. J. G. (H'dern's)

  Gibson, Sir C. G.

  Magnay, T.

  Broad, F. A.

  Gledhill, G.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.

  Grant-Ferris, Wing-Commander R.

  Maitland, Sir A.

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  Green, W. H. (Deptford)

  Makins, Brig-Gen. Sir E.

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

  Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

  Mander, G. le M.

  Buchanan, G.

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Marshall, F.

  Burden, T. W.

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

  Martin, J. H.

  Burke, W. A.

  Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

  Mathers, G.

  Cadagan, Maj. Sir E.

  Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

  Mellor, Sir J. S. P.

  Cape, T.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Messer, F.

  Carver, Colonel W. H.

  Groves, T. E.

  Mills, Colonel J. D. (New Forest)

  Cary, R. A.

  Guy, W. H.

  Mitcheson, Sir G. G.

  Challen, Flight-Lieut. C.

  Hall, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Aberdare)

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)

  Montague, F.

  Chater, D.

  Hamblo, A. V.

  Morrison, Major J. G. (Salisbury)

  Churchill, Capt. R. F. E. (Preston)

  Hannah, I. C.

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

  Clarry, Sir Reginald

  Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

  Mort, D. L.

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

  Harvey, T. E.

  Mott-Radclyffe, Capt. C. E.

  Cocks, F. S.

  Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

  Murray, J. D.

  Colegate, W. A.

  Heneage, Lt.-Col. A. P.

  Nall, Sir J.

  Collindridge, F.

  Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

  Nicholson, Captain G. (Farnham)

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

  Herbert, Petty Officer A. P. (Oxford U.)

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

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

  Hewlett, T. H.

  Nunn, W.

  Cove, W. G.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Craven-Ellis, W.

  Hollins, J. H. (Silvertown)

  Owen, Major G.

  Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir Stafford

  Holmes, J. S.

  Peake, O.

  Critchley, A.

  Hopkinson, A.

  Pearson, A.

  Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

  Hulbert, Wing Commander N. J.

  Petherick, Major M.

  Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Culverwell, C. T.

  Hunter, T.

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Davison, Sir W. H.

  Hutchinson, G. C. (Ilford)

  Profumo, Captain J. D.

  point. We are giving them the power, but it can only be exercised by their Resolution. A number of points have been raised with regard to Northern Ireland which do not seem to me to touch what I suggest to the House is and must be the main argument in support of this Measure, that we are giving to Northern Ireland the power of prolongation that we are taking ourselves, and that it must be for the Parliament of Northern Ireland to decide whether the circumstances are such that that power should be taken advantage of or whether the circumstances are such, as some people think, that there ought to be a General Election there.
  Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  The House divided: Ayes, 215; Noes, 9.

  Pym, L. R.

  Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir D. B.

  Viant, S. P.

  Quibell, D. J. K.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Wakefield, W. W.

  Radford, E. A.

  Southby, Comdr. Sir A. R. J.

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

  Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Walkden, E. (Doncaster)

  Rickards, G. W.

  Spens, W. P.

  Walker, J.

  Ridley, G.

  Stanley, Col. Rt. Hon. Oliver

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

  Ritson, J.

  Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Watkins, F. C.

  Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

  Stewart, W. Joseph (H'gton-le-Spring)

  Watson, W. McL.

  Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

  Storey, S.

  Watt, Lt. Col. G. S. H. (Richmond)

  Ross Taylor, W.

  Strauss, G. R (Lambeth, N.)

  Westwood, J.

  Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)

  Strickland, Capt. W. F.

  White, Sir Dymoke (Fareham)

  Savory, Professor D. L.

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

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

  Schuster, Sir G. E.

  Studholme, Captain H. G.

  White, H. Graham (Birkenhead, E.)

  Selley, H. R.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

  Sexton, T. M.

  Tasker, Sir R. I.

  Windsor, W.

  Shakespeare, Sir G. H.

  Taylor, Major C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Windsor-Clive, Lt.-Col. G.

  Shaw, Capt. W. T. (Forfar)

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Womersley, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

  Silkin, L.

  Thomas, I. (Keighley)

  Woolley, W. E.

  Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

  Thomas, Dr. W. S. Russell (S'mpton)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Snadden, W. McN.

  Tinker, J. J.

  Mr. A. S. Young and Captain

  Somerset, T.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Comdr. R. L.

  McEwen.

  NOES.

  Bellenger, F. J.

  Horabin, T. L.

  Stokes, R. R.

  Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

  Kendall, W. D.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Reakes, G. L. (Wallasey)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Granville, E. L.

  Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham (St. M.)

  Sir R. Acland and Mr. W. Brown.

  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for the next Sitting Day.—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]

LOCAL ELECTIONS AND REGISTER OF ELECTORS (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is the fourth occasion on which a Bill with this Title has been submitted to the House, and the third occasion on which I have had the honour of moving the Second Reading. I confess that I have had greater difficulty each year in finding any new observations to make upon it. Its objects are well known, and, I think, generally accepted. On the only occasion when there was any controversy in the House, in 1939, it was carried on a Division by a majority of 222 to 0. I see opposite my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), who has on occasion taken an attitude of downright opposition to the Measure, and on another occasion an attitude of qualified support; his attitude, I think, varying more according to the degree of bombing which the country was undergoing at the time than to the geographical position which he happened to
888
occupy on the seats of this House. In the ordinary way it might have been expected that a Bill of this character would have been included in the Schedule to the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, which, as the House is aware, always obtains its Second Reading without discussion. An undertaking was, however, given to the House when the first Bill was introduced, in 1939, that a full opportunity would be given for discussion on any occasion when it became necessary to ask the House to extend the provisions of that Bill, and it is in consequence of that undertaking that I now beg to move the Second Reading.
Mr. Lipson: I accept the main purposes of the Bill, which is the logical consequence of the Second Reading of the Bill which the House has just approved; but there is an important difference between the proposals of this Bill and the proposals contained in the Bill for extending the life of Parliament. In both Bills it is agreed that those who are Members of the respective bodies shall continue to hold their seats, but there is a difference in regard to filling casual vacancies. In regard to Parliament, the electors are given power to choose who shall fill such vacancies. That is a right which they have exercised, and I think it has been to the good of the Parliamentary institutions of this country that the privilege exists. So far as municipal bodies are concerned, the method of filling casual vacancies is by co-option. The electors in the constituency

889
are deprived of the right of saying who shall fill this casual vacancy. In view of the length of the war this practice is having a very serious effect on the attitude of the people towards municipal government in this country. If it had been a short war perhaps the harm would not have been very great, but already the war has lasted for over three years, and nobody can say how much longer it is likely to last. I therefore plead with the Government that they should consider whether it is not desirable now to give local electors the same privilege as is given to Parliamentary electors.
I would give this additional reason for further consideration. The war itself has provided new problems for local government and it has also, through its Civil Defence services, brought into voluntary unpaid public service a great many men and women who, previously, were not actively associated with local government. It is very desirable that these people should be given the opportunity, if they so desire, to play their part as county councillors or town councillors or members of other local bodies. I regret to say that they are not the type of persons who can lend themselves to the local party caucus when a casual vacancy is to be filled. It is only right that these people who are taking an active part in Civil Defence should be given the opportunity, if they are dissatisfied with local administration, of being able to offer themselves to the electors and to take their places on local bodies and try to get local administration altered in the directions they want.
Before the war there was considerable uneasiness at the apathy shown in various parts of the country towards municipal elections and I am afraid that, if the practice of filling vacancies by co-option is continued, this apathy will grow. The war itself has brought into the sphere of local government many men and women who would be useful recruits in that service. I feel there is a very strong case for reconsidering this point. All the arguments against holding municipal elections apply with even greater force to Parliamentary by-elections. I admit that there are some objections, but there are arguments in favour of restoring this modified right of election in the interests of local government. It would be a very important factor in maintaining democracy in this country and that makes it advisable that
890
reconsideration should be given to this matter. I particularly appeal to the Minister to say that he will not "dig his toes in" on this matter but that between now and the Committee stage he will consider meeting the point I have ventured to raise.
Mr. Mander: As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said I always felt it necessary to oppose this Bill since it was first introduced, so tar without any large measure of support m this House. I am very glad to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) the same arguments that I have been putting year after year. Personally, I cannot see that there is a strong case for the Bill at all. I do not intend to press that view to-day. I have no desire to embarrass the Government during the war, but I would ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to be good enough to consider the suggestion that my hon. Friend has made with regard to casual by-elections. I have asked him in the past to try to put forward some logical arguments to prove that while you can have a Parliamentary by-election you cannot have a municipal by-election. He has not done so, for the simple reason that there is no logical argument or, indeed, argument of any kind why it should not be done, beyond the fact that it was so arranged by Parliament. Therefore, I ask him between now and the next stage of the Bill to consider whether the time has not arrived to give local electors an opportunity of filling casual vacancies by the exercise of their votes. All the argument about a stale register and all the rest of it applies in exactly the same way to Parliamentary by-elections. In all seriousness—and I do not wish to press the Government beyond what they feel they can do—I hope they will take into consideration the view which is so widely held in the House that some concession should be made in this direction.
Mr. Sloan: I rise merely to prove to my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) that the number of recruits is growing. I, also, take the view that something ought to be done to make it possible to have by-elections in local government. The argument that a municipal by-election would in any way affect

891
the progress of the war cannot be used. Fresh blood of a youthful nature is badly required in local government bodies. If this House is becoming a chamber of old and decrepit men it can be said, with truth, that our local bodies are very much more so. No attempt whatever is made to introduce young blood into our local councils. The local authority of which I am a member is being filled with older men than those who have retired, and it is necessary, in view of the fact that the war will come to an end some day, that new blood should be introduced into these local councils. To-day they are more important than Parliament. There are many Acts of Parliament on the Statute Book which have never yet been properly administered by the local authorities responsible for them.
To-day it is becoming more and more difficult. These bodies are faced with tremendous responsibilities in the postwar years. The question of housing alone is of the greatest importance. All the talk in this Chamber will not build the houses, required to house the nation. It will be necessary for the local councils to apply their minds to the question yet little is being done in that respect at the present time. There is the question of the provision of sites for postwar housing. It is difficult to get local councils to move in that direction. I remember after the last war the tremendous difficulties with which we were faced in getting ahead with housing—difficulties of securing sites and getting schemes prepared. Although there had been warnings during the war of what it would be like in the years ahead, we had to contend with all sorts of difficulties when the war was over and I earnestly hope that such a state of affairs will not occur again. Local councils are becoming more reactionary to-day than they have ever been. The facility with which they accept recommendations of a reactionary nature is amazing. For instance, there has been no difficulty in getting local education authorities to accept the recommendation that school children of 12 years of age should be allowed to stay away from school to do farming work. The conditions have been so relaxed that it has been very difficult indeed to get children at school during harvesting periods, whether or not they were doing harvesting work.
892
It is the duty of the House to see that it is made very easy to have local elections to fill these very important positions. At the present rime, when vacancies occur, they are canvassing all the old men; they are bringing in to a large extent superannuated people, men who have served their day and generation in their ordinary work. These men are superannuated out of public funds. The very people who are paying them the superannuation are accepting them as members of the council. They are paid from the superannuation funds of the county councils, and they are coming in to take places in the very councils for which they have worked. That would not occur in many instances if there were local elections. I hope that on the Committee stage the Minister will give very serious consideration to the question of making amendments in regard to local elections, at any rate for the purpose of filling vacancies. Such a provision could be made quite easily. One can create difficulties about the matter in one's own mind, but there would be no insuperable difficulty in making such a provision. The longer the war goes on the more new faces we shall see in the councils; people will come in who have had no experience of local administration. I do not mind young men coming into a council because they have a lifetime before them and will be able to learn, but it is objectionable to have coming in old men who can be taught nothing, who learn nothing and forget nothing, and who will be a dead weight in the council as long as they remain. On these grounds I support the plea which has been made that there should be a provision for local by-elections to fill vacancies.
Mr. George Griffiths: My experience as a member of a local authority has been entirely different from that of the three hon. Members who have spoken. I see that the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) is here no more. I do not know how the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lip-son) would work a municipal election if one cannot work a Parliamentary election.
Mr. Lipson: A municipal by-election. We have Parliamentary by-elections.
Mr. Griffiths: At a by-election there has to be a register. Where is the register now? It is depleted. The hon.

893
Member for Cheltenham spoke about co-opting members. In the West Riding County Council and in my own local urban district council, when a member of the council ceases to be a member, a man is appointed from the same political party. It is not a matter for the caucus. The party itself does it. With regard to what was said about young men by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sloan), I do not see any old, decrepit, pensioned-off, superannuated people, who are only just this side of the coffin lid, being appointed. From our standpoint, the members who are being co-opted by the political parties are young men who are interested in municipal authorities. Again, the hon. Member for Cheltenham says "lam prepared to vote in the Ayes Lobby to-day, but I stay here myself without any election."
Mr. Lipson: I am supporting the Bill. I only am asking that it shall be brought into line with the other Bill.
Mr. Griffiths: I am sorry if I missed the hon. Member's point. I feel that local authorities should retain the power that they have had since 1939 and I support the Bill.
Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: I apologise for troubling the House twice on the same day. Three years experience—that is the normal life of a borough councillor—has shown in practice that the system of co-option is not working properly. There is a tendency for the party caucus—this is not a party question; we are all guilty of it—to take the opportunity of putting on to the council ladies and gentlemen whose local electoral records have been, to put it mildly, unhappy in the past and who have been rejected on three or four occasions. That is the negation of democracy. I do not see any difficulty at all in bringing these local elections into fine with Parliamentary elections in this matter. The war has now lasted for three years. In London there has been no general municipal election since 1937 for either county or borough. There are issues arising in local government. I hope the Minister will tell us that the Government will consider the matter and, if possible, deal with it by Amendment in Committee.
Mr. Messer: The Bill does not by any means assure that a vacancy will be filled by a member of
894
the party to which the retiring member belonged.
Mr. G. Griffiths: In practice it is carried out.
Mr. Messer: If that were true, I should not be speaking. There are exceptions, and that proves that the legislation wants strengthening. There is the possibility of a local authority appointing some one whom the electorate would never look at, and that is a wider departure from democracy than the Bill that we were discussing earlier. In that Bill we say that we cannot have a General Election because of the difficulties of the war situation, the register and the rest of it. But we still permit by-elections. There is the further question of aldermen who will continue to act until they die. I trust that these points will receive consideration in Committee.
Mr. Peake: I should like to thank hon. Members for their courtesy in permitting us to get this Bill, and I would say a word on the question which has been raised why, if we permit by-elections to fill casual vacancies in the House of Commons, we do not permit casual vacancies in local authorities to be filled in the same way. Of course, in pure logic, there is no answer to the point, but when you come to consider the facts of the case I think there are one or two important distinctions. In the first place, there are between 1,700 and 1,800 elected local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales, but there is only one House of Commons. I think that everybody will agree that an election to the House of Commons is obviously a more important thing than an election to a local authority. If we allowed casual vacancies in local authorities to be filled in this way there would be a continual stream of by-elections in progress. Local councils have the aldermanic system, and the mortality rate among aldermen is higher than among any other class in the community. The result of permitting casual vacancies to be filled by by-elections would, therefore, be either to bring about a recrudescence of the party spirit in local authorities, or for the nominee of the caucus to be returned for a vacancy.
The most important point in this distinction is that there are good precedents in peace time for co-option to local authorities. The hon. Member for South

895
Ayrshire (Mr. Sloan) pleaded that we should have casual vacancies filled by by-elections, but throughout Scotland, even in peace time, it is the normal practice to fill casual vacancies in local authorities by co-option. What we are doing here is to take a leaf out of the Scottish book and make the Scottish practice applicable to England and Wales.
Mr. Buchanan: It is not the practice in Scotland.
Mr. Peake: It is in all parts of Scotland where there is no special Act of Parliament. Moreover, in England and Wales aldermen are elected by the council; that is to say, they are elected by what is in effect co-option. They do not depend for their election upon the votes of outside persons. There is, therefore, a precedent in local government in this country for filling casual vacancies by co-option which does not apply in any sense to a casual vacancy in the House of Commons. These points ought to be borne in mind, but if my hon. Friends like to put down an Amendment on the Committee stage we can carry this discussion further.
Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time," put, and agreed to.
Bill read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for the next Sitting Day.—(Major Sir James Edmondson.)

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (PROBATE, DIVORCE AND ADMIRALTY DIVISION)
The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move,
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty representing that the state of business in the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division requires that a vacancy in the number of puisne judges of that Division should be filled, and praying that His Majesty will be graciously pleased to fill such vacancy accordingly, in pursuance of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Act, 1937."
The recent tragic death of Sir George Langton removed a Judge of great ability from the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division. He not only did his work with great ability, but also took a great interest in the general administration of justice and in the problems that arise in that area. His loss was a great one. This Address comes to be moved in the following circumstances, which I can
896
shortly explain. In 1937 a Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the senior burgess for Oxford University (Petty Officer A. Herbert) dealing with divorce became an Act. It increased the grounds on which divorce could be obtained. Broadly speaking, the big new ground for divorce was desertion, which was a completely new ground as far as England is concerned. At the time when that Act was passed there were substantial but not excessive arrears of work in the Probate, Admiralty and Divorce Division. There were some 1,000 odd undefended cases and about 470 to 500 defended cases awaiting trial. It was anticipated, and the anticipation proved perfectly correct, that as a result of the passing of that Act there would be a very considerable increase in divorce work. Parliament therefore passed an Act, the Act under which this Address is moved, providing for two extra judges to be appointed to that Division, but also providing that if a vacancy occurred it could not be filled without coming to this House to get a Resolution. The vacancy has occurred and we now ask the House for the Resolution.
Broadly speaking, the history of the matter in the meantime has been this. There was, of course, a very considerable increase in divorce as the result of the passing of that Act. The increased number of judges on the Bench was able to deal with it without any big accumulation of arrears piling up in London, and at the moment one could say that the figures of divorce work alone would justify one in filling the vacancy. The figures to-day are almost exactly the same as they were at the passing of the Act of 1937. They have, of course, been higher in the interval, but there are to-day about 1,000 undefended cases in the list at the beginning of any term and about 500 defended cases. But that is not quite the end of the story. Admiralty work has also increased. It is difficult to give figures because cases are not always returned until they are ready for trial, but probably Admiralty work has increased about 50 per cent. since the beginning of the war. The reasons for that are clear. Sailing without lights, sailing in convoy, and war conditions generally, inevitably create more accidents and other problems—insurance problems and so on—from which Admiralty cases may arise. Therefore, without further words I feel that I have satisfied the House that the case for the

897
filling of this vacancy is made out. But I should like to add this: In the King's Bench Division there is the same procedure. Before the war there were 19 judges and if there was one vacancy the number went down to 18 and if there were two vacancies it went down to 17, but those vacancies could not be filled except by coming to this House and getting a Resolution. Before the war started there were 19 King's Bench Division judges in addition to the Lord Chief Justice. The number has sunk to 17, but my Noble Friend has not come to the House to ask for the filling up of the vacancies, although in the Court of Appeal two vacancies have not been filled, and the House is aware that some of the judges have been spared to do committee work of various kinds. But in this case we think there are adequate grounds why in the Divorce and Admiralty Division the vacancy should be filled, and I ask the House to pass the Resolution.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved,
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty representing that the state of business in the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division requires that a vacancy in the number of puisne judges of that Division should be filled, and praying that His Majesty will be graciously pleased to fill such Vacancy accordingly, in pursuance of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Act, 1937."
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (PROBATE, DIVORCE AND ADMIRALTY DIVISION)

  SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932
  Resolved,
  "That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Redcar, a copy of which was presented to this House on 29th September, be approved."—[Mr. Peake.]

  CONSOLIDATION BILLS
  Ordered,
  "That so much of the Lords Message (23rd July) as communicates the Resolution, That it is desirable that all Consolidation Bills in the present Session be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament,' be now considered."—[Sir J. Edmondson.]
  So much of the Lords Message considered accordingly.
  Resolved,
  "The. t this House doth concur with the Lords in the said Resolution.—[Sir J. Edmondson.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir J. Edmondson.]
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Information (Departmental Powers)
  Information (Departmental Powers)
  Redundant Motor Coaches
  Redundant Motor Coaches
  Royal Ordnance Factories
  Royal Ordnance Factories
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Higher Range Incomes (Taxation)
  Higher Range Incomes (Taxation)
  War Time Liabilities (Adjustment) Act
  War Time Liabilities (Adjustment) Act
ROYAL NAVY
  Women's Royal Naval Service
  Women's Royal Naval Service
  Married Lieutenant-Commanders (Pay)
  Married Lieutenant-Commanders (Pay)
  Operations, Tobruk
  Operations, Tobruk
  Women Surgeons
  Women Surgeons
  BRICKS (CHARGES) ORDER
  BRICKS (CHARGES) ORDER
  BUILDING LAWS AND REGULATIONS
  BUILDING LAWS AND REGULATIONS
  HOUSING SCHEMES (PLANNING)
  HOUSING SCHEMES (PLANNING)
  HISTORIC BUILDINGS (BOMB DAMAGE)
  HISTORIC BUILDINGS (BOMB DAMAGE)
  REQUISITIONED HOUSES, EATON SQUARE
  REQUISITIONED HOUSES, EATON SQUARE
  RAILINGS REMOVAL, KENSINGTON
  RAILINGS REMOVAL, KENSINGTON
POST OFFICE
  Juveniles (Employment)
  Juveniles (Employment)
  Letter Collections and Deliveries, London
  Letter Collections and Deliveries, London
  Savings Bank (Fraudulent Withdrawals)
  Savings Bank (Fraudulent Withdrawals)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Sports Goods
  Sports Goods
  Clothes Rationing (Municipal Employees)
  Clothes Rationing (Municipal Employees)
COLONIAL EMPIRE
  Political and Economic Development
  Political and Economic Development
  Labour Questions (Administrative Machinery)
  Labour Questions (Administrative Machinery)
WEST AFRICA
  Cocoa Control Scheme
  Cocoa Control Scheme
  Nigeria (Cost of Living Award)
  Nigeria (Cost of Living Award)
  NORTHERN RHODESIA (LAND ALLOCATION)
  NORTHERN RHODESIA (LAND ALLOCATION)
JAMAICA
  Labour Recruitment (Panama Canal)
  Labour Recruitment (Panama Canal)
  Food and Employment Situation
  Food and Employment Situation
  KENYA (LAND TENURE)
  KENYA (LAND TENURE)
  ST. HELENA (LAND CULTIVATION)
  ST. HELENA (LAND CULTIVATION)
  PALESTINE (LEGAL PROFESSION)
  PALESTINE (LEGAL PROFESSION)
  CHANNEL ISLANDS
  CHANNEL ISLANDS
  OLD AGE PENSIONS
  OLD AGE PENSIONS
  DIPHTHERIA IMMUNISATION
  DIPHTHERIA IMMUNISATION
  PRODUCTION (SCIENTIFIC ADVISERS)
  PRODUCTION (SCIENTIFIC ADVISERS)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Oatcakes
  Oatcakes
  Food Hoarding (Investigations)
  Food Hoarding (Investigations)
  Bread (Calcium)
  Bread (Calcium)
  Sugar
  Sugar
  Fish Supplies, Cheltenham
  Fish Supplies, Cheltenham
  Milk Scheme
  Milk Scheme
  Wheat and Bread
  Wheat and Bread
  Fishermen (Rations)
  Fishermen (Rations)
  Poultry
  Poultry
  Bread and Potatoes (Consumption)
  Bread and Potatoes (Consumption)
  Points Ration Coupons
  Points Ration Coupons
  CHEWING GUM (IMPORTATION)
  CHEWING GUM (IMPORTATION)
  GIRLS' TRAINING CORPS (UNIFORMS)
  GIRLS' TRAINING CORPS (UNIFORMS)
AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION
  Cargo-Carriers (Future Construction)
  Cargo-Carriers (Future Construction)
  Air Transport Auxiliary (Pilots)
  Air Transport Auxiliary (Pilots)
  HONG KONG (BRITISH SUBJECTS)
  HONG KONG (BRITISH SUBJECTS)
  BEVERIDGE COMMITTEE (REPORT)
  BEVERIDGE COMMITTEE (REPORT)
  ROYAL MARINE POLICE SPECIAL RESERVE (PAY)
  ROYAL MARINE POLICE SPECIAL RESERVE (PAY)
  PALESTINIAN FORCES (DEPENDANTS' ALLOWANCES)
  PALESTINIAN FORCES (DEPENDANTS' ALLOWANCES)
  AGRICULTURE (TRACTORS)
  AGRICULTURE (TRACTORS)
  DETAINEES (RELEASE)
  DETAINEES (RELEASE)
  MINISTRY OF HOME SECURITY (CAMBRIDGE REGIONAL OFFICE)
  MINISTRY OF HOME SECURITY (CAMBRIDGE REGIONAL OFFICE)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Requisitioned Farm Land (Valuation)
  Requisitioned Farm Land (Valuation)
  Air Crews (Flying Boots)
  Air Crews (Flying Boots)
  ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS)
  ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS)
  LIVERPOOL DOCK FACILITIES
  LIVERPOOL DOCK FACILITIES
  OMNIBUS SERVICES, RURAL AREAS
  OMNIBUS SERVICES, RURAL AREAS
Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

WAGES AND INFLATION.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD rose to ask His Majesty's Government, what is their policy in regard to further wage increases during the war period, and for the prevention of inflation; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not think I ever have been unsympathetic with the cause of labour and I do not think that I am now. Of course, I realize that some things I may say to-day may be attributed to an absence of generosity on my part. But I should be very ungenerous if I did not refer to the way in which the labour representatives and all wage-earners in this country have been contributing to our national war funds. We read, or rather we hear from the broadcasts every week, of some £10,000,000 savings having been secured by the wage-earners—some, of course, in the Post Office Savings Bank, some in the trustee savings banks and some in War Savings Certificates. In addition to that we have been informed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the savings of the people for the assistance of our war effort, have amounted to £1,500,000,000. When you remember that there has been an increase of the Income Tax in the first half of this year, 85 per cent. of which has been contributed by the working class and by the workers of the country who have £500 or less in their pockets, it is clear that this is a great contribution to our war effort. But these figures do show that there has been a margin of profit over and above what is necessary for maintaining the standard of living and the ability of the people to buy what they can either in the way of clothes or food.
It is surprising, however, to learn from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the sum of £500,000,000 is now being received by our people which is in excess of the value of the goods purchasable in the country. A certain amount of that money, no doubt, is spent in travelling, in visiting—much of it, I believe, unnecessary—and a good deal in the way of
416
recreation. I take my figures from Whitaker and I see that the Entertainment Tax two years ago brought in £7,000,000 a year. This year the Chancellor of the Exchequer has estimated the amount which is going to be spent on entertainment subject to tax at £28,000,000. Now I am one of those who always believe in play as well as work and in recreation throughout the country. Everything has been restricted except wages—even travelling. We have been advised not to travel; fares have been put up, and only yesterday the Green Line omnibuses, which have been covering 16,000,000 miles a year, were taken off the roads. I understand that 3,500,000 miles a year are still to be covered by these omnibuses, but that is all.
I am not one of those who think that rates of pay ought now to be reduced. I think that the wives of men in the Forces who have children are grossly underpaid. The men of our Fighting Forces who are risking their lives should not be begrudged the money which they receive, and certainly the brave men in the Merchant Navy are not overpaid for what they have done and are doing. My thoughts are directed not to the way in which people are now spending their money, but to what will occur if this prevailing increase in wage rates goes on. I am afraid that we are tending towards inflation, and this will before long, and certainly immediately the war is over, have its effect on the workers of this country, who will suffer far more terribly than anyone else if inflation comes about. I believe in the small capitalist, and I welcome all the contributions which individuals have put into savings funds and investments, because the greater security of the community is encouraged thereby.
The value of labour, however, depends upon the services rendered, the quality of workmanship, the skill shown, the time occupied and the amount of work performed. It is quite impossible for us to attempt to equalize wages. At present—and this will be the theme running through all that I have to say—workers are asking for more pay only because others have obtained it. The munition workers receive such high wages, as compared with those who are risking their lives in the mines and in other dangerous occupations, that in spite of the miners, with their strong organization, saying that they did

417
not want any increase of wages beyond what would cover the increased cost of living, they were forced by these more or less extravagant payments to munition workers, and to workers in factories generally, to demand an increased wage for themselves. To achieve equal wages seems to me to be impossible, and it also seems to me impossible to adjust wages so as to secure fairness all round. My experience in endeavouring to arrange wage-rates with different classes of work-men has always been—and I have been doing this for the greater part of my life—that the moment one increase is given some other inequality is created to adjust which immediately an attempt has to be made.
Last week I procured a copy of the Labour Gazette, because I wanted to see what changes were going on. There were nineteen changes in wages. There were slight reductions in the textile, tobacco and contracting industries, amounting to less than a penny a day. In basket-making there was a reduction of 1 per cent.; in the film industry—the only other industry where there was a reduction—the reduction was only a halfpenny a day. In the coal-mining industry there was an increased flat rate of 2s. 6d. per shift, and a minimum wage of £4 for every adult man. There was a great number of other applicants who had received increases in wages. Although there was an increase in the miners' wage, the miners did not appear to be quite satisfied, and the basis rates in South Wales were increased by 6s. a week for coal-face workers and 5s. for hauliers. The coke industry applied for an increase similar to that given to the miners. At a meeting of the Durham miners, I had to agree that they were entitled to the same increase of 2s. 6d. that had been given in an adjacent industry. In the brick-making industry adults receive 1s. 6d. more per shift and boys 1s. more per shift. In addition to all that, we have the increase which has been announced in the pay of the Forces, of £43,000,000 a year, to which I am not demurring. A short time ago the railway-men received an increase of 4s. 7d. per week. The locomotive men received 4s. in a subsequent application, and tire clerks asked for an increase of £26 a year, and received and accepted an increase of £10 a year. The engineers are applying for increases which they estimate to be equivalent to an addi-
418
tional £100,000,000 a year, or 35s. a week for 1,500,000 workers.
There is no suggestion that these higher wages are to result in increased war production. Increases are being asked for merely because they have been received by others. The women employed in engineering works are asking for 85 to 100 per cent. of what the men are going to get. The men employed in the iron and steel industry are asking for an increase in their wages. My own firm received last Friday applications from four different sets of workers whom we employ. The first was from workers in the iron and steel trade, who claim an increase in the melters' sliding scale from 67½ to So per cent., an increase of 12½ per cent., or 10d. per shift, in the base rates. They attached to their demand a memorandum which includes a summary of the wartime increases in wages in other important industries, such as engineering, shipbuilding, coal-mining, building, civil engineering and so on. I never saw a franker avowal of the reason for asking for a wage increase—namely, because others have received it. Because others have received it, they claim that they deserve it, although they are not necessarily going to produce anything more in return. Then my firm got an application also from the National Union of General Municipal Workers, asking for a new sliding scale. All the men employed at our blast furnaces asked for an increased overtime rate. The North-Eastern Coast bricklayers' labourers asked for a further increase.
These increases go on day by day. You pick up the newspaper and almost every clay you read of new applications for increases in wages—always put forward on the same ground that somebody else has got an advance. The position was very well summarized in The Times on Monday week, when it pointed out that in the last five months of last year the increases had been £30,000,000 a year, and in the first seven months of this year the figure had risen to £57,000,000 a year. I see in the Scottish papers that an application is being made for public assistance, and grants have already been made. Public assistance hitherto has been very largely based upon the standard cost of living and, as your Lordships know, the standard cost of living has not risen; it has recently even fallen one point. In certain places in Scotland they are getting

419
from 2s. to 3s. a week increase. In July of last year the Government stated their policy in regard to wage increases and they urged that wages and employees' remuneration "should be retained at a reasonable level by improvement in the efficiency of production." My case against the Government is that whilst they have laid down that policy they have not carried it out. That is my complaint.
I received a letter from a correspondent saying that he had written to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the 8th September, I think, pointing out the danger of inflation and of these constant increases in rates of wages and asking the Government what their policy was. I see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied in another place yesterday to a similar question, but this was what the Government wrote to my correspondent—it came not from the Treasury but from the Ministry of Labour:
"The policy of the Government on wages in war-time was defined by the White Paper Cmd. 6294—"
to which I have just referred—
"and that policy relies on the continued operation of a normal wage-fixing machinery supplemented by arbitration in the last resort."
They went on to say that "no practical alternative has been put forward that would not mean in effect full control' of wages by the State." That does not meet my view at all. I think the Government, without controlling wages in one sense or altering them, can restrict wages exactly in the same way as they restricted every other commodity except wages which we have been accustomed to enjoy.
My criticism of the Government is that they appear to be afraid either of the Trades Union Congress or of the voters, if they interfere, and they are relying upon arbitration. Arbitration is a most, excellent way in which to settle disputes when all other means have failed, and the Government are relying upon that. But anybody who has had any experience of arbitration knows that if other people are getting higher wages and you go to an arbitrator he is bound to make a concession and give some increase. When he gives an increase it only encourages somebody else to make another appeal, and that goes on. I think that this reliance on a settlement by the existing tribunals and by arbitration is a method whose
420
value in the interests of the country has been exhausted. Therefore I submit that it is time the Government took steps to stop these applications for an ever-increasing rate of wages.
Trade unionists, though they have great merits, are not very great students of history, and I have little doubt that, if left alone, they would say they were not in favour of any stabilization of wages. But what I want to draw attention to is the danger of inflation, and the trade unionists, not being very much up in the history of economic law, do not realize the sinister effect that inflation will have on the community after the war. The White Paper said that increases of wage rates will defeat their own object unless inflationary tendencies are kept under control. But they are not being kept under control. Look at the value of the sovereign to-day as compared with paper money. If a person wishes to buy, say, eight Savings Certificates, at 15s. each, he has only to put up £3 in gold to pay for them. It seems to me that inflation has already begun. The Americans realize that inflation is the great danger and the President to-morrow is going to stop it, and apparently is going to check the wage increases as well if Congress does not do it automatically to-day. Wages are soaring in every direction in America, just as they have been doing in this country, but the Americans think it necessary to stop it. Why does not our Government follow suit?
Prices follow costs, and costs follow wages. Just as the night follows the day, so wages, costs and prices follow one another. Here we are during the war trying to keep down the cost of living by subsidies. These subsidies, which at first were comparatively low, have steadily increased, and prices are being kept down only by subsidies for the purpose of keeping down the cost of living. I got the figures the other day from the iron trade. I find that during the war wages have on the average gone up 25 per cent. in all the production of iron and steel. The gross price to the customers has risen by 47 per cent., but the wages have only gone up 25 per cent., and the gross price receivable by the producer up to the present has only gone up 18 per cent. Thus customers who buy iron and steel are being mulcted to a much greater extent than wages and costs have gone up.

421
I shall give your Lordships a recent illustration from the coal trade. Wages were put up by 2s. 6d. a shift for every miner. Immediately the price of coal went up by 3s. a ton.
The Government try and stop the working of the ordinary economic laws by subsidies, which have risen from £50,000,000 in 1940 to £125,000,000 now. In this way they keep down certain prices, but the Government have been trying to stop people getting an increased price for their commodities because they have to pay more for coal. The Gas Light and Coke Company applied for permission to increase the price of gas to the consumers because they had to pay so much more per ton for their coal. Electrical utility companies asked exactly the same. Water companies asked exactly the same, because their pumping expenses had to go up and they must charge more to consumers. What do the Treasury do? The Treasury try to hide it, and they are doing what seems to me to be a roost reprehensible thing. They are trying to prevent the economic laws from operating by saying to these utility companies and water companies which are independent of municipalities, "If you have got reserves you must spend your reserves first, and then apply to the Government for power to increase your prices."
In other words, they are putting a premium on the firms who have not got any reserves, who have to go to the Government to get help, while those companies which are being conducted on sound financial lines are to be interfered with and are told they have to use their reserves which they have kept for purposes which are absolutely essential to the maintenance oil their business. A water company wrote to me the other day and said. "How hard is this on us in competing with municipal water undertakings who have their increases sanctioned because the municipal people have not got reserves. The moment their costs rise, if they are told they are not going to be allowed to increase the price of their commodity, they at once attack the rates, and therefore the ratepayer has to pay although the consumer is not going to pay." That action on the part of the Treasury seems to me to be a step in the wrong direction, and I hope that the Treasury, after mature thought, will alter this system and allow the economic laws
422
properly to operate so that, if a commodity such as coal has to go up in price, those who produce commodities such as gas, electricity, and water shall be allowed to increase their charges to the consumer. That is the only fair way in which business can be carried on.
I shall not at this hour go into the history of the evils of inflation, but I do want to bring home to the British public that inflation is a real danger. In the sixteenth century land rose in this country 6,000 per cent. The landlords of this country became very well off, but the sufferings of the masses of the people were terrible. In 1718–1720 paper money existed in France. Riots occurred everywhere, and the misery was indescribable—all due to inflation. We have the history of Germany after the last war when, as your. Lordships will remember, a million mark note was of no value whatsoever, and the sufferings of the masses of the German people were indescribable. It is because I want to avoid the dangers of inflation that I am asking the Government to adopt a different method in regard to their policy of trying to maintain a normal rate of wages throughout the country.
May I just refer for one moment to the coal situation in which we are all interested? To me the Essential Works Order and the way in which the increase in wages was recommended to the Government by the Greene Committee were on the wrong lines. The increase ought to have been associated and linked up with increased production, and the Essential Works Order was applied by Mr. Bevin without any consultation with the owners who understood the miners and could have got very much better results out of them if we had had to apply something in the nature of the Essential Works Order between ourselves so as to get the men to do their utmost. The men have resented the Essential Works Order. They have accepted the increase in wages, which is only natural, but they have not worked in accordance with the increased amount of money they have received. The owners informed the President of the Board of Trade that if this money was given without being linked up with increased production, the inevitable result would be that the men would work less. I want to give credit to the large majority of the men who are doing their best to get coal,

423
but there is a large number of young fellows—more young fellows than old men—who are not doing their best, and absenteeism is very considerable.
If absenteeism is only decreased by 2½ per cent.—and it might be decreased by 5 per cent. quite easily—and if the men would only produce 21 cwts. per shift when they used to be able to produce 23 cwts. per shift, the whole gap between production and consumption would be filled, and we should be able to keep our home fires burning and be warm during the coming winter. It was Mr. Lloyd George who, on one occasion, said that coal was a very great enemy, but a very warm friend. We have to try and secure the co-operation of the miners to do better work. We have tried a great many influences. Up to the present time I believe that to a large extent the absenteeism has been psychological. The miners have been working hard for two or three years, and the position has been very depressing from the military point of view. But I believe if there were a large number of casualties you would see the miners respond to their duty and at once work with a new spirit. Whatever the cause may be, it is unfortunate, because everybody is doing his best in the management and trying to overcome the lack of discipline which exists among many of the young fellows in our coalfields. It is deplorable, but that is the position, and I blame very much the Government for having accepted the method by which increased wages have been given to the miners without consultation with the owners and those who understand the men and have worked with them all their lives.
I do not think I have anything more to say on the subject. What I do feel is that the Government have been drifting; they have allowed this wage question to drift. It is possible for them to take action, and I believe that so long as men were not given any increase of wages in any industry and no salaried person was given a bigger salary for the same work that he has been doing, the country would accept a decision of the Government to stabilize wages where they are at present. It is because I want to avoid the terrible suffering which I foresee in the event of this wage increase continuing, as it has been doing, that I do press the Government to
424
take action and do something in order to prevent the danger of inflation which I foresee. I beg to move for Papers.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, I suspect that the subject which the noble Lord has introduced may be the most important which your Lordships have had brought to your consideration for many months past, important partly because, for one thing, everywhere by all classes and with increasing perplexity and irritation it is being canvassed and almost nowhere being frankly discussed by politicians; and that is a state of affairs which is very unnatural and therefore very dangerous in a democracy. Important also because in the long run I think that there may be more danger of losing the war through the wage muddle than through any other muddle for which the Government have, as yet, been responsible. After all, our other failures have been in the main due to lack of preparation, or lack of foresight, whereas this failure has been due, primarily I think, to lack of courage; and of all public failings it is probably lack of courage which costs a nation most dearly.
As to inflation, I do not claim for a moment to be an expert. There are many noble Lords present, including the noble Lord who has just spoken, and the Lord Chancellor who will reply, who are well qualified, as I most certainly am not, to advise your Lordships as to the danger that the mounting spiral of quite unregulated wages may eventually breed so disastrous a degree of inflation that first that great central economic stratum of fixed salary earners who, I sometimes think, are the moral mainstay of the nation, and then the whole of every class may be irretrievably ruined. As to the technical aspects of inflation, I would not venture to address your Lordships, nor do I frankly think that, formidable as they may be, they are the most serious aspects of the question which your Lordships are now considering. I think that the moral aspects of the unrestricted wage increase will, in the long run, be likely to prove far more dangerous even than the admittedly formidable threat of inflation. As to inflation, therefore, all I would venture would be to remind your Lordships, as an example of the temper in which the Government have handled the whole affair from start to finish, that as long ago as February, 1940, the noble Lord on my right, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, introduced a Motion warning us of the

425
danger of inflation, to which the Government, through the mouth of the Lord Chancellor, replied that in effect there was no serious danger of inflation.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): I was not Lord Chancellor in February, 1940.
LORD ELTON: I beg the noble Viscount's pardon, I was not suggesting he was. The Lord Chancellor of the day said that there was no serious danger of inflation. Then in July of last year the Government issued a White Paper which said in effect that there was a serious danger of inflation, but that they did not propose to take any particular action to protect us from that danger. And indeed, for all the notice which has been taken of the White Paper, even by the Government themselves, it might very well have been saved for the paper salvage campaign. It is not in my view wage rises that matter so much as unregulated, unplanned and unco-ordinated rises, and during the twelve months that followed the issue of the Government's White Paper in July, 1941, the entirely unregulated, fortuitous, unco-ordinated rises would probably, if overtime and other contributions to them were counted in, be nearer £150,000,000 than £100,000,000 per annum. And that during a period, as Lord Gainford has pointed out, when the cost of living has remained relatively stable, and has in fact, during the last month or so, slightly decreased.
Sir Walter Citrine said, early in the war, that, whatever happened, the wage-earners must not suffer from a rise in the cost of living. Well, that is a claim which will no doubt awaken a sympathetic echo in most of our breasts, although there may be two opinions about the wisdom of the way in which it was uttered, and indeed of the likelihood that in a war of such magnitude and duration we are likely to survive without sooner or later every class, except the very poorest, making at any rate its proportionate contribution to the economic sacrifices of the war. However that may be, the argument then advanced by Sir Walter Citrine is no longer relevant since the cost of living has, for some while, been relatively stable and, as Lord Gainford has made abundantly clear, the reason advanced for all the great recent increases in wages, and still more for the enormous pending claims for wage rises, has been not the state of the cost-of-
426
living index but merely the fact that somebody, somewhere else, has obtained an advance in the totally unregulated scramble which now seems to be impending. The effect of this unregulated scramble, on the verge of which we now seem to find ourselves, is—and this is really the main point which I wish to submit to your Lordships' consideration—most dangerous to the national morale and may in the long run prove, I believe, disastrous to the nation's war effort.
Its effects, of course, are various. Those who see the wage scramble without taking part in it naturally concentrate their attention mainly upon the more exceptional and extravagant anomalies—upon the soldier's wife receiving her few shillings a week while the semi-skilled worker in the aircraft factory can take home £25, and sometimes a boy of sixteen may earn £6 a week. The noble Lord, Lord Gainford, has spoken some very weighty words about the effect which such a spectacle has on, for example, miners doing their dangerous and arduous and highly skilled work for a fraction of that reward. I would like to tell your Lordships of what, though a trivial, is, I think, a very striking example and a characteristic example of the effect upon the national morale of this sort of quite unregulated, quite fortuitous and quite unplanned anomaly.
Only last week a member of a savings group with which I am associated astonished me by saying he proposed to discontinue his contributions. Now this particular backslider was one of that kind of citizen who always has been, is and always will be, the backbone of the English nation; a skilled worker, not in a special war industry, drawing now, I suppose, probably £4 or £5 a week; intelligent, industrious, widely respected and trusted in his neighbourhood, the backbone of every local good cause and effort. I could hardly believe my ears when this man, of all the members of this group, who had done so much to foster it, told me he proposed no longer even to subscribe himself. Then he explained. He said "Do you know in this town there are young women we know, I and my friends, in their early twenties, with practically no experience or skill in industry, drawing £11 17s. a week and spending every penny of it at night in drink, dancing and amusements? Does the

427
Government, which is always asking us to save, expect us to go on pinching and scraping and saving, as we have done, while it utters no clear word in public about this riot of waste which is going on under our very eyes?" He went on to tell me that he knew of at least a dozen of his friends and neighbours—and knowing him I have no doubt they were of the same moral and social calibre as himself, admirable citizens—who had also resolved, and for the same reason, to discontinue their contributions.
Of course they were entirely illogical, as I hope I have succeeded in convincing these particular friends of mine and by now some, if not all, will, I hope, have repented of their hasty resolve. But whether they have done so or not, my point is that this incident is characteristic of the sort of insidious effect upon the national morale which is bound to be produced by leaving, as the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, has said, wages as the one element in the national economy which is totally exempt from any sort of Government control or interference. I would like again to repeat that the burden of my complaint, such as it is, is not that wages rise. It is that because nobody plans the rise you get these admittedly exceptional but far too frequent anomalies, and approach the maelstrom of inflation. The objection, at any rate so far as I am concerned, is not to seeing working people get more money. I believe in the old Socialist maxim that if you plan anywhere you should plan everywhere, and I do not believe you can have a really healthy economic life when this vast area of it is totally unregulated and unplanned. The bewilderment and resentment of these good people arises also because their local Member of Parliament has never spoken on this issue in Parliament. He is afraid to speak frankly. This attitude of mind will continue if we leave the nettle ungrasped. The taxpayer is bound to become increasingly aware that his already heavy burdens are being swollen all the time by high costs due to these, in some cases, extravagantly high wages.
This sort of unregulated anomaly has an effect not only on the morale of those who watch it and do not take part in it, but of those who themselves share in its so-called advantages. One of the
428
official advertisements recently issued by the National Savings Committee which appeared in the Press last August began on that somewhat unctuously colloquial note which is so often struck by these Government announcements. "Lots of people round our way are earning more than they have ever earned and chucking it away on luxuries." That is an official view and undoubtedly within limits it is very true. The moral effect of unregulated wages is visible also, I think, in the fact that it is precisely those war factories in which extravagant and exceptionally high wages are most frequent as to which reports circulate in the greatest number as to the lateness or absenteeism or indifference of the workers in the factories. The tragedy of the whole spectacle is that it is entirely unnecessary. Once again, the Government have underrated the moral fibre of the nation.
Of course, if there are high earnings to be got it is only human nature to get them if you can, and we should, every one of us, do the same—perhaps we are, for all I know, in our own private affairs. After one hundred years of unregulated scramble for profits you cannot be surprised if, when opportunity arises, there is an unregulated scramble for wages. It is no good blaming human nature. But if the Government had ever asked the country in the interests of the war effort to accept regulation of wages—and regulation of profits and dividends and every other form of income into the bargain—then undoubtedly the nation would have overwhelmingly responded. Supposing that at the beginning of the war, or better still after Dunkirk when the latent threat to our existence had become palpable to everybody, the Government had appealed in a united and decided voice to the country to accept the principle of regulation and co-ordination of wages, combined with a much more effective regulation of every other form of income, I have not the slightest doubt that the nation would have responded. Suppose the Government had adopted that fine old Socialist slogan "Service before profits." After all, "profit" is a word which really covers every form of individual self-seeking: whether a man is trying to get higher salary or profits or wages or dividends it is really all the same principle. And the Socialist maxim of "Wages before profits"—when can it

429
have been more appropriate than at the outset of a struggle for our existence?
Suppose after Dunkirk the Government had decreed with a united voice that nobody in any class, employer, rentier, salary earner, wage earner, nobody except the lower paid wage-earners, should be better off in real income because the nation was fighting for its life. Or suppose they had even not gone so far as that but had simply said, "Nobody shall be better off, no employer, no salary earner, no rentier, and as regards wages, though they shall rise, it shall be on a co-ordinated and planned and regulated system": surely the nation would have responded. In 1931 when, rightly or wrongly—and whether rightly or wrongly is entirely irrelevant to this argument—the Government asked the nation for economic sacrifices to meet a much less exacting crisis than this, the nation overwhelmingly responded. I cannot help wondering how, if there had been a powerful Socialist Party in this country as distinct from a Labour Party, it could have missed that unique opportunity of claiming to put into practice two of its oldest and most honourable maxims: Service before profit for everybody; and Government regulation and planning instead of the higgledy-piggledy, fortuitous private bargaining of the individual market.
Is it too late? Is it impossible even now for the Government to appeal authoritatively to the unions, not for wage reductions, but for some sort of stabilization and co-ordination in the future? Of course the unions will reply, and very rightly, "What about profits?" Well, in the Excess Profits Tax the Government have at any rate recognized the principle that profits ought to be restricted. It is said that there are many, too many loopholes in the machinery of that tax and that no one but an honest man need pay it. Let us have the machinery tightened up 100 per cent. Would it not be possible, too, for the ingenuity of the Inland Revenue authorities—and the ingenuity of those authorities is proverbial—to arrange that the rentier paid 100 per cent. tax on the dividends in excess of what he was receiving on the same capital before September, 1939? Now if it were manifest to everybody that no other economic class was receiving more because the nation was fighting for its existence, that
430
the loopholes had, to the best of the Government's ability been stopped, surely then the unions—with all their wage advances behind them—would respond to an authoritative appeal for co-ordination and regulation of wages in the future.
My Lords, and this is my last word, what we really want is a Winston Churchill on the Home Front. Some of us thought we had found him in Sir Stafford Cripps. I wonder whether your Lordships remember the thrill of response which ran through the country—I met it, and I am a person who receives a very large amount of correspondence from strangers in every class—that thrill which ran instantly through the country when Sir Stafford Cripps made his first speech asking for greater austerity all round. And we really thought we had got a leader who was going to give us a lead for greater austerity everywhere—not in the wage-earning class only but everywhere, nor excepting the wage-earning class but everywhere. Unfortunately we have not heard very much from Sir Stafford Cripps lately. But is it too late for us to hope for some other leader before too long, and I would say before too late, some other leader with courage and conviction who will summon employers, salary earners, rentiers and everyone of us to service before profit?
LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, as one who on various occasions before the present war broke out endeavoured to direct your Lordships' attention to the dangers of inflation, I should like to say a few words. I am afraid that at the root of this trouble there lies complete ignorance on the part of the great mass of the voters of the simplest economic facts. Practically the whole population regards an increase in their own incomes in terms of money as pure gain, no matter what the economic repercussions may be. That inflation is the natural and inevitable result of any increase in costs of production, unless it is accompanied by a parallel increase in the volume of production, is to them unintelligible. Everybody goes on to the bitter end doing all he can to increase his own income in terms of money. This is bad enough in times of peace when the relative values of the work performed by different classes of people are more or less stabilized. When war breaks out and the demand for the various kinds of production sud-

431
denly undergoes violent changes the situation is bound to become chaotic unless a large measure of control is at once imposed.
Obviously if a new industry of munition production springs into existence the work-people in which are allowed to earn much higher wages than skilled workers in established industries, if agricultural labourers are offered double their regular wages to forsake the fields and work on a new aerodrome, if boys and girls can sometimes get £5 or £6 a week for their unskilled work, it is unreasonable to hope to avoid trouble. The remedy is to impose control all round and not to leave wages as the one glaring exception to the rule that binds every other phase of human activity. Men and women are conscribed, rationed, ordered about, their money is taken from them to any extent that the Government think fit. The one and only important exception is wages, and this in the teeth of the fact that in the last war most of the hideous political troubles which were not far from landing us in irreparable disaster were due to this very matter. With their eyes wide open and with experience to guide them the Government at the outbreak of war deliberately abstained from taking the most important economic step of all for maintaining the financial equilibrium of this country.
Unfortunately, inflation, like other economic terms, may be taken to mean a number of different things. Exactly what constitutes inflation is treated as a highly controversial subject. My own feeling is that it is a perfectly simple one. Any increase in the cost of production unaccompanied by a parallel increase in the volume of production is by its nature recurrent. It is therefore calculated to start a vicious spiral, and so far as I can see can properly be described as inflation. However this may be, there is no doubt that inflation is a capital levy laid directly upon one kind of capital only—fixed-interest-bearing securities. These are exactly the securities in which thrifty people invest their savings, and therefore exactly the securities which the Government ought to do everything in their power to protect. They include the national debt and war savings. Every turn of the inflationary screw is, amongst other undesirable features, a capital levy upon all the small savings which thrifty people contribute
432
to the war effort, amounting, we have heard, to some £10,000,000 a week. These investments can be plundered by a stroke of the pen; a capital levy can be imposed upon them by mere inaction; and, as a capital levy is the one thing; above all others, that whets the appetite of the ignorant voter, these investments fall an easy prey. They have no security behind them beyond a mere promise to pay, and so depend upon good faith—a very poor protection where Governments are concerned.
A capital levy on other forms of property is a very different matter. At least nine-tenths of other forms of property in every civilized country consist of fixed assets—houses, roads, fields, docks and so on—which are useless, or nearly useless, for any purpose except that for which they were designed. What Governments want is liquid cash. The only way of converting fixed assets into liquid cash is to find purchasers who are willing and able to buy the fixed assets for liquid cash. The present liquidation of capital by people with large commitments is probably near the limit that the capital market can stand. Moreover, there are remarkably few people who will buy confiscated property which they cannot remove, and which is therefore liable to be confiscated again. The politicians' dream of recasting the world by means of a levy on capital, which is really at the bottom of all the demands for swollen wages, very quickly boils down to the confiscation of the savings of every thrifty person in the country and the disappearance of liquid capital, the absence of which prevents improvements and developments in living conditions from being made and is the principal cause of unemployment. Liquid capital is the life-blood of civilization and progress. I need not occupy your Lordships' time by dilating further on its importance. At this eleventh hour let the Government act and do as nearly as is now possible what they should have done three years ago. The difficulties are great, but the penalties of inaction are greater.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am very grateful, and I am sure that your Lordships also are grateful, to my noble friend Lord Gainford for raising this most important and difficult subject in frank and open debate. If it were the

433
case, as I think that one of your Lordships who has spoken thought, that the Government have avoided the opportunity of explaining the policy which they are following on this subject, your Lordships' House gives some opportunity to correct that to-day. There could not, of course, be any question which is of more importance and gravity. It is a question the mode of dealing with which fundamentally affects, as has already been pointed out, the conduct, and it may be the issue, of the war, and it is a question upon the proper treatment of which our national unity in war may very likely depend. I shall not, in the remarks which I am about to make, attempt to deal with the detailed illustrations which have been mentioned, especially by my noble friend who spoke first. Naturally, illustrations can be taken which are of a very pointed character; but the real question here is the broad question of method and of policy, and it is mainly to that question that noble Lords who have spoken have directed their remarks.
If I may trespass on your Lordships' time, I propose to do two things. I propose first to make a statement as to what is, and has been, the policy of the Government, and to explain the grounds on which that policy is, as we think, justified and preferred. I also wish briefly to examine, as well as I can, the only alternative method of treating wage questions in war-time which might be suggested. I have listened most closely to what has been said, to see whether some more concrete suggestions would be made to-day as an alternative, and I beg leave to point out how serious, to say the least of it, are the risks and disadvantages that might attach to the alternative. Let me take those two matters in order, and deal first with Government policy, which has been so liberally trounced by noble Lords who have spoken. My noble friend Lord Gain-ford, I was glad to see, did not adopt the shallow and ill-informed criticism which one sometimes hears from quarters outside, to the effect that "the Government have no wage policy at all." I shall show, if I may be allowed to do so, with how much care that policy is in fact studied and followed. It is a policy for which the Ministry of Labour are primarily responsible, but it is, of course, a matter for decision by the whole Government, and a matter of responsibility for every member of the Government.
434
In order that we may approach this matter as I think it should be approached, I will ask your Lordships to forgive me if I first mention a fact well known to your Lordships, and which was a fact before the war began. The policy in regard to the relationships between employers and employed, in the matter of wages, conditions and many collateral things, which was established in this country after many years of controversy, but which was followed on the whole with great success in the period before the war, was one of the use of industrial self-government as far as that could be employed. It was not always the case that collective bargaining received the general approval which is given to it to-day, and I can even imagine some who would now certainly assert their recognition of its value having in time past doubted whether on the whole it was a wise system. It was a system the adoption of which was strongly urged by the Whitley Committee which considered industrial relationships at the end of the last war, and for many years before this war broke out it was found to be, in times of peace at any rate, a method of the greatest utility, productive of industrial agreement.
In addition to that there was the constant practice of wages and conditions being negotiated and settled by means of voluntary organizations of employers and workers. There is also an addition to that not to be overlooked. Where there was no sufficient organization to enable that system to operate Parliament had set up statutory machinery in the trade boards, the first enactment of them being in the time of the Liberal Government of which my noble friend Lord Gainford was a member in 1909. In all this machinery the principle of adjusting difficulties by a process of self-government has been maintained on the basis of placing responsibilities—for it turns on responsibilities—for fixing wage rates and the like on the representatives of employers and work-people in their organizations, and supplementing that with a great system of conciliation and of voluntary arbitration. Broadly speaking, it is right to say that the system has worked with marked loyalty to the agreements made on the part of those concerned.
I apologize for going back into these things, but it is really necessary to see what was the true industrial structure of

435
this country at the time when this immensely important question arose, as my noble friend Lord Monkswell says, at the beginning of the war. That was the system under which industrial peace had been, with some very unhappy exceptions, promoted in this country; and if industrial peace is necessary in time of peace, it is still more necessary in time of war. The question then arose—I quite admit it was a question for the Government, and critics are fully entitled to make their criticism if they do not agree—whether every effort should be made to maintain and make use of that system under war conditions. I have listened to what my noble friends have said with great respect, and I have not gathered from them with any great precision what they regard as the alternative. My noble friend Lord Gainford said the Government should take action. I will show that it has taken a great deal of action, but in the direction of supporting, and not destroying, this policy.
My noble friend Lord Elton I think thought, and plainly implied in his very straightforward speech, that there should be Government control and fixation of wages. That is, I agree, the alternative, and I state it perfectly fairly and perfectly bluntly when I say here is the choice: Should one supersede our old system by entering upon the Government regulation of wages? "Why," we are asked. "do not the Government fix wages? What a cowardly, shortsighted Government this must be which hesitates to undertake the business of fixing wages." That is one view. The other view is that responsibility has been placed on this self-government in industry in the past with, upon the whole, great success. Should we not rather call upon them to exercise those responsibilities, engaged in industry as free citizens with all this long experience behind them, while giving to the traditional system of this country, as we have done in the war, further buttressing and support by a whole series of regulations which have been made under war conditions?
May I just briefly state, as a matter of fact and information to your Lordships' House, the objections that were felt, and are felt, to the first alternative? I will not enter into any subject of political philosophy, though I agree with, I
436
think it was Lord Elton, when he said that what he was indicating would mean the application of something far more drastic than any Labour Party would tolerate, but would be on the contrary the most extreme form of Socialist regulation. He might have called it totalitarian while he was about it. The first thing to consider—and it is not unimportant—is this. Every Government in this country endeavours, of course, in deciding these very difficult questions of internal industrial policy, to consult and get the help, and if possible co-operation, of the leaders of industry on both sides. The fact is that the employers' organizations and the trade unions—both sides—were approached, and advised against the scrapping of joint machinery in war-time. They advised that this machinery should be continued, but it should be supplemented by two new provisions. Nothing has been said about these, as far as I remember, in the debate, but they are very important.
The first thing was that there should be, by law during the war, a prohibition of strikes and lock-outs—mind you, from the point of view of organized labour that is a very serious proposition indeed, for the strike is their ultimate resource—but, in return for that, there should be established in this country for the period of the war compulsory arbitration on wages and conditions. And there exists—I have not heard a word said about it in this debate so far—the National Arbitration Tribunal, staffed by a very distinguished High Court Judge, with his assessors, before which there can come, and constantly do come, questions in controversy about wage changes or other things, with the result—which was never the case before the war—that the award of that tribunal has binding and statutory effect. And not only that, but with this further provision in the whole scheme that, whereas in many industries there have been establishments and undertakings that were outside the employers' federation and went their own way, just as there have been workmen who have not taken part in the collective settlement secured by trade unions, we have provided by law for the period of the war that settlements thus arrived at and approved are to be binding—legally binding—in every establishment and in respect of every workman who is engaged in that branch of industry.

437
I think what I have said will show that it really is a misapprehension to suppose that the Government have simply thrown this thing on the table, taken no interest in it, and let things slide. Right or wrong—in the end, of course, a certain judgment can be pronounced—but, right or wrong, the steps that have been taken in this regard have been taken quite deliberately as a result of a great deal of consultation and consideration, and in the belief that, while under war conditions no system can give perfect results, this is the system which is far more likely to produce what is essential than the one and only alternative.
It is so easy to write a pamphlet and say that the Government regulate prices and therefore they should regulate wages. Consider, my Lords, what is involved in that proposition, if you mean it. Government fixation of wages inevitably involves Parliamentary discussion, House of Commons controversy, on the rates of wages in every trade. You have a proof of it at this very moment. There is one form of pay which at this very moment is exciting discussion in the House of Commons—it is the pay of the soldier. That is precisely because the Government have to take the responsibility of saying "That shall be your pay, no more and no less." Just imagine what is going to be the result if, over the whole field of industry, without extreme cause, you have a scrapping of the methods which have hitherto been employed, and in. place of that the Government of the day—some strong Government, some Government that is not afraid, some Government that will face these difficulties and act like a man!—say, "Very well, then, we will fix everybody's wages." You would immediately bring this subject into the very centre of the political and Parliamentary arena. You would have bodies of members in another place, if I may presume to speculate, who would feel they had a special duty to a particular industry and who, beyond all question, would criticize and resist the Government's decision in the supposed interests of those concerned. In this rare and secluded atmosphere, where I hope I am safe from contradiction, I venture to add that it is just possible that the critics in the House of Commons would not be so well informed on the niceties of these difficult questions as are the authorized and trusted leaders of the trade unions and employers' federations.
438
I am one of those who think that the burdens and anxieties of carrying through the war to the end victoriously are so overwhelming that, though we must think and plan for the future, we must not let that move from the front of our minds these instant tasks. But think of the future. If, indeed, we once were led in Parliament to decide that we must scrap this system of conciliation, we should upset and, it may be, permanently injure the system of joint machinery which, believe me, at this very hour is working in hundreds and thousands of cases, settling disputes in the workshops, removing misunderstandings, negotiating a new rule—an immense mass of work which is contributing enormously to industrial peace and which has its authority because, after all, the responsible trade union leader, feeling that he has power in his hands, is able to exercise a restraining influence on the more rash of his colleagues. Another thing—Lord Elton boldly and logically recognizes it, and I should like all your Lordships to recognize it—does anybody really suppose that the Government could undertake to regulate the size of the wages of everybody in this country without the questions arising: "What about salaries? What about directors' fees? What about the return on investments?" I am not saying whether that is right or wrong, but I am quite confident that to introduce these topics without the most absolute necessity along with the fixing of wages in the middle of the war, would be an act of the most extreme and reckless folly.
What is the alternative? I do not say at all that it has worked with uniform success. I recognize that in its working it has many difficulties, but let us see what the alternative is. It has been the policy of preserving and developing this system of collective bargaining machinery for the whole of industry. It has been the policy of impressing in every way—and I venture respectfully to do so here publicly on behalf of the Government—both on combinations of employers and on combinations of work-people, the responsibility which they have—not a sectional responsibility to their own immediate constituents, but a responsibility to the whole community, to the whole State, to the whole effort in which we are all engaged. It involves this, that where differences arise they must be settled. The

439
law requires that they should be peacefully settled, and they are being settled, by compulsory arbitration, and there shall not be and must not be any strike or lockout. I shall say a word separately in a moment on the point that prices and cost of living should be controlled and, as far as possible, stabilized. I must here say one other thing. The system involves a recognition that there may be proper grounds for the adjustment of wages in certain cases, particularly among comparatively low grades and categories of workmen.
If your Lordships have been good enough to follow me in my argument, you will see that what I am saying is this: I do not say that these principles have always been perfectly observed in their entirety, although I think there has been great exaggeration in selecting particular instances and elevating them as samples of the whole. I do not say that there are not great difficulties in working the system. There are difficulties which are the constant preoccupation of the Ministry of Labour; but that is not the point. The question is this: Take it for all in all, is this not a better method to have pursued than the method of what I must call the totalitarian State fixation of wages, which is the only alternative? If somebody will come here and prove to me that there is some third course which combines the advantages of both, I am sure no one would be better pleased than my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour. But the truth is—we are all engaged in a frank and open discussion—that those who do not see we ought to try to work our present system to the utmost are really saying that the State, during the war, must fix everybody's wages. I would only ask your Lordships again to reflect on all the consequences which might ensue.
Let me mention one or two advantages, since we have had some instances where the system has not worked well. Here is an advantage not to be overlooked. It has permitted rates and conditions to be adapted, in most cases, smoothly and quickly to meet the changes and complexities of war-time needs. As I have indicated already, it has enabled innumerable workshop questions to be settled by authorities behind the scenes. I am quite certain that, unless your Lord-
440
ships happen to be connected with a particular trade, you cannot have full knowledge of the number of these instances. I see my noble friend Lord Perry in his place. He holds very strong opinions on the subject of multiplying civil servants. I would point out that under the system we are trying to follow the parties to these innumerable agreements themselves act as policemen to see that they are kept. Try starting the State regulation of wages, and you will have to appoint a mass of inspectors—civil servants—whose business it will be to examine and see that the provisions of the State are duly kept.
It seems to me that there is a lot more to be said for this system than might have appeared earlier in the debate, and when I reflect that if we get through our present anxieties and struggles the time that is going to be the real time of the greatest possible difficulty in British industry is after the war, I must say that I think it takes a bold man lightheartedly to talk of shelving all this immense industrial machine when its authority will be needed so mightily when we come to the real difficulties after the war. Those are the general considerations which have appeared to the Government and they at least show that the matter has been thought about.
But I want to turn to the main criticism made very fairly and very firmly by my noble friend Lord Gainford and others. They say: "Yes, but this policy places no limit on wages; it does not provide uniformity in wage movements; there is a tendency for some to claim because others have got something," and there is always brooding over your Lordships' Chamber that rather mysterious and undoubtedly most formidable economic condition, the danger of inflation. As regards the proposition that this places no limit on wages, that is true, but I return to the point which I have already made. We must make up our minds, is it better to have fixed wages and, if anybody does not like them, to enforce them by fine and imprisonment? I do not suppose anybody thinks we could make people go to work if they refused to do so in such circumstances. I think most of your Lordships, whether we like it or not, are aware that this country has, in its past history, advanced so far on the road to industrial freedom that if a substantial part of the population had a legitimate

441
grievance, strongly felt, there is only one way to deal with it and that is to find a method of remedy and treatment. The truth is that during these years we have been breathing an atmosphere of industrial peace, and we are not conscious of all that it has added to the strength of this country. Industrial peace has sometimes been broken in the past, sometimes with terrible injury not only to those immediately concerned but to the wider community, but do not overlook the fact that in the field of wages the morale and the co-operation of workers and the authority of their leaders have been maintained by this knowledge, the knowledge that they are assured of a just settlement of many legitimate claim.
Now I come to one or two of the things said by noble Lords in this debate. Some have spoken as though the pursuit of this policy up to date has produced great and almost uncontrolled inflation. I speak with humility on such a subject. I have, within the limits of my powers, not infrequently during the years I was in the Treasury spoken of it, and I have ventured to address your Lordships upon it before. I do not think it is the case that the rise in wage rates has been such as to induce inflation. What is the rise in wage rates? In industries other than agriculture, the average rise is 28 or 29 per cent. In al1 industries, if you bring in agriculture, it is between 31 and 32 per cent. I point out at once that that is the rise in the rate of wages, but, of course, in view of increased production and overtime, the actual increases in the earnings are more than that; in fact the increases in earnings are something like 47½ per cent. but that is due to higher production and longer hours.
I would not dream of trying to inflict upon your Lordships any long observations on inflation, but I must be allowed to say, at any rate for those who do not claim to know the higher niceties, that I think the main proposition is not very difficult. Conditions of war inevitably produce an immense dislocation in the balances between supplies available to be bought and the sources available to the purchaser. Supplies are cut down by the dangers to traffic over the sea, and still more perhaps by the claim of the Government to take all that they need for the purposes of the war.
442
At the same time, if these supplies shrink, you are likely to find, and you do find, an increase of the wherewithal by which people in this country may, if they are left unrestrained, satisfy their needs. The result is a forcing up of prices, a falling in the value of money, and the beginning of the cycle which everybody refers to in much the same language. But I would observe with very great respect to my noble friend Lord Gainford, that if we really were to adopt his remedy, which is, as I understand it, to let economic laws operate without interference, that would be indeed a magnificent way of producing inflation in five minutes. The whole point is that you cannot allow economic laws to operate without interference in such circumstances. I was a little surprised to hear my noble friend Lord Elton say that a predecessor of mine as Lord Chancellor, at an earlier stage in answer to a question, said that the Government did not propose to take any steps to prevent inflation.
LORD ELTON: If the noble and learned Viscount will forgive me, I did not mean to say that. What I intended to convey was that whoever replied to a noble Lord's Motion had said in February, 1940, that there was then no serious danger of inflation.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am much obliged, I did think my noble friend used the other expression, but of course I must have misunderstood him. I cannot go back to that date, but it is much more to the point to realize, and I ask the House to realize, that after all the Government cannot be blamed for everything and to suggest that the Government, this present Government, have not taken steps to try to prevent inflation and on the whole have not been remarkably successful in so doing, is really to talk in loose language. I do not know what my noble friend Lord Kindersley thinks about it, but what are all these controls if they are not for that purpose? The very object is to provide that only limited quantities of things are to be bought, that many things are not to be bought at all, that people are not to do this and not to do that—very irritating, terribly aggravating and annoying, but everyone of these things is simply part of the deliberate process to stop inflation. If you take the fact, and it is a very important and relevant fact, that the wage trend since the war has put larger

443
sums of money into the hands of vast masses of wage-earners, as it certainly has, it is most relevant to observe that at the same time, partly by taxation, partly by the savings movement, which my noble friend Lord Kindersley has taken such a magnificent part in promoting, we are engaged in getting by far the greatest part of this money back in such a way as does not leave in the hands of the citizen the ability, if he had the wish, to spend these enormous sums as is suggested.
That is all part of the steps taken to prevent inflation. There is in my humble judgment, without wishing to speak as an expert, a certain danger to face because people when they discuss inflation talk as if it was the acquisition of power to spend which created inflation. It is not. It is the actual spending. The Purchase Tax, the Income Tax, the National Savings Movement and other restrictions, all operate to limit the extent to which people can buy, and everybody knows—let us take the household of moderate means—that the lady who is doing her best to provide for her household finds it difficult, not because she has not got money in her purse to buy something, but because Government policy prevents things being bought. I return to the less technical part of my discourse. I say that the prevention of inflation is being covered by a whole wide range of restrictive measures aimed at reducing the impact of increasing wages on reduced supplies. I take the view that we are picking our way along a very narrow edge, but really if we contrast the position to-day about inflation with some of the gloomy prophecies which I remember were quoted to your Lordships' House last year—not of course adopted by your Lordships, but quoted because they were made outside with a great air of expert authority—I think I am entitled to claim without the smallest particle of what is called complacency that the inflation problem has been handled in this country with boldness and skill.
I would just make this further observation which bears particularly on something which was said by my noble friend Lord Gainford. My noble friend is under the impression—he said it very firmly—that the increases in wages which have taken place have led to inflation. I would draw a distinction. It is, I think, very
444
important to distinguish between what has happened up to date and what might happen in the future if wages continue greatly to rise. As far as we have got, the statistical evidence indicates that we have been able to hold the increase in the wages bill up to date without any significant indication of what might reasonably be called inflation as compared, let us say, with a year ago. It is a mistake to imagine that subsidies, which are being paid to meet the additional expenses of shipping and the like and which will buy the most essential food very cheaply, are mounting rapidly. My information is that the figure stands now at this minute at almost exactly the same amount as the figure mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget speech earlier in the year. The index of the cost of living has been kept steady. That, of course, is not everything, because people want to buy other things as well, but whilst the prices of articles of non-necessity have gone up a good deal more than the cost of living, as I have already pointed out this partly reflects a deliberate policy of discouraging their consumption. Even so, the upward movement in their cost is not very considerable.
The true view is, I am informed by those who know most about it, that stabilization of the cost of living is being achieved without any additional subsidy beyond the figure I mentioned by a method which is comparatively fresh, the method of "points rationing" (which almost makes me in my domestic circle repeat what Lord Randolph Churchill said about decimals). By that system of points rationing it has been made possible to bring within the rationing system any further articles of food where otherwise the pressure of demand or supply might prove threatening. Take the Black Market. I do not know whether your Lordships have the same impression as I have, but my view, is that the measures now being taken certainly suggest that it is definitely on the decline and the dealings in it less important. The view of the authorities who advise the Government is that it will be difficult to find any indications worth mentioning of a progressive movement towards inflation as compared with a year ago. I do not give that out with any claim of triumph, but it does seem to me that it is comforting to know a statistical fact of that sort.

445
That does not in the least mean that we can afford to be indifferent or what is called complacent about the future. As I said just now, the system on which the Treasury is working is admittedly a precarious one. They are picking their way, as it were, along the path, seeking to keep to the way that is safe. It may be a very anxious journey; all the same it is better than following the advice of people which may result in producing an avalanche. It has successfully stood the strain which has been put upon it so far. The system of controls seems to have been proved by experience to be a reliable and satisfactory one if too much is not asked of it. I do not ask your Lordships for a moment to take the view that because of that, the consequences of a further significant upward movement of wages would not be more serious. The Government are entirely alive to the point that you might reach a situation where existing methods would not be adequate to avoid danger.
I apologize to your Lordships for having kept you so long, but it is necessary to have the two sides of the matter placed before us. And I would end with this. The present policy which is being pursued, which manifestly has great advantages in contrast to the dangers which alternatively might threaten, depends on a sense of responsibility on the part of both sides in industry. If, as might be indicated, by certain claims for general increases in wages of which we have heard, this position was likely to be endangered, consideration would have to be given to a modification of policy and of the methods whereby a new policy might be operated. Even so, the objections to and difficulties of the alternative would have to be met and provided for. We think that every effort should be made to maintain collective bargaining for wages. We are paying the closest attention to the difficulties and shortcomings which arise. We feel, and I hope I have done something to convince some of your Lordships, that it would be unwise, and might well be disastrous, to abandon that policy without sufficient cause and to throw the direct responsibility for fixing wages on the State and on Government Departments.
The system we are using has been built up for many years. It is almost an integral part of our social and industrial structure. It is not possible at present
446
to say that the wages policy which has been followed and which has produced the manifest benefit of industrial peace to the community, is fit for the scrap heap. We none of us know whether it will survive the strain of a protracted war. I would like every man to make every possible effort to preserve it, to see that it functions fairly in a responsible way, and thereby give the State the benefit of the experience of these men, whether on one side or the other, who, after all, are the greatest masters of a very complicated subject. I therefore have to say on behalf of the Government that we have no intention of light-heartedly abandoning the system or undermining it. We hope very much that this view may commend itself to your Lordships.
I have had the advantage in the last day or two of some very close consultation with my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour, Mr. Ernest Bevin. Like many men who have spent their lives in politics I have always been interested in this subject, but I must admit that I had not the slightest conception of the complications with which he has to deal at the Ministry of Labour until I had the advantage of this greater insight. Let us be careful that we do not allow strong and genuine feeling which we may have formed, perhaps, because of our special experience, to influence us so that we may light-heartedly say we are prepared to scrap this machinery and to ask instead for so novel and so dangerous a system as direct State regulation of wages. I well understand and I entirely excuse those who are tempted to reproach the Government for what they think is want of strength, determination and courage. I must take these rebukes and try to profit by them if indeed there is reason to believe that they are deserved. For my part, applying my mind to this matter to the best of my ability, I am far from being persuaded that it will not turn out in the end that the method which is being followed is the better method. If I may conclude by using a Shakespearean phrase, I would say that I feel it may well turn out that "the gentler gamester is the soonest winner."
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, with my noble friends, I listened with considerable and increasing bewilderment to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, and I kept asking myself as he went on "What

447
is it that he really wants?". I waited deliberately until we had had the advantage of a statement from the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack—not without very great anxiety as to the character of the answer that he would give—and I confess that I and my friends are greatly comforted by the reply he makes. I wondered if the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, had really appreciated the vista, the terrible vista of discontent and discord which the system that appears to me to be implicit in his complaint would certainly bring upon us. We know of these quite unjustifiable, freakish terms of wage payments that do occur. We all know them. I am myself very well acquainted with what after all is the greatest industry in the country, agriculture, and in that industry we have had great wage agreements loyally observed for some 800,000 or 900,000 workers. These agreements have been brought about by the use of the existing machinery without any fuss and trouble being applied to one of our prime industries. The noble Lord seemed to make it a subject of complaint in his opening remarks that there were £500,000,000 worth of war savings to the credit of working people—I think that was the figure.
LORD GAINFORD: There was no complaint. I was merely quoting the figure given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
LORD ADDISON: Yes, but it was intended to illustrate the fact that they were receiving bigger wages than they ought to get. But what did it really mean? It meant that the efforts of the Government to prevent inflation are being successful; it meant that people are not able to buy. Clothing coupons prevent people spending a great deal of money on clothes, and all sorts of other ingenious devices in the form of coupons, points and so on prevent people being able to spend. I think that we are greatly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Kindersley, and many others because as the result of their efforts the surplus has been diverted into savings. It is evidence of the success of the endeavour to prevent inflation, for that is what it is preventing. Therefore I wondered what relation it had to the noble Lord's complaint. It seemed to me to have no relation except that it establishes a certain case for the Government.
448
The real question is, what is the alternative? I wonder how many cases there are like that quoted by the noble Lord sitting opposite in which an unskilled worker in an aircraft factory is getting £25 a week.
LORD ELTON: A semi-skilled worker.
LORD ADDISON: A freakish case of that kind cannot be taken as being in any way representative of what is happening in the country. That is a matter to which the Government have got to attend. Then I wonder about those young women of whom he told us, who receive between £10 and £11 a week, and who, after their day's work in the factory, go out and spend their money on drink, dancing and amusements. I am not a man who spends much money on drink myself, so I do not know much about it, but I wonder what those young women find to buy? I understand from people who are accustomed to buying drink that it is very difficult to obtain. I wonder what these young women buy? It is not wines I am sure. I should suspect that it is not whisky or gin—I understand that they are going to restrict supplies of gin now. On what do these young women spend their money? I think the noble Lord ought to pursue his inquiries a little closer into this case.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, if the noble Lord will look at the report of my speech to-morrow, I think he will see that it was not a complaint on my part as to how these young women spend their evenings. I merely brought this to your Lordships' notice as an illustration which I was given of the effect on the fellow-citizens of these young people and on the savings movement in their vicinity. It may be that quite a wrong impression was received by their neighbours, but my complaint was not about the way they spent their evenings. I was speaking of the effect it had had on the war savings group in their street.
LORD ADDISON: As the complaint was mentioned in the noble Lord's speech I naturally assumed that he made it. I suggest that the noble Lord should have pursued his inquiries into the complaint a little more closely. If the facts were inquired into, he might find that there was a girl or two of whom this man had complained, and probably quite justly

449
complained. There are foolish girls, and there always will be—and there are foolish men too. But we are considering Government policy, not what a foolish girl does in Oxford: and I suggest that the noble Lord is maligning the working classes by bringing up instances of that kind as if they should be guides to Government policy. They have no relation to the realities of working life. The majority of people who spend a day in a factory want to take their shoes off when they get home and sit down, and they would be very glad if they had a nice fire to sit by, which is not always possible. They certainly do not want to spend the evening, after a day in the factory, in drinking, dancing and amusement. A few may do so, but not many are even physically equal to it.
What we have to ask ourselves, I suggest, is what the noble Lords who have spoken really want us to do. What they really want is State regulation of the wages of the individual worker; if they do not mean that, they do not mean anything. We admit that there are all kinds of irregularities and imperfections in our existing system, as the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has explained, but what we have to ask is this question: What should we put in its place? Noble Lords have suggested that we should introduce State regulation of wages. I myself well remember the discussions which went on at the end of the last war, and which led to the formation of the Whitley Councils. I was Minister of Reconstruction at the time, and it is only those who obtain an insight behind the scenes into the bewildering complexity of what happens inside industry who know the multitude of things that are settled by these organizations. It is not a question of wages only; wages are but a part of the conditions of life and work. The State could not enter into the individual determination of wages without entering into the individual determination of the conditions of work, which are almost as manifold as the stars, and which vary in different works and in different towns. It means a universal scrutiny and an application of the means test throughout the whole population. That is what State regulation of wages means, and it does not mean anything less than that. It is a glorified universal means test. I think that the noble and learned Lord Chan-
450
cellor was extraordinarily moderate in indicating to us what would be the tribulation which would immediately arise if a system of the State regulation of individual wages was instituted. Talk about discord! I wish that noble Lords would consider what it would really mean in the middle of a war.
There is one other consideration about which I had hoped that the noble and learned Viscount would say a little more, but which he did touch on, and that is the situation with which we should be confronted at the end of the war if this proposal were adopted. Let us suppose that the prescription of the noble Lord who moved this Motion was adopted, and that we scrapped the whole of the existing machinery and instituted a State system for regulating wages. What would be the position at the end of the war? We should undoubtedly be confronted with a loud outcry for the abolition of all manner of controls, and it is then that the danger of inflation would arise. It is of the first importance that we should establish, during the war, a system for managing these matters which we can continue sufficiently into the postwar period, because it is then that there will be a much greater danger of inflation than there is now. If these controls are taken off the danger of inflation will arise, and therefore we must build up, during the war, a system of managing these matters which can reasonably be continued into the post-war period, so as to prevent the dangerous reactions which would otherwise occur. I cannot imagine anything more impossible to prolong into the post-war period than the Nazi system of the State regulation of individual wages. I and my noble friends were greatly comforted by the reply made by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, and I sincerely hope that your Lordships will not support the Motion before the House.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but in view of the fact that a Motion which I had the honour to present to your Lordships some time ago has been referred to, I ask permission to say a few words. My noble friend Lord Elton inquired whether my Motion on wages and prices was brought forward in February, 1940, or in February, 1941. I regret to have to confess to your Lordships that there were two Motions, one in February,

451
1940, and the other in February, 1941, and both dealing with the same subject as that which we have been discussing to-day.
I am bound to tell your Lordships that I cannot feel satisfied with the reply which we have had from the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. If I may refer to the speech which has just been delivered by the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition, I should like to say that I think he entirely misrepresented the tenor of the remarks made both by the noble Lord who moved the Motion and by my noble friend Lord Elton. It is unfortunate that he should have accused the noble Lord, Lord Elton, of maligning the working classes; I feel quite certain that when he reads the debate in the Official Report to-morrow, he will find that that accusation is quite unjustified. I was struck by the moderation of the remarks made both by Lord Gainford and by Lord Elton, and by the care with which they both safeguarded the position which they were setting up in order to prevent that very accusation being made. I should almost have thought, listening to the noble Lord opposite, that he had not been present when Lord Elton spoke, but from what he said I assume that he was. I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Addison, who is very fair-minded, will, when he reads the speeches in the Official Report to-morrow, realize that what he said had no justification whatever.
In my opinion the antithesis which has been put before us in the form of the alternative of scrapping the whole wage system and having a complete State regulation of wages is an entirely false one. It is entirely unfair to put that before your Lordships as the choice with which we are faced; there are innumerable intermediate steps which could be taken. I am bound to say that the fault which I have to find with the Government is their failure to induce a sufficient sense of responsibility in the country with regard to the dangers with which we shall be faced if these unregulated wage increases continue to be given.
I listened to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack with great disquiet until he came to the end of his remarks, when I was comforted by his statement, which puts the matter in a
452
nutshell, that this is a matter of a sense of responsibility. My feeling is that the Government have not made sufficiently clear the dangers ahead of us in such a way as to foster that sense of responsibility. The Government say that they are relying on this system of conciliation to settle wage questions. One of the phrases of the Lord Chancellor was that we were not to suppose that the Government have simply cast this thing on one side and taken no interest in it. Of course they have taken great interest in it, but I think they have cast in on to the shoulders of this conciliation machinery. I do not think that is fair. Surely it should have been the policy of the Government, when the conciliation machinery has to settle these questions, to give a lead and a guide as to the dangers which lie in wait if these unregulated increases of wages go on.
The noble Lord, Lord Addison, said he was greatly comforted by what the Lord Chancellor had said and he spoke of the vista of disaster and discord which would open up if the suggestions of Lord Gainford and Lord Elton were accepted. The vista of disaster on that account is nothing to the vista of disaster which will overtake the working classes and the whole country if we have inflation, which will happen if these unregulated increases of wages continue. The disaster of discord is nothing to the disaster of complete ruin which will overtake us. I cannot refrain from saying that I think the Government fail in their duty, aware as they are of the danger of an avalanche (the phrase of the Lord Chancellor) when they do not bring to the notice of those responsible for this conciliation machinery the fact that public policy demands that spending power shall not be increased without limit and without regulation.
LORD PERRY: My Lords, probably the position of the Government in regard to this matter is peculiarly vulnerable from the fact that the conciliation machinery, both on the capital and the labour side of the question, is in the hands of a prejudiced party, the Minister of Labour. I do not think that the noble Lord who opened the debate intended to suggest, or that any sensible person would suggest, that the only alternative to the present policy of the Government is the entire control and regulation of wages by the State. I think no one could contemplate that, and Heaven forbid that

453
I should be a party to it because, as the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack reminded your Lordships, it is a particular antipathy of mine that there should be any increase in the bureaucracy which now autocratically rules us.
There is something, however, that the Government might do if they would study the history of the question of the payment of overtime. When the trade unions were doing some useful work they did put their finger upon one great defect in the industrial labour market, which was that bad employers were working their employees for irregular time, and as a deterrent the unions said to them: "If you do not regulate your employment so that a man at the end of the week has a regular amount to take home to his wife and to apply to the meeting of his budget, we shall demand extra payment for overtime beyond a minimum and agreed week's work." That was negotiated and imposed and always practised right up to the beginning of this war. So long as there was a supply of labour in excess of the demand the intention has always been that overtime payment should be a deterrent, a penalty imposed upon the employer by the union and by the man himself, acting against overtime.
When the war broke out we were faced with a very different state of industrial affairs and very different conditions of labour from those through which we had been passing for some time. The demand for labour then exceeded the supply, as it does to-day, until, as you know, we have to recruit to labour women of fifty years; of age and inaugurate all sorts of ridiculous measures to try to make good the shortage of labour. There is now, and there has been since the war began, a shortage in the supply of labour. There is therefore to reason why labour working overtime should be paid a premium for its extra work, none whatever, and among the thousands of regulations which have been issued it would have been a perfectly simply thing—not anything revolutionary at all—to state that if overtime were worked it should be worked at the agreed and proper day rates, instead of double for Sunday and time and a half for this or time and a quarter for that. The saving to the country would have been tens of millions of pounds in the expenditure on muni-
454
tions, and I think the critics of the Government would have been robbed of practically all the anomalies that they complain of—these £25 a week cases of which we hear.
I am rather hopeless about any suggestions made to the Government for attention in this matter, but there is a perfectly simple way of meeting one of the very great difficulties of labour at the present time. It is very much harder, of course, now that you have got a Party man at the head of the Ministry of Labour, who is using his power to consolidate trade unionism to the extent that at this moment there are strike notices posted in the Metropolitan area for no grievance except the refusal to recognize the union. That is, of course, a state of affairs that ought not to be tolerated—that all the machinery of government should be devoted to trying to enforce trade unionism, not only upon employers but upon the men, some of whom very much resent this coercion.
I am perhaps proudest beyond anything that I have achieved to be able to tell your Lordships to-day that I can speak for upwards of 15,000 workmen and women engaged in the manufacture of aircraft and tanks and heavy industry, not one of whom has ever demanded or ever received one penny piece of premium payment for overtime work. They are working fourteen hours a week on the average more than their normal time, some as much as twenty or twenty-six hours a week, but not one of them is getting any premium for that additional work. Someone says, "Shame." I think it would be a shame if they were paid extra to their regular rate, because it is uneconomical in any case to pay a premium for overtime work. There you have genuine war effort on the part of these men. They are not paid a premium for being patriotic. They are working harder than they ever worked before, and they are getting no more money than their regular rate of pay. Their average wage is 2S. 6d. per hour. A statement of this sort is, I think, more worthy to be listened to than eccentric examples such as one reads of in the newspapers of the payment of exceptional wages in, I assure your Lordships, very exceptional cases. A sore thumb always does stick out, and we always feel and talk about it, but there is no such thing

455
as this extravagant payment of wages going on throughout the country if you take the country as a whole. I wanted to say this to your Lordships, and I have taken this opportunity of saying it.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I should not have intervened in this debate but for the somewhat extraordinary statement which has just been made by my noble friend Lord Perry, which it is impossible for us on these Benches to allow to go unanswered. It is the suggestion that the present Minister of Labour is using his position as a Minister not to advance the country's war effort but to build up and strengthen trade unionism.
LORD PERRY: I said it was being used to strengthen trade unionism. That is different from saying it is not being used to build up the country's war effort.
LORD LATHAM: Even the corrected form of my noble friend's statement is open to grave exception and is of such a nature that, upon reflection, I think my noble friend will come to that conclusion too, especially when he reads what he has said in the Official Report. He also suggested it would have been a wise policy for the Government in the altered circumstances of the shortage of labour to have discontinued the practice of excess payment for overtime hours worked. I can conceive of nothing more likely to have hampered and hindered the war effort than that a practice which has been honoured by years of acceptance, and is embodied in hundreds of trade agreements, should suddenly be departed from during a war. So far from making for that peace in industry which is essential to the maximum war effort, it would have had an entirely contrary effect. If this is one of the courses suggested as an alternative policy by those who criticize the Government's policy, I take greater comfort in the assurances given by the noble Viscount on the Woolsack that the Government's policy at present will remain unchanged.
I am in a little confusion, especially after listening to Lord Balfour of Burleigh, as to what exactly is meant by the complaint that increases and movements of wages are unregulated. For the most part they are not. For the most part in industry they arise from two types of machinery—most of them from concilia-
456
tion machinery of the Whitley order, which is recognized by both sides and whose decisions are complied with by both sides. That machinery embraces the greater part of the field of industry. I can speak with some knowledge of that because, even outside industry, it operates, and I spend what I sometimes regard as an inordinate part of my day in dealing with Joint Industrial Councils for non-trading services in local government activities. Then there is the other part of the field which is dealt with between the federated employers and the trade unions, and not through established Whitley or conciliation machinery. But both these agencies do regulate. There do not issue from them fortuitous increases of wages; they are discussed and considered and, to that extent, regulated.
If, of course, what my noble friends opposite are seeking is that the regulation should not be through these agencies but should be through the Government, and by the Government, then that is precisely what the Lord Chancellor said would be the pursuit of a policy calculated to land us in extreme difficulty. There is no other alternative except the curious alternative that the conciliation boards, the Whitley Councils, and the joint Industrial Councils should be told by the Government, when they are considering applications, of the dangers of inflation. If that amounts to more than sending them the White Paper, it must amount to a quasi-direction to these agencies, and nothing could be more fatal to their effective operation than for them to think they were being dictated to by the Government. If the Government did dictate to them, that would amount to a regulation by the Government of wage increases. In these circumstances I see no escape from the position that either the present procedure is followed, hoping that wisdom will prevail—and by and large it does prevail through these organizations which exist for dealing with wage increases—or that the Government shall be asked to regulate, and if they regulate they must fix, wages for the working population of this country. It is, I submit, idle to pretend that there is a third course that can be followed, and the Government of the country must weigh whether they will rest with some reliance on established practice or

457
whether they should go into the dangerous and difficult fields of regulating and fixing wages.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I am not sorry that this debate has been raised, but I am sorry that Lord Addison has misrepresented both my attitude and certainly that of Lord Elton. I have not advocated that we should scrap all our conciliation arrangements between employers and employed. I am a member of the Confederation to which the noble Lord, Lord Latham, has referred. I believe in conciliation, and I believe in a settlement by arbitration when we cannot agree; but there are conditions such as have recently arisen in this country to which I thought attention ought to be called. There has been an attempt made by representatives of workmen to make appeals rot in the ordinary way to employers, or federations or associations of employers, which have dealt with disputes in the past by methods that I desire should continue and be developed. Merely because the Government have started paying enormous rates of wages to munition workers—have allowed contractors to pay enormous rates—there has been a tendency for everybody else to feel he has not had a fair deal, and therefore to demand increased wages. It was for this reason I put down this question in order that the Government might make it quite clear in debate what their attitude is in regard to wage policy.
I fear that if the evil to which I refer continues to grow, and the Government do not take any step, there is a real danger of inflation which will fall upon the working classes to a far greater extent than they appreciate, and will cause them a great deal of suffering. It is that which I want to avoid. I believe the Government can do things and take steps which will prevent disturbances such as exist to-day as a result of the constant appeals for higher wages first from one set of workers and then from another. It was with a view of trying to get some indication of that policy announced, that I put my questions down. I have no exception to take to the very full statement made by the Lord Chancellor. He has debated the matter very fully, he has alluded to the dangers, he has said the Government are alive to the situation and are considering it, and that if it becomes worse they may have to take some steps.
458
I do not want for a moment to interfere with the ordinary methods of conciliation between employers and employed. I certainly do not want the Government to set up a system of State regulation for every worker which has been indicated as the only alternative. But there is a method of dealing with the situation which has arisen that I think is open to the Government, and I hope they will take it in due course. All that remains for me to do is to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

STAFF AT THE ADMIRALTY.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I beg to ask the first question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government the number of young men between the ages of 18 and 30 now employed at the Admiralty.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD BRUNTISFIELD): My Lords, the number of male civilians between the ages of 18 and 30 now employed at the main Admiralty Headquarters, is 1,308. Of these 547 are either awaiting call up by the Ministry of Labour or are at present not liable for call up through reasons such as medical unfitness. The remaining 761 for whom deferment action has been taken consist either of professional and technical staff—for example, naval architects, scientists., etc.—who make up the bulk of the numbers, or of other staff employed on specialized or other duties on which they cannot be replaced at present.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I beg to ask the second question on the Paper in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, whether, in view of the high reputation for discipline and efficiency which members of the W.R.N.S. enjoy and of the satisfaction which their employment in naval establishments has given, the question of employing them in the Admiralty has been considered and if so the grounds on which it was decided not to make use of them in this manner.]
LORD BRUNTISFIELD: My Lords, the W.R.N.S. is a uniformed force primarily recruited for duties in naval establishments to permit the release of officers and ratings for active service. The appointments in the Admiralty for which the professional knowledge and experience of naval officers are required are of a kind for which the experience and training of members of the W.R.N.S. would not fit them. Their appointment in civilian posts would obviously be inappropriate.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932: BOROUGH OF REDCAR ORDER.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Duke of Devonshire, I beg to move the Motion on the Paper in his name.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, and laid before the House yesterday, be approved.—(Lord Snell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned.