Sitting of 9 March 1943

Preamble
The House met.

ELECTION OF SPEAKER
Hon. Members having repaired to their seats, the Sergeant at Arms (Brigadier HOWARD), came with the Mace, and, laid it under the Table.
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden)(addressing himself to the Clerk of the House, who, standing up, pointed to him, and then sat down): Sir Gilbert Campion, I have to acquaint the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the death of. Captain the Right Honourable Edward Algernon FitzRoy, late Speaker of this House, gives leave to the House to proceed forthwith to the choice of a new Speaker.
Mr. George Lambert: Sir Gilbert Campion, it is a melancholy duty to fulfil the King's command. Our late Speaker, who has crossed the bar, was a man devoted to public service, a great English gentleman and a friend of every Member of this House, and his memory will be cherished by us so long as memory lasts. But this House, the emblem of a free people, moves on. The old Chamber was destroyed, but in the shell alone the spirit survives, and the lamp of liberty burns brightly in British bosoms and never will be extinguished by German bombs. The House of Commons existed centuries before this turmoil, and it will exist after, irradiating, I hope, liberty through the civilised world. Lord Randolph Churchill once described this Assembly as "the guardian of our rights and the fortress of our liberties." It was a fine phase; but hon. Members will know, with me, that Lord Randolph Churchill's son has been known at times to coin phrases of arresting aptitude.
It is a great honour for any of us to belong to this House. I was elected a Member in 1891, Any man or woman, constitutionally elected, entering the portals of this Chamber, can rise, whether born in a castle or in a cottage, to the highest position in the land. Therefore we feel it to be one of our great duties to
614
preserve the dignity and the continuity of this House. The House itself has had a great tribute paid to it by an American citizen, who secured 23,000,000 votes in a contest for the Presidency. He came here amidst German bombs and the thud-ding of guns, and found the House of Commons discussing the freedom of the Press—a splendid tribute to our democratic institutions. But the dignity of our procedure must rest largely with Mr. Speaker. We do not need a cold-blooded logician, but we do require a man with human sympathies, a man whose eyesight may be at times a little dim and whose hearing may at other times be a little dull, but who will exercise a wise patience, scrupulous impartiality, tolerance with inflexible strength, and showing respect for minorities.
I have the great honour of proposing, "That Colonel the Right Hon. Douglas Clifton Brown do take the Chair of this House as Speaker."
I have sat under five Speakers—Speakers Peel, Gully, Lowther, Whitley and, lastly, the late lamented Speaker—and I have the utmost confidence in proposing my right hon. and gallant Friend. We have known him, we have tried him, and he has emerged from the crucible pure metal, finely tempered. It is the greatest honour that Members of the House of Commons can pay to one of their number, and I am sure that every Member of this House will be quite convinced that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is eminently well-fitted to follow in the footsteps of his great predecessors.
May I conclude with these words? On 4th August, 1914, Mr. Speaker Lowther presided over the House of Commons. He saw the sword of war drawn from the scabbard. It was an awesome moment, but relieved by a happy suggestion of Will Crooks, that dear soul, who asked us to sing, "God Save the King." We joined in, possibly not tunefully, but with all our hearts. Then, through the various vicissitudes of that war, Mr. Speaker Lowther came to nth November, 1918. By a happy inspiration the then Prime Minister, now Father of the House, moved that we should all adjourn to St. Margaret's Church, Westminster, there to return thanks for victory. Mr. Speaker FitzRoy saw the gathering war clouds in early September, 1939. He saw Britain battered and the good old ship Britannia escaping

615
shipwreck by a shuddering margin. He was not destined to see the end, but there did appear over the hills a bright gleam heralding the dawn of victory. His mantle will descend upon the new Speaker, and may I express the ardent hope glowing in the hearts of millions of our countrymen that the present Prime Minister—and I hope he will soon be back among us again—will be able to move, under the new Speaker, that we again adjourn to St. Margaret's, and there return humble but, reverent thanks for that Divine Providence has crowned our cause with victory. I have to move, "That Colonel the Right Hon. Douglas Clifton Brown do take the Chair of this House as Speaker," and this is a compliment from the whole House, without any pressure from anyone outside.
Mr. Tinker: I ask of the House the privilege to be allowed to second the Motion so ably moved by my right hon. Friend that Colonel Clifton Brown do take the Chair as Mr. Speaker.
As Members of the House of Commons we meet here to-day with very chastened thoughts. Our task is all the more difficult because of the unfortunate death of the late Captain FitzRoy, who had endeared himself by his great character to everyone in the House. Therefore when the time comes to elect a Speaker to fill a position which has been so well filled in the past, it certainly is a difficult matter and causes us great concern to choose the very best man we have among us. I think that in Colonel Clifton Brown we find the right type of man. I have often been asked, "How is it that when we elect a Speaker he has to be chosen from one of the political parties in the House—he must be a Member of the House—and does he act fairly to Members of other political parties?" That question has been put to me very often, because when I take visitors round the House and we get into the silence room, the Library, I generally point out to them the list of Speakers shown on the panel there. I find it started in 1377. Since that time we have elected 138. I also describe the method of election, because it is naturally of interest to all our visitors. Then they question me about the Speaker. They ask, "What party does he belong to?" I tell them "The Conservative Party." Then they say, "Well, do you get the same opportunity
616
of being called upon as the others?" I tell them, "It is rather a curious thing, but from my knowledge of Mr. Whitley as Speaker and of Captain FitzRoy as Speaker both those gentlemen have seemed, when they got into the Chair, to drop all question of party and to try to deal with every Member fairly." In fact it seems to me that those who belong to the smallest political party get the greatest share. It almost seems that Mr. Speaker looks upon himself as the father of the family and that the weakest section must have the most protection. Whether that be so or not, one is bound to admit that when we do elect a Speaker he does rise above all party considerations and acts the true gentleman. That has been our experience.
I want to relate one personal experience in reference to the man whom we are, I hope, going to appoint Speaker to-day. The Beveridge Debate took three days. On the first day I put my name down to speak. I was not called. On the second day I was not called. I happen to be a chess player, and in chess we are taught infinite patience, but on the third day even a chess player begins to get uneasy, and so I ventured to go to the Chair, and I said to Colonel Clifton Brown, "Sir, I put my name down on the first day, and I was not called, nor was I called on the second day, but I intend to speak if I get the opportunity, and I want you to understand that I have not taken my name off the list." He very kindly turned to me and said, "Yes, Tinker, I noticed that you sat there and wanted to get up to speak, and I also noticed your name on the list. I have a large list, and I have them all under consideration. There is some hope, but only if we get a number of short speeches"; and that does not often happen in the House of Commons. So I sat here through the third day, and I was not called.
Nevertheless, here I am, after suffering all that; but, knowing the fairness of the gentleman in question, I am seconding his election as Speaker. I am bound to say that I realised that I was one who had had plenty of opportunities, and that the discrimination had been fair and above board. So I said to myself afterwards, "After all, he has done the best possible." I do not think I could choose a better compliment than to say to him, "Here I am, seconding the Motion, and I do that in all sincerity."

617
Since 1938, I have sat under him in the Standing Orders Committee, and I have learned there the value of his fairmindedness, ability and integrity. When I knew that a Speaker had to be elected I said to myself, after considering the best choice, "The only man I can and will support will be Colonel Clifton Brown." In electing him to-day, the House of Commons will be doing the right and proper thing. From my knowledge of him I believe he will fulfil the high traditions of the great honour we are conferring upon him and will pay honour to us for our confidence in him in asking the House to elect him, and I hope and trust that there will be a unanimous vote.
Colonel Gretton: My words will be few and short. I most strongly and heartily support everything which has been said by the proposer and seconder of the Motion as to the merits and fitness of Colonel the Right Hon. Douglas Clifton Brown to be Speaker of the House of Commons. He has impressed us all with his competence, his fairness, his complete mastery of all the forms and customs of this House and his sound judgment and courtesy on all occasions. Very high eulogies and commendations have already been paid to him, and I would say only that those with whom I am generally associated in this House desire heartily the election of Colonel the Right Hon. Douglas Clifton Brown.
Captain Cunningham-Reid (St. Marylebone): This is one of the necessary constitutional formalities of this House, but I maintain that the new Mr. Speaker was chosen last week. It appeared in the Press that the Conservative Party had decided that Colonel Clifton Brown should be the Speaker of this House. I would remind those official functionaries in the Conservative Party that there are other Members of this House besides official Conservatives, and, to put it mildly, I do think that it would have been courteous on an occasion such as this if every Member of this House had been previously consulted. After all, this is not a matter which concerns only the Government. It concerns the rights and privileges of individual Members. This is one of those rare occasions in the history of Parliament when we find ourselves without a Speaker, and therefore it is one of those rare and refreshing occasions when certain things
618
can be said which could not be said at other times when observations might be considered disrespectful to the occupant of that Chair. At present there is no occupant of that Chair.
But it is not for reasons such as that that I am rising in my place to oppose the election of Colonel Clifton Brown as Speaker in the future. I should like to say at the outset that, in my opinion, Colonel Clifton Brown may prove a most admirable Speaker; in fact, I have no doubt that when he is elected, as elected he will be, he will prove to be an excellent occupant of that Chair in every way. I even go further, and I say that Colonel Clifton Brown, together with the hon. and gallant Member for South East Leeds (Major Milner), who had only a firefly existence as Deputy-Chairman, have in the past been two occupants of that Chair who have at any rate shown fairness to certain minorities in this House.
I would draw attention to the fact that I am not opposing Colonel Clifton Brown for any personal reason but am doing it because of a principle. The principle is this: This House of Commons is supposed to be the fountainhead of democracy. There are about 615 Members, all of whom are equal, or are supposed to be equal, inasmuch as each one is representative of certain sections of the community. They are all supposed to have equal constitutional rights when it comes to representing the views of their constituents and their own views within this House. Sir Gilbert, I defy any right hon. or hon. Member of this House, in spite of what has been said by the seconder of the Motion, to get up in his place subsequently and be able to prove to the satisfaction of this House that every Member of this House has on all occasions, should he desire, an equal opportunity of addressing the House. Hon. Members know perfectly well that that is not so. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] If there is any doubt about that, let me—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why are you speaking now?"] Why am I speaking now? Because there was no other Member who rose.
Let me remind hon. Members of what occurs in any ordinary Debate. First of all, there are all those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, whose number is legion, who are ex-Ministers from past Governments. In all probability they were dud Ministers in dud Governments. [HON. MEMBERS:

619
"Oh."] In all probability they were inefficient; but the fact remains that, by ancient custom in this House, Mr. Speaker invariably gives those Members priority over others. I notice that there is no dissent about that statement. I go further, and I would also remind the House of that list of Members of Parliament that the official Government Whips desire shall be called and which is given to Mr. Speaker, either in writing or verbally. I agree that it cannot be suggested that Mr. Speaker does not have a complete option as to whom he calls, but it is unfortunate and somewhat significant that practically on all occasions every Member on that list is called. What it comes to is this, that speakers as a whole in this House in the past are not chosen by Mr. Speaker but are chosen by the official party Whips. I would go further and say that there is a growing feeling in the country that Speakers in the past have been looking after the interests of the Government, feeling that that was their function rather than looking after the interests of individual Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]
Those people who seldom get called in this House are those Members who cannot bring to bear the influence of great party machines, who cannot get on any lists. Is it a mere coincidence that those minorities who cannot bring to their aid any privilege are the ones who very often are not called? [Interruption.] There is a certain amount of dissent. I am not surprised. And in consequence I draw the attention of the House to just one example. Take the other day, on the Address in reply to the King's Speech. The hon. Baronet the Member for Barn-staple (Sir R. Acland), leader, I understand, of the Common Wealth Party—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman who interrupted need not attempt to practise the rights of a Mr. Speaker. The hon. Baronet desired to draw attention to a policy, and he somewhat optimistically circulated certain Members of this House asking that in the event of being called they would if in the House do him the kindness of coming to listen to what he had to say, that it might be of interest to them, and that he would like to have their reactions. Whether he was wise in doing that or not, I am not prepared to say. [An HON. MEMBER: "He got reactions."] He did not; he was not called. He got no reactions. That is my point.
620
For three days he tried to put his views before this House. He wanted to test the views of Members, to have his policy debated, and I think that this was the right and proper place to do it. As it was, he not being a member of a large political party, not being able to bring to bear any privileges or priorities, and like some of us, not being too popular in this House—[Interruption]—deliberately on the part of those who have something to say in these matters it was seen to that he was not called during the whole of those three days. Therefore, though I do not share the political views of the hon. Baronet, I nevertheless admire him for the strength of his convictions. As you did not allow him a hearing in this House he proceeded to go to the country in an attempt to get the ear of the country, which I think you will agree he has done with some success; and the very people who were instrumental in preventing him from speaking in this House are the same people who to-day are the most apprehensive about' his actions in the country. What I am saying is that if he had been allowed to speak and express his views—and, after all, this House, like Hyde Park, is supposed to be a safety valve of democracy—very likely that menace, as it is now considered by the officials of the Government, would not be so acute. I would only give one further example, a much lesser one. I for many days attempted to speak in this House. I was unable to do so, and the net result was that I felt compelled to write three political books in quick succession. If it had not been for the fact that I was unable to be heard in this House, I would have not had to put my views in a different way.
I suggest to right hon. and hon. Members of this House that the practices of Mr. Speaker in the past have to a large extent been abrogated by others, and I feel the time has come when we should do what is done in some other Parliaments, where there is a certain amount of fairness in the calling of speakers to take part in Debates. As Members know, in some Parliaments speakers are called by ballot, and we already have that precedent in this House. We already ballot for the opportunity of bringing in Motions. Why should there not be a ballot for the opportunity of addressing this House in Debates? The procedure would be that all those who desired to speak, other than the Government speakers of the day,

621
would submit their names to the Clerk at the Table, and when it came to an opportunity for Members of the House to take part the Clerk at the Table, just as on previous occasions, would withdraw a name from those submitted to him, and that would be the first speaker, other than a Government spokesman, and so on through the Debate. I think the argument against that—I can see Members on the front Bench smiling—is that if there was any speaker that the House particularly desired to hear, possibly a specialist on a particular subject, it might be that because he had not won a place, the House would not have the benefit of his special knowledge. That is a fallacious argument, inasmuch that it could quite well happen, if it was found that all who had asked to speak could not be called in the time available, that it would be open to the Government to extend the already very short time that is given to Debates and so enable every Member desiring to speak to take part.
I am therefore led to say this: I would ask right hon. and hon. Members to exclude from their minds just for one moment any prejudicial thoughts and to approach this matter as if they were Members who were seldom able to attract the Speaker's eye. A great number of Members have only to stand up, and they know they will be called. Therefore, I would ask those Members to consider those in this House who are not so fortunate. Has not the time come when we should be ahead of democracy instead of being pushed from behind; when we should move with the times, and when every representative of the people of this country should have a fair and equal opportunity of representing his or her views in this House, because as things are now, as our procedure in this House goes, especially as regards the calling of speakers, this House of Commons is becoming a mockery of democracy.
Mr. Edmund Harvey: I think the whole House has listened with regret to the speech which we have just heard. Perhaps nowhere is the regret keener than among those Members who sit here independent of party. The speech has been answered in advance by the delightful speech and the spirit of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). Those of us who sit as Independent Members have learned to revere
622
the occupant of the Chair and to admire the wonderful skill and impartiality with which he has fulfilled his functions. We are proud of the ancient traditions that have been so well upheld by successive Speakers, who have put aside all thought of their own previous party connections, so far as it is humanly possible to do so, in order to be fair to all parties in the House. All of us must recognise that those who belong to small parties or to no party have had, if anything, more than their share of the time of the House, because of that desire of the occupant of the Chair to show himself impartial and to protect the rights of minorities.
I am sure that all of my colleagues who are in my position in the House will join with me in appreciation of the very high qualities of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman whose name has been proposed as the successor to one who has been a very great Speaker. We know that in Colonel Clifton Brown we have one who is, and who has shown himself, perfectly fair and scrupulously desirous of doing justice to all Members of the House, and one who has a wise urbanity. With his fairness he has strength, and with it all he has an inward calm which will help him over times of difficulty. I join with those who have already spoken in expressing the hope that his election will be unanimous.
Mr. Gallacher: When I was contesting West Fife at the General Election it was commonly said, as an argument against me, "It is no use sending one man to the House of Commons; one man will never be heard." With the late Speaker and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who is now proposed as Speaker, in the Chair, I think it can be said that I have been heard. I want only to associate myself with what has been said in support of the Motion. I am sorry, but I did not get into the House until the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) was sitting down, but I heard all that was said by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). So, without any qualifications, but with very high hopes, I would only say that I am certain that in the country there is no feeling at all about the method of electing Speakers. If there is feeling about anything—and I must say that there is a considerable amount of feeling—it is that the House of Commons

623
too easily rises from its labours, especially in view of what is taking place all over the world to-day. Nobody would object in any way to the most solemn recognition and appreciation of the services of the late Speaker, but that should not be allowed to stop our work. When the right hon. and gallant gentleman is elected to the Chair, I should be very pleased if it were said, "We are going right on with the work; no more Adjournments." That is what the country wants said. Let us get the Speaker, and let us get on with the job.
Colonel Clifton Brown(who, standing up in his place, was received with general cheers): Sir Gilbert Campion, I rise to submit myself to the will of the House and of my fellow-Members. I suppose no one could face a situation like this without feeling considerable emotion, and particularly to-day, when our hearts are still sad as we think of the Speaker we have lost. I would like to tell the House that on that Wednesday when he fell sick and I took over, he sent several messages to me, saying how sorry he was that he had to hand over in rather a difficult situation, and that his last thoughts in the whole time were of how the House of Commons was going on. I was glad to be able to send back a message that I thought his conduct, on the first day had helped very considerably to make the Debate smooth on the third day, and that I knew the House of Commons would not mind how long I and the Deputy-Chairman were in the Chair so long as he could come back restored to health. Alas, that was not to be; so to-day we have to hold this sad ceremony.
Might I say one other personal word? I have not been in the office of Chairman of Ways and Means very long. I had worked as Deputy-Chairman for something like four and a half years. It is obvious to anyone that what knowledge I may have I owe to the chief under whom I served. His great experience, his knowledge of procedure, and his calm judgment have been of infinite value to me. More than that, his kindly consideration was something which I shall always value. There are chiefs one serves under with whom you do your work and all goes happily, and that is all there is about it; but there are chiefs you serve under and with whom your
624
work becomes a labour of love. That is what it was for me under Sir Dennis Herbert—who has been called to another place—and under the late Speaker. I can tell you that although I have served 24 years in the House, that period was the happiest of my time in this House. May I thank my proposer and my seconder for the kind things they have said? I am sorry if my seconder has a grievance against me; perhaps I may note it for future occasions. May I say too that I also noticed a little advance request which was put out by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher)?
Quite seriously, you have proposed me for what is the most honourable post in this House, a post of very great personal honour and glory. I do not look at it from the personal point of view at all. Here is work which I can do for my fellow Members, and that is what inspires me to submit myself to you. I once read in a book a quotation. I cut out the quotation, and I keep it on my table. It was a book written by a great Chinese lady—Madam Chiang Kai-shek—and the cutting which I read runs as follows:
"When one works for personal glory the work is bound to suffer. Only work for the sake of the work itself and the good it can do deserves success."
It is in that spirit that I offer myself to you. There is one thing which, however wise my conduct may be in the future, would, in my view, make my office an absolute failure and it is this: Now for many years I have known—at least, I feel it in my bones—that I have friends all around me in the House. If I lost your regard and affection, it would mean that my work would be of no value at all, and though I may be in the future somewhat more removed from you than I have been in the past, I do hope sincerely that I shall not lose your regard and your friendship. The Speaker has many duties. The pro-poser mentioned some of them, and therefore I need only enumerate those special ones which appeal to me. Of course, there are times when the Speaker has to be firm; at all times he must be absolutely impartial—that, I think, is most important—and I think on what rests some of the greatness of the House of Commons is the fact that the Chair's first duty is the protection of minorities. We rule by majority rule here. It is the special duty of the Chair to see that all minorities are not browbeaten but also get a fair hearing in Debate, and I

625
believe that Speakers in the past have always carried that out in the most splendid way. I shall do my best to follow along those lines.
And now to turn to a lighter moment. My proposer suggested that I ought to have infirmities. I shall endeavour when the proper occasion arrives to be sufficiently deaf and sufficiently blind to suit the correct occasion. My experience in the Chair is that physical infirmities of this kind, are equally important with other qualities. I have no more to say. I said that I would take this work on in a spirit of work and not in a spirit of self-congratulation or self-confidence. I can only promise one thing, that I will try. I may not be a success. I cannot tell; the future will tell. But I will try, and that is the only pledge that I can give you. One thing I do promise, and that is that always, to the very limit of my ability, I will give to you my very level best, and thereto I pledge you my word.
The House then having unanimously called COLONEL the Right Hon. DOUGLAS CLIFTON BROWN to the Chair, he was taken out of his place and conducted to the Chair by Mr. LAMBERT and Mr. TINKER.
Mr. Speaker-Elect(standing on the upper step): Before taking my seat, I have to express my thanks to my fellow Members and my humble acknowledgment of the high honour which they have conferred upon me.
Mr. SPEAKER-ELECT Mr. SPEAKER-ELECT sat down in the Chair.
Then the Mace (which before lay under the Table) was placed upon the Table.
Mr. Eden: Mr. Speaker-Elect, in the much regretted but unavoidable absence of the Prime Minister, I am happy that it should have fallen to my lot as Leader of the House to express to you, on behalf of us all, our congratulations and our sincerest good wishes. Sir, I should doubt whether at any time in the history of Parliament a Speaker has been called upon to accept this high office in conditions at once so personally sad for me and every Member of this House and so momentous for the nation. The late Mr. Speaker, as we all recall, set a standard of justice, humour and fair dealing which you, Sir, as I know, have watched for many years with affectionate admiration, and now it falls to you, by what is, as
626
I am convinced, the general desire of the House, to carry on the tradition which your predecessor not only maintained but enriched. We have every confidence that you will do this. During the last four years Members of this House have watched your work as Deputy-Chairman and Chairman of Committees. The fact that with this experience the invitation to you to accept the burden of this high office has come from Members in all parts of the House is an indication of the confidence and the esteem in which you are held.
I mention this because it may not be inappropriate to emphasise on this occasion that the election of a Speaker is most particularly a matter for the House itself. There is no suggestion to-day—there never has been—that there is any right of succession to the Chair because you, Sir, have been Deputy-Speaker or Chairman of Ways and Means. The House has always looked to the man whom it considers the most suitable to fill the post, carrying with it as it does wide powers and a position of great eminence. Here let me interject, if I may do so on a personal note as Leader of the House, that very great precautions, as I think hon. Members will agree, were taken on this occasion to ensure that the expression of your election, Sir, should be the expression of the Members of the House. There was never any kind of nomination by any party—nothing of the kind—nor was there ever an expression of opinion by the Government. We were most scrupulous to avoid anything of the kind. It is for your personal qualities. Sir, that you have been chosen, and I feel confident that the House will never have cause to regret that decision.
Let me conclude on this note. Now, as Speaker of the House, you will abandon your previous party traditions, and you will become the guardian of the rights of minorities in this House. It is surely more than ever important at this time, when those rights are being denied in many lands and where sometimes minorities are not only denied the rights of speech but condemned to brutal death. Sir, we believe that in your hands those minorities will be protected. We are confident that the rights and liberties of the House will be in safe keeping in your hands and that you will discharge your duty without fear, favour or affection. Those words were true of our late most

627
honoured Speaker; I believe, Sir, that they will prove true of you.
Mr. Arthur Greenwood: Mr. Speaker-Elect, I should like to associate myself with the tribute which has been paid to you by the Leader of the House. I think we all realise the difficult situation which you have inherited; we realise how exacting and how exhausting are the tasks which you will be called upon to perform. We realise that as the House continues towards peace it may be rather more fractious on occasions, and we should like you to be kindly when we are wayward and to be fair—as I know you will be—in your appreciation of any political situation. I have no doubt myself that any man who is chosen for this high honour grows in stature on his appointment, however great he may have been before. I am sure that you can rely upon all quarters of the House giving you their most loyal support in the Chair. We have had experience of you, and we put ourselves in your hands with the full knowledge that you will carry out your duties with fairness and distinction.
Sir Percy Harris: May I be allowed the privilege, Sir, of congratulating you on your unanimous election to the high post of Speaker? There has been no Member of this House who has been more universally popular, and it is safe to say that you have never had an enemy among the Members. Up to now you have been one of us; you have shared our life, taking part in Committee work and, incidentally, looking after the interests of the House itself as Chairman of its Fire Protection Committee. Henceforth you will be living a life apart. It has been said by your predecessor that Mr. Speaker is a lonely figure largely divorced from other Members by his high office. I know our ancient Privileges and rights will be safe in your hands. You have, if you will allow me to say so, two great gifts which will secure for you a successful term of office. The first is a very keen sense of humour and the second is impartiality of mind.
We know that every section of the House will get a fair deal. It has always been said when a Speaker has relinquished his post that he was a great Speaker. I believe there is every hope that you will prove to be a great Speaker. Difficulties will arise, storms will blow up
628
from unexpected quarters—maybe from this bench, the benches below or the benches behind, or from some other quarter of the House—but we promise you, when those difficulties arise, our loyal support and that we will do everything to ease your difficult responsibility. We wish you well.
Mr. Holmes: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I would like to offer you, Sir, our warmest congratulations. I hope you will allow me to mention that we took the Oath together for the first time in this House on the same day in February, 1919; after the General Election of December, 1918. When you stood there at the Table in view of the Members, waiting to take the Oath, sign the book and shake hands with Mr. Speaker Lowther, you could not for one moment have had in mind that within 25 years you would be sitting in the Chair that Mr. Speaker Lowther then occupied. In the past the House has sometimes chosen a Speaker who was not the man most suitable. There had to be compromises, and on occasions even a Division took place, but to-day there has been complete unity throughout the whole House.
Other Members have told of your qualities. I will not repeat them—I will merely endorse them—but I would like to mention one which has not so far been mentioned, and that is that when you, Mr. Speaker, speak in the House you do so in a clear voice. May I remind the House that this is a historic occasion in another sense, namely, that this is the first time—and will probably be the last—in history that a Speaker of the House of Commons has been chosen by Members of the House of Commons in a place other than the House of Commons Chamber? Once more, Sir, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I beg to offer you our congratulations and wish you God-speed.
Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: Mr. Speaker-Elect, I felt that as the oldest member of your family, an old cavalry soldier and a back bencher of, I hope, some standing, I would like to associate myself with the great honour the House has done to you by electing you as their Speaker. I will not go back 62 years to the time when I first saw you. You were not then in the same

629
garb as you will be on our next Sitting Day, but I will say that as an elder brother I have watched with great interest your career in the Army. There you learnt in a good regiment, as did our late lamented Speaker, those qualities which will stand you in good stead in dealing with possible trouble in this House. I refer to the great cavalry motto of service which you were taught and to which you have devoted your life since. I believe that quality is essential to any Speaker. I do not mean service only to superior officers in the Army but service to those whom you command, which in every good regiment is part of the training which makes an officer a good officer and without which he could not be so. It only remains for me to wish you Godspeed and strength in the business which you have been called upon to direct. I hope you may have the wisdom of Solomon and the patience of Job and be not without the qualities that characterised the work of our late lamented Speaker—kindness of heart and fellowship towards your fellow Members.
Mr. Eden: Mr. Speaker-Elect, I have to signify that it is His Majesty's pleasure that this House should present their Speaker this day at three o'clock in the House of Peers, for His Majesty's Royal Approbation.
Mr. Speaker-Elect: The Sitting now stands suspended.
On resuming—
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
The House went, and having returned.
Mr. Speaker: I have to report to the House that this House has been to the House of Peers, where His Majesty has been graciously pleased to signify, by his Royal Commissioners, his approbation of the choice of myself as Speaker of this House. I take this opportunity of repeating to the House my respectful acknowledgment of the honour it has done me and the confidence it has reposed in me, and of renewing the assurance of my entire devotion to the service of the House.
Mr. Eden: I beg to move,
"That this House will, upon the next Sitting Day, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to His Majesty."
Mr. Gallacher: Does that mean that on the next Sitting Day we shall put Mr. Speaker out of the Chair after just putting him into it?
Mr. Eden: I am going to announce the Business in a few minutes. I think that is an exercise to which Mr. Speaker will become accustomed in due course.
Question put, and agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Eden: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
I think it might be convenient if I now make the statement of Business for the present series of Sittings.
Next Sitting Day—I shall propose a Motion to pay tribute to the memory of the late Speaker. The terms of that Motion will be on the Paper to-night. Afterwards it is proposed to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates, and to consider Votes A and I and Navy Supplementary Estimate in Committee.
Third Sitting Day—It is proposed to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on the Air Estimates, and to consider Votes A and I and Air Supplementary Estimate in Committee.
Sir Percy Harris: Will Questions be on the Paper as usual on the next Sitting Day?
Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, and on the following day.
Mr. Ivor Thomas: Does that mean that the Debate on the Foreign Service will not now take place?
Mr. Eden: I share the hon. Member's regret at the postponement and hope it may not be unduly long.
Mr. Thorne: Will the Questions put down on the Order Paper for to-day be answered on the Third Sitting Day?
Mr. Eden: I am not at all sure that I can answer that question offhand. I understand that the Questions which will be on the Paper on the Second Sitting Day will be those which should have been answered to-day.
Mr. Boothby: When will the appointment of the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Deputy-Chairman be moved?
Mr. Eden: I hope to be able to do that on the next Sitting Day.
Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

  PETROL RATIONING (MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS)
  PETROL RATIONING (MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS)
  BRITISH RESTAURANTS
  BRITISH RESTAURANTS
  "JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES" (PUBLICATIONS)
  "JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES" (PUBLICATIONS)
  PRINCESS OLGA OF YUGOSLAVIA
  PRINCESS OLGA OF YUGOSLAVIA
  SILICOSIS AND ASBESTOSIS (MEDICAL BOARD)
  SILICOSIS AND ASBESTOSIS (MEDICAL BOARD)
Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

NAVAL LOSSES.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD BRUNTISFIELD): My Lords, I regret that I must ask your Lordships' indulgence for a few moments in order to make a personal statement in connexion with the answer which I gave last Thursday to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Winster, on the subject of naval losses. For some weeks there stood upon the Order Paper, for non-oral reply, a question by the noble Lord asking His Majesty's Government—here I quote—
"what are the losses to date, December 31, 1942, in each category of warship already announced by the Admiralty during the progress of the war and what are the total naval casualties, officers and men to the same date."
On March 2 the noble Lord's question appeared on the Order Paper as an unstarred question in similar terms but with this important difference, that the period for which figures were required had been extended from December 31, 1942, to February 28, 1943. I much regret that, though it was observed that the character of the question was changed, it was overlooked in the Admiralty that the period for which figures were asked had been amended. Due to this oversight the figures which I gave to your Lordships last Thursday covered the period asked for in the original question but failed to include the losses during the first two months of 1943. I must express to your Lordships my sincere regret for this mistake. The alteration in the noble Lord's question should, of course, have been noticed in the Department. I unhesitatingly accept full personal responsibility for the error made. In order to make the figures in my reply accurate up to February 28, 1943, it is necessary to add the following losses: destroyers, 4; corvettes, 4; submarines, 4; minesweepers, 1; and trawlers, 6.

WAR DAMAGE (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of the War Damage (Amendment) Bill which, as your Lord' ships will see if you examine it, is a Bill mainly to amend Section 4 (1) of the principal Act, which was the War Damage Act of 1941. That subsection deals with the important question whether a value payment or a cost-of-works payment should be made in the case of premises that have suffered war damage. Your Lordships no doubt will recall that a cost-of-works payment is made where the property can best be repaired or rebuilt and the payment is made when the work is done. A value payment, on the other hand, is normally made where the property is a total loss and it is a compensation for depreciation in value caused by the war damage because the case is one in which the particular property is not worth repairing. The question, therefore, under that section is whether a particular property is worth repairing or not. That is a matter which the War Damage Commission from time to time has to decide. But it has been found in experience that there is this very great difficulty in working out the scheme. Section 4 (1) of the principal Act requires the Commission to decide whether the particular case is a case of total loss by reference to levels of costs and values at some future indeterminate date. Your Lordships will see that, that being so, the Commission really is set an almost impossible task, for it would either have to delay making its estimates almost indefinitely, which would be most unfortunate, or else to make what is little more than a guess as to future changes in costs or values. In fact, up to the present the Commission, having that choice before it, has had to delay its decision in a large number of cases. I should emphasize that the only cases in which any difficulty arises are border-line cases where a very narrow margin separates the situation which would call for a cost-of-works payment from the situation which would call for a value payment.
What, therefore, we propose to do by this amending Bill is to make this change: to authorize the taking of values and of costs as at March 31, 1939; that is to say, a past date instead of some indefinite future date. I may point out that this same date is that on which value pay-

485
meats are already assessed for certain collateral purposes such as for calculating depreciation. It is impossible to be quite confident in advance how it will work out, but there is no reason to think it will produce a very substantial change. The question, of course, is whether the costs will rise more than the values, and there are obviously arguments either way. It may be that the result is likely to be, in the border-line cases, slightly to increase the proportion of cost-of-works payments. But there is no other course that can be taken as a practical matter. I hope your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading. It has already been carried without dissent in the House of Commons. I beg to move that the Bill be now read 2a.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I am sure that you will be indebted to the Lord Chancellor for having reminded us, in relation to this very intricate Bill, of the difference between cost-of-works and value payments. By so doing he has made it easier for the House to understand what is intended by this amending Bill, the Second Reading of which he has just moved, and what Clause 1 of it aims to do. I merely would seize the opportunity of endorsing, if I may be permitted to do so, what the Lord Chancellor has said as to the desirability of what is aimed at in this Bill, and the possibility of the injustice and perplexity which it may well, and should, remove. But there is another point on which, I am informed, some perplexity remains in connexion with this Bill, and it is with that belief that I take the opportunity of asking the Lord Chancellor if he can, just by a simple statement, to allay that perplexity. In the case of a leasehold building which has been entirely destroyed, it was assumed that a value payment would be made instead of a cost-of-works payment. Under that belief leaseholders disclaimed leases. It is now not clear from this Bill whether, in substituting a proposal of a cost-of-works payment for any such destroyed building in place of a value payment, the leaseholder who has disclaimed would, as now appears, be entirely dispossessed. I cannot believe that that is the intention of those administering the Acts. So, I would suggest that it would set doubts at rest if the Lord Chancellor would give us an interpretation on the point at this or some subsequent stage of the Bill.
486
This is an amending Bill to an Act which is, obviously, of supreme importance to the community as a whole, in a situation created by the war. In the course of its passage through your Lordships' House there were criticisms as to alleged injustices between different classes of those concerned. I will not refer to that now, except to remind your Lordships that it does inescapably establish the fact that this Bill, now an Amending Bill to so important a measure, is intricately connected with the original Act. It will be within your Lordships' memory, that property owners were obliged to pay a very substantial contribution; in fact it is thought by some to be a discrimination against property owners as compared with other classes of the community. It does, in fact, require them to make a contribution which must come out of capital, not out of revenue, and therefore means of course, that on the lowest income Tax scale a contribution of £1 must involve a minimum of £2 income. In the case of trading companies of course that is not a charge on trade.
With regard to the actual contributions to date, I will just quote round figures. I understand that the two contributions so far have each brought in an amount in the neighbourhood of £40,000,000, or, roughly, £80,000,000 in all. A third contribution is due on July 1 of this year which should bring the total contributed up to approximately £120,000,000. Now that sum has been contributed by the property owners of this country. It was stated in Parliament that the damage actually incurred, or the payments actually made, totalled £86,000,000. It is believed that the liabilities which have accumulated since then will not be in the neighbourhood of the additional £40,000,000. Therefore, it would seem that the original aim of this measure, according to the Prime Minister's words, that the burden should fall in the same proportions on the community and on the Treasury, will, perhaps, not be implemented. The actual figures, I think, as given in the Lord Chancellor's own words in this House, were that as the original contemplation was about £400,000,000 a burden of £200,000,000 would be assumed by the property owners and the other £200,000,000 would come from the Treasury. Now, in fact, it does look as though, if the damage should not be more than the £86,000,000 plus an

487
amount within an additional £20,000,000, the contributions by the Treasury will have been small and the property owners, by their contributions, will have borne the burden of the larger proportion of the payment.
It is for this reason that in a matter so important to so large a class of citizens, which necessarily includes numerous members of this House—at least it is believed that there are many of your Lordships who are property owners—who fall within this category, some relief is suggested. With the projected 2s. contribution coming due on July 1, it would mean that a further heavy burden will fall on the property owners who, it may well be, should be given some relief. It may he, of course, that some relief, in this respect, is in contemplation. Because it is so inescapably connected with the parent Act and with the announcements made by the noble and learned Lord Chancellor at different times as to the intention of giving information to the House, I hope that at some stage in the progress of this Bill it may be possible to throw some light on that point, and I earnestly hope that some prospect may be held out of a reduction in the contribution which would otherwise become due from property owners.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not rise to object to the Second Reading of this Bill, but to call attention to what I think is a very serious defect in the War Damage Act, which has not been corrected, but which in fact has been aggravated, by this Bill. As your Lordships are aware, the bulk of urban property in this country, both residential and business, is held on what are called ground leases, and those ground leases have in many cases been granted or changed hands for a substantial premium. Both the tenant and the landlord are compelled to pay a contribution under the War Damage Act by way of insurance. When the property is damaged, your Lordships are aware that, under the original Act, the tenant has a right to intimate to his landlord that he must disclaim his lease, because the cost of repair would be too heavy, and the landlord has the right to give a counter-notice to say that he will undertake the repair; but, if he does not give that counter-notice, the lease is surrendered and the landlord acquires the property
488
freed from the leasehold interest. Under the War Damage Act, and under this Bill, if the War Damage Commission decide there is a total loss, the tenant and the landlord divide the compensation in proportion to their respective interests in the property, which is as it should be; but if the Commission decide that there is not a total loss—in other words, that the property is worth repairing—then the War Damage Commission pay the cost of repairing the house and the landlord gets the building freed from the tenant's interest, while the tenant loses the value of his lease, the landlord making a profit in proportion to the value of the tenant's lease. I think that that is a flagrant injustice.
I ought to tell your Lordships that I have a personal interest in this matter, because, unfortunately, my house was damaged. It cost me several thousand pounds when I acquired it, and it was worth several thousand pounds at the time when it was practically destroyed by enemy action. I surrendered the lease, and my landlord accepted the surrender. I filed my claim on the basis of the value of the leasehold interest at the time of the damage. If the Commission decide that the house has been totally destroyed, well and good; on the other hand, if the Commission decide that it is worth repairing—and I was advised by the architect that it was not possible to say whether it was worth repairing or not until extensive investigation had been made—then the landlord, I gather, has the cost of the repair borne by the Government, and keeps the house, freed from the lease, while the leaseholder loses the value of the leasehold and gets nothing. I do not think that that can be justified in fairness; I think that it is a serious defect in the legislation. I should like the noble and learned Lord Chancellor to be good enough to look into it, and to consult those advising him in order to see whether there cannot be some mitigation of that position; because, after all, the tenants and the landlords have both contributed, and they are both equally entitled to be compensated for war damage. That was the original intention of the Act, and it does not seem equitable to say that if a house has been totally destroyed that intention will be carried out, but that if the house is worth repairing the tenant will lose everything and the landlord will make a profit.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, there is another aspect of this problem which is not dealt with in this Bill, but which was referred to obliquely by the noble Lord, Lord Barnby. I refer to the fact that the contributions which are paid towards the aggregate or global sum are based on the Schedule A value of the property on September 1, 1939, and there is no means of modifying the 2s. in the pound contribution which is levied in that way, despite the fact that the Schedule A value of the property may have varied very considerably up or down subsequently. For example, there may be a property which, having been let for a period at a high rent, carried a high Schedule A value, and therefore pays a high contribution, but which subsequently, by reason of its position or from other causes, has diminished in value, and has a much lower Schedule A value; yet the contribution remains at the higher rate The opposite of course may also happen. This may not be fair on the one hand to the scheme itself, because less money is paid than should be paid, or on the other hand to the landlord, who has to pay the contribution. I hope that if the points raised by the two noble Lords who have just spoken are being considered, this further point may also be considered in dealing with this or future amending legislation.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, you will expect me to say a word or two on the criticisms which have been made. They fall into two classes. The second of the two points made by my noble friend Lord Barnby, and the point just now made by the noble Lord, Lord Marley, are observations on the general scheme and layout of war damage compensation, and they shall certainly be properly considered; but your Lordships will appreciate that they do not come within the very limited scope of this Bill, which is merely designed to arrange for calculations on a different date. The point raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, on the other hand, is, of course, strictly relevant to the present Bill, as is, I think, the first point raised by my noble friend Lord Barnby. I shall not deal with it at length, at any rate at this stage, because it is a highly technical subject; but perhaps I may be allowed to make two or three observations of a general nature with regard to it.
490
In the first place, the only possible change as between value payments and cost-of-works payments in relation to any particular property which can happen under this amending Bill is in regard to strictly marginal cases. It is impossible to say that there will not be any such cases, but the matter depends on whether it is costs or whether it is values which change most in the future, and it will affect only the marginal case. A case which is plainly on one side of the line will remain on that side of the line, and will not be affected at all. Incidentally, I should like to say to my noble friend Lord Barnby that I do not think it is right to assume that necessarily because a house is levelled to the ground it will attract a value payment. That is not so at all. If the expenditure necessary to build the house up again provided a house which was worth that expenditure because of the value it would have, there would not be a value payment but a cost-of-works payment, as he will agree. That is really not the distinction at all. The distinction is that there may be a limited number of marginal cases where undoubtedly this new formula will make a little difference.
My noble friend Lord Hailsham put the matter with the clearness which we know from old days he completely commands, and I am sure that it must have been a pleasure to your Lordships to hear him. He told us with his usual candour that he had a particular case in mind, which was the case of a property of his own, though, of course, that was not the reason—certainly not the sole reason—why he raised the matter. May I just say in respect of that case that if I am correctly informed the surrender to the landlord took place before there ever was any War Damage Act, 1941, or any War Damage Act at all. It was done under an earlier Statute which permitted the tenants, if they thought well, to surrender the lease of their house to the landlord if the house had been damaged as a result of the war. They might so wish or they might riot. I myself think it would not be very prudent advice for a surveyor to advise a lessee to surrender a valuable lease to his landlord unless indeed he was quite certain that it had become a damnosa hereditas, and if I have the opportunity of communicating with my noble friend I think I can assure him

491
how in his particular case those considerations apply.
But on the general matter my noble friend is of course quite right when he says that, in so far as an individual property would before this present Bill have been dealt with on one basis, and as a result of this present Bill will be dealt with on a slightly different basis, you can imagine a case where some complaint might arise. But it is absolutely necessary that we should get the operations of the War Damage Commission on a practical basis so that they may really do the work that they are authorized to do, and I was glad to hear my noble friend Lord Barnby recognize that manifest truth. There is no way of doing it unless we make a certain assumption—namely, that it would be fair to take the values and the costs as at the date I have mentioned. I am assured by those who have looked into the matter that if there be any case at all which is going to be affected it will be a purely marginal case. The sort of instance that Lord Hailsham had in mind is not going to be affected one way or the other. I think that if your Lordships will study this technical matter carefully, as it has been my melancholy fate to do, you will come to the conclusion, as the House of Commons did, that while admitting that we are making a certain change it is a change which, in the circumstances, is incapable of being avoided and is really necessary in order that the machine may work in a practical manner. However, this does not arise on the Second Reading as I think Lord Hailsham indicated, and I hope that I may now have this stage of the Bill.
On question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

COURTS EMERDENCY POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have to trouble the House with this Bill also, but it will not require very much exposition, and I do not think it can provoke any criticism. This is a pure Consolidation Bill, the object being to put into a single Statute what is now in four or five Statutes. If it be given a Second
492
Reading it will be sent to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

EVIDENCE AND POWERS OF ATTORNEY BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is the last of the Bills with which I need trouble the House to-day. It is a Bill which I introduced a few days ago, the object of which can be very shortly stated. The object is to extend the facilities for the taking of oaths and the swearing of affidavits by British subjects, especially members of the Forces who are outside the United Kingdom, during the war. Parliament has already made some provision to this effect in the Evidence and Powers of Attorney Act, 1940. That Act enabled power to be conferred to administer oaths and take affidavits on officers of the three Services, who were defined by an Order, and also on the diplomatic and consular officials of the protecting Power. The protecting Power at that time was the United States of America, and we are most grateful to the diplomatic and consular officials of the United States, when they were neutral in the war, for the service which they rendered in securing the necessary testimony from British subjects who were abroad, whether they were serving or were in prisoners' camps. If such a British subject has to swear an affidavit in some proceeding or other—debt or divorce, or whatever it may be—he must get somebody who is authorized to administer the oath and authenticate his deposition. That was done under our previous Act by the protecting Power—namely, the United States of America.
The protecting Power now is, I think, for most purposes Switzerland, and we have found that the great changes which have taken place in the war situation since 1940 have rendered the facilities granted by the principal Act and the Orders which were made under it insufficient for present requirements. There are no facilities at present for adminis-

493
trating oaths in prisoners of war camps for non-commissioned officers and other ranks. That was done by the good offices of American officials, but unfortunately it now turns out that the Swiss officials, who have succeeded to the position of the Americans as representatives of the protecting Power, are unable to administer oaths, or take affidavits, and there is at present no one in such a prisoners of war camp who can do so. That, for practical reasons, is a very awkward situation for many individuals. A man in one of these camps may wish to swear an affidavit for many purposes, and at the present time proceedings are being held up in this country because the affidavit cannot be taken. There are also no facilities for swearing affidavits at present available to interned British subjects, other than prisoners of war, either in Europe or in the Far East. There again we want to make the arrangements easier.
What the new Bill does is this. It extends the present facilities by conferring on the Lord Chancellor a power to make Orders in much wider terms than did the previous Bill. It is intended that as soon as the Bill passes into law an Order should be made conferring power to administer an oath on the British camp leader in a prisoners of war camp for non-commissioned officers and other ranks, and, on the camp leaders in internment camps, for civilians. Similar power will be conferred on certain other selected classes of people, for instance, masters of ships who may be prisoners of war, and officers carrying out certain administrative services in the Far East. This is nothing but a piece of machinery, though very necessary to be authorized, in order that our fellow subjects, who at present in many cases are not able to help themselves, being in some form of detention or confinement abroad, may nevertheless have their affairs at home facilitated by the machinery of affidavits. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

WELFARE AND RESETTLEMENT
LORD NATHAN LORD NATHAN rose to call attention to the urgent problems of welfare and resettlement which will arise in the immediate
494
post-armistice period; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of the Motion standing in my name is to direct the attention of your Lordships to a group of problems which will present themselves with extreme urgency as soon as the bugle sounds for the armistice. They are problems to which, so far, very little attention has been given, and yet they are problems as regards which I think it may truly be said that if we fail to have ready when the "Cease fire" sounds any solution of them, the success of all our other plans, however wise, however well laid, may be most gravely jeopardized. Instead of making orderly progress to prosperity, we may find ourselves facing unrest, disorder, and profound public discontent. No other problems will be more urgent or more immediate than these. None call more clearly for foresight and preparation.
I wonder whether it is recognized how drastic and far-reaching a disturbance there has been of the domestic, social, and economic life of the nation brought about by this war. It is a dislocation unparalleled in the history of this land. Not only here in London but throughout the country, homes by the thousand have been physically destroyed. Their inhabitants have been driven away from their accustomed habitations. Vast numbers have been compulsorily evacuated. There have been voluntary evacuations from danger areas on a large scale. Factories, offices, business premises, have been "blitzed." Great numbers of business concerns have transferred their offices to unfamiliar surroundings in the country.
But the damage already done and yet to be done by the enemy is the least part of the problem. The total mobilization of the nation for total war has effected far more far-reaching changes in the domestic life of the people than are indicated merely by physical destruction. Millions of men have been taken from their homes into the Armed Forces of the Crown and the Civil Defence Services. Other millions have been caught up into war industries, and perhaps sent off to live and work in strange places at unfamiliar tasks. Millions of women, too, have been enrolled in the Forces and in war industries, or have left their homes and taken on jobs to replace men who have gone to the war. Children by the tens of thousands have been evacuated from

495
"blitzed" or threatened towns to safer parts of the country, and so have mothers with babies and young children. It is a vast dislocation unparalleled, as I have said, in our history. When the bugle blows for the Armistice we shall have to face the vast process of disentangling all this knotted confusion into which the people of the country have been twisted. I ask, where are the plans for sorting out the jumbled mass of displaced men and women, re-sorting and reassembling them into their proper family units, and helping them with the complex personal, domestic, and economic problems which will face them when they try to resume their normal peace-time civilian life? I do not want to speak too much in generalities about people in the mass, for I am speaking to-day of what are essentially the problems of the individual, though multiplied a million-fold.
On previous occasions, when speaking of reconstruction and similar subjects, I have spoken to your Lordships of the problem of the ordinary man from the ordinary home in the ordinary street of our ordinary towns and villages. I have spoken to your Lordships of Tom Snooks, and I speak of Torn Snooks again to-day. He may be Able-bodied Seaman Snooks, Aircraftman Snooks, or Private Snooks. He may be Munitioneer Snooks. But, whatever he be, Snooks is at the war in the Forces or in the war factories. He is leading, during these war years of abnormal service, a life quite separate from his home and family and from his normal occupation and pursuits. But Snooks will come back from the war, and when he comes back he will demand the end of the dislocation. He will demand a return to normal conditions of living. Whilst he has been away, in whatever sphere of the war, his one abiding thought has been, "What is going to happen to me when I get home?" All his thoughts and aspirations are centred round the simple, easily-understood requirements relating to family, home, job. That is what Private Snooks has in his mind—family, home, job.
This demand of his that his family shall be reassembled round him, that his home shall be reconstructed, that his job shall be found, is the basis of all the reconstruction. We shall have employment and training policies to get Snooks into a job
496
that will last in the post-war years. It may not be his old jab or a job in which he can use his own skill. We shall have a building policy to build and rebuild industries, towns, schools, and hospitals. We shall have a social security policy—we may hope a Beveridge policy—to free Snooks from the fear of want for him and his family, and make him able to face the changes of post-war adjustment without too many clogging fears and anxieties. In addition, there will be all the policies relating to agriculture, education, and a host, of other matters which, when woven together into a programme, will give to the nation a new design for living. But these are problems and policies which will last for many years after the war is over. They are post-war matters of post-war Governments.
There is an immediate, urgent, human problem which these policies do not in themselves solve and indeed scarcely touch. It is what I call the problem of welfare. By welfare I mean not, as sometimes, the whole set-up of the Social Services, but something more human and more individual—welfare in the sense in which it is used during the war in the Services and in the war industries. It is the problem of smoothing away the difficulties of individual men and women who find themselves faced with novel, dislocated, abnormal conditions. During the hardships, disruption, and dislocation of war it has been a tremendous problem merely to find out what the difficulties and anxieties of individuals and families are, an enormous problem to make known to them what they can do about it. This problem will be more acute the moment the war ends, more acute than now, more acute than it was after the last war. The break-up of normal living has been so much worse this time; more families have been split up, more homes have been destroyed, more young people of both sexes have left home. Just as this dislocation has created during the war a welfare problem of quite unparalleled magnitude, so will the welfare problems after the war be of quite unparalleled magnitude.
A distinction should be drawn between the Social Services which regard these problems necessarily in the mass, and what I call human services which look at the difficulties and the anxieties of the individual. The proper function of welfare

497
in the sense in which I am using that term is to provide a link between what is done by a Department to solve these social problems in the mass and the particular wants and needs of particular people, not the wants and needs of anybody but the wants and needs of Snooks returned from the war. There must be some organization to act as a link between the programmes of the Departments and the difficulties of Snooks and his family. There must be an organization there to guide, to help, to advise, to see that Snooks knows what is being done for him and to show him how to take advantage of it, and, on the other hand, an organization is needed to keep in the minds of the Departments what it is precisely that Snooks wants and needs. There has been during the war some experience of the difficulties with which this whole problem of welfare is surrounded and of the scope which it can take. A trail has been blazed by welfare for troops; I have had some experience of it myself during the past three and a half years or so. The Army Welfare Organization deals, as is right and proper, with the problems of both the soldiers and others in the Armed Forces and their families, but the very same problems are dealt with for the generality of the population by the Citizens' Advice Bureaux. They do not exclude those who are in the Services, but their main function is to advise those who approach them drawn from the main body of the citizens of this country.
I was delighted the other day, in the debate here on the Beveridge Report, to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, pay a tribute to the work that has been done during the war by the Citizens' Advice Bureau. I have had many opportunities to come into contact with it and to admire the work that those Citizens' Advice Bureaux have done. It has left upon my mind an impression that is indelible. The same kind of work must be carried into the post-war world. But, my Lords, this work of Army welfare, these Citizens' Advice Bureaux are based entirety upon voluntary assistance. They rely upon volunteers to man them and to do their work. The great need for the kind of service that they are rendering both to the Forces and the Citizens' Advice Bureau will arise when the war comes to its close and when those now far from their homes return.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to acquaint the House that a Commission has been issued under His Majesty's Great Seal to several Lords therein named authorizing the said Lords to declare in the name and on behalf of His Majesty, His Majesty's approbation of the choice of the Commons of Brevet-Colonel the Rt. Hon. Douglas Clifton Brown to be their Speaker.
THE LORDS COMMISSIONERS (THE LORD CHANCELLOR, THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY, THE MARQUESS OF CREWE, VISCOUNT FITZALAN OF DERWENT AND LORD ADDISON)THE LORDS COMMISSIONERS (THE LORD CHANCELLOR, THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY, THE MARQUESS OF CREWE, VISCOUNT FITZALAN OF DERWENT AND LORD ADDISON) being seated in front of the Throne, and the Commons having been sent for:
MR. SPEAKER-ELECT (COLONEL THE RIGHT HONOURABLE DOUGLAS CLIFTON BROWN),MR. SPEAKER-ELECT (COLONEL THE RIGHT HONOURABLE DOUGLAS CLIFTON BROWN), addressing the Royal Commissioners, said: My Lords, I have to inform your Lordships that His Majesty's faithful Commons, in obedience to His Majesty's Commands, have, in the exercise of their undoubted rights and privileges, proceeded to the election of a Speaker, and that their choice has fallen on me. I therefore present myself with all humility at your Lordships' Bar and submit myself for His Majesty's most gracious approbation.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords and Members of the House of Commons, it not being convenient to His Majesty to be personally present here at this time, a Commission has been issued under the Great Seal commanding us and several other Lords therein named to notify and declare His Majesty's approbation of the choice of his faithful Commons of Colonel Douglas Clifton Brown to be their Speaker, which Commission you will now hear read.
The Commission having been read:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Colonel Clifton Brown, we have it in Command from His Majesty to declare His Majesty's entire confidence in your talents, diligence and sufficiency to fulfil the important duties of the high office of Speaker of the House of Commons for which you have been chosen by that House, and in obedience to the Commission which has been read and by virtue of the authority therein contained, we do declare His Majesty's Royal allowance and confirma-

499
tion of you, Sir, as Speaker of the House of Commons.
MR. SPEAKER: My Lords, I submit myself in all humility to His Majesty's Royal will and pleasure and if, in the discharge of my duties and in maintaining the rights and privileges of the Commons House of Parliament I should be led into any inadvertent error, I pray that the blame may be imputed to me alone and not to His Majesty's faithful Commons.
Mr. Speaker and the Commons then retired.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

WELFARE AND RESETTLEMENT.
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, when our proceedings were interrupted by the ancient and impressive ceremony of which we have just been the witnesses, I was directing the attention of your Lordships to the difference between the Social Services dealing with problems and symptoms in the mass and the human services of welfare that look at the difficulties and anxieties of the individual, and I had mentioned that Army welfare had covered a large part of the field of welfare in the sense in which I have used it this afternoon. I had pointed out to your Lordships that Army welfare related naturally to those in the Services and their immediate families, while Citizens' Advice Bureaux, which have been doing such admirable work since the outbreak of war, have directed their energies to the generality of citizens. Neither in the case of Army Welfare nor of the Citizens' Advice Bureaux must it be assumed that the standard is all of an equal excellence—there are differences in quality—but taking it by and large I think it may fairly be claimed that the kind of service to which I have referred has been dealt with not altogether inadequately. I am certain it has had a marked effect upon the morale of the country. In the Forces an anxious soldier is an inefficient and a disgruntled soldier. In the factories, an anxious workman is an inefficient and disgruntled workman. And it is the function both of the Army Welfare Organization within its sphere, and of the Citizens' Advice Bureaux within theirs, to alleviate anxiety.
500
But be it noted that both the Welfare Organization of the Army and the Citizens' Advice Bureaux are manned almost wholly by voluntary personnel, who are making their contribution, in this kind of service both to the Armed Forces and to the civilian population, as their work in relation to the war. When the hostilities cease it may be assumed that these voluntary workers, who are in the Forces or who are now manning the Citizens' Advice Bureaux, will demobilize themselves, and that the greater part of the organizations will, the moment the "Cease fire" blows, be dissipated into thin air, so that just when the need is greatest the machine is likely to stop work. That is almost inevitable by reason of force of circumstances. So far at least as the Citizens' Advice Bureaux are concerned, they are operated by professional people who are not so busy during the war as they are largely during peace-time, and who are prepared in war-time to make a sacrifice of time and energy, which will not be possible in peace-time, to devote themselves to this work. Much of the personnel of the Citizens' Advice Bureaux is composed of women skilled in social work, and admirably they have performed the tasks with which they have been confronted. But their husbands will be coming home from the war; they will return to their homes to pursue the ordinary avocations of normal life. It is vital that when the Armistice arrives there should be a machine ready, not later than at that moment of time, to take the places of the Army Welfare Organization and of the Citizens' Advice Bureaux, and to perform the functions which they, during hostilities, have been performing.
In general terms, as I have said, the wants and needs of Snooks are simple—family, home, job. During the war the absence of these things, because of mobilization, evacuation, training, bombing, transfers, lost livelihoods, and lost careers, is accepted. The motto of these people is: "We can take it." But they have accepted this condition of affairs as temporary. As soon as the war ends there will be a change. Snooks will look, when he comes back, for the restoration of his familiar life; he will not be able to wait, and he will not agree to wait, for long-term programmes to mature. He will want his family reassembled, his home rebuilt, himself and his family reemployed. He will want social security,

501
but much more than that, family life and economic independence. This period immediately after the Armistice, starting from the moment when the "Cease fire" blows, will be the Critical Period—"Critical" with a capital C, and "Period" with a capital P. It will be far more critical at home than anything which we have had to endure or can foresee during the actual period of hostilities. It is the period of crisis, social and political. The attitude of all the returned Snookses will be determined—by what? By the presence or absence of adequate welfare arrangements.
It is really a problem, as I have indicated, of individual resettlement and welfare, a problem for which some one Minister and some one Department must be directly responsible. It is an immediate human problem of material comfort, of family life and, above all, of relief from anxiety. It is a problem made up almost entirely, not of average cases, but of special cases. It is not anybody's problem but Snooks's, problem. There is some kind of parallel in what has happened during the war, and that parallel may be found in the organization set up in London drying the period of severe air raids to care for the homeless and to rationalize and centralize the activities of ill the various Departments concerned with the effects of the bombardment of London and to focus in the same organization the invaluable services of the great range of voluntary societies.
Looked at from Snooks's point of view, what is wanted is somewhere to which he can go to find out everything he wants to know about the process of resettlement and restoration. We need one single agency instead of a host of varied, impersonal Departments. We want an agency where he can find out about the re-assembly of his family, their transport, their accommodation, their employment, their food, their house, their furniture, their tools, the re-starting of their businesses. There will be no question of overlapping. Such an organization will be rather a focus to turn a spotlight on what is being done for every bewildered returning Snooks as he seeks aid and comfort. Essentially, it will be on the spot. It will Le where Snooks himself is, and where Snooks's problems are. I have given some thought to what sort of organization this should be. I do not wish in any way to be thought dogmatic, but my
502
mind turns in the direction of a Ministerial Department of secondary rank, perhaps subordinate to the Ministry of Labour, or, when it is formed later, the Ministry of Social Security; or it might, if thought preferable, be a Statutory Commission or Statutory Board, related to some such Ministry. The inspiration of such an organization would be central, but its life would be local, on the spot. Sir William Beveridge, in paragraph 397 of his Report, contemplates that it will be necessary in each locality to have something in the nature of a local inquiry office to do the kind of work which is involved in answering inquiries. What I contemplate is not merely a local inquiry office but a local welfare centre, which would be much more than an inquiry office.
There is, however, no reason in the world why, when the Beveridge scheme comes into operation, and if this recommendation is adopted, his inquiry office and my welfare centre should not be amalgamated, with the same personnel and under the same roof. The welfare centres would give active help as well as being inquiry offices. They would be the channels through which all the facilities for resettlement, temporary and permanent, are directed towards individual men and women and individual families. The Department of Welfare would not be a spending Department in its own right, but a channel of spending. Through it Snooks and his family might obtain active help as well as advice in the purchase of a new home, new furniture, new tools, a new business. He will obtain the help he needs if his normal family life is to be restarted, if his family is to be reintegrated and if war-time dislocation is to be ended. I will give one example only. A scheme might well be worked out now in conjunction with the building societies for the provision of cheap accommodation of a suitable type. Many immediate difficulties will arise for which temporary expedients must be found. Temporary facilities might be planned now for temporary accommodation, together with temporary facilities for feeding, cooking, education, employment and so on. All these needs will arise when Snooks comes home from the wars, and the important thing is that there should be no gap between the war and the peace in which Snooks will be lost, bewildered, anxious, frustrated, angry.

503
It may perhaps be suggested that some difficulty will arise with regard to the staffing of such an organization, but there is no reason why that should be so. The numbers wanted at the centre would be very small, and, if the appointment of women, even to the highest posts, is not excluded—and it would be desirable to have at least one woman in the centre—there should be no difficulty in recruiting a really first-class general staff. The same considerations would apply to the regional and local personnel. Social welfare is a profession which has been taken up far more by women than by men, both in the specialized branches, such as almoning, care-committee work and so on, and in the more general aspects. That is not to say that preference should necessarily be given to women in making appointments, but it is worth considering, because, if there is no sex prejudice and the net is cast widely enough, trained and experienced personnel can be found. Another source of recruits would be amongst officers and non-commissioned officers discharged from the Armed Forces. Probably not many of them would be suitable, and fewer still would be trained, but among them there would assuredly be some who have had experience of welfare in dealing with those under their own command. There is another source which might be tapped amongst the Civil Defence workers, and particularly the wardens. Members of the Wardens Service, provided they have the necessary qualifications, have the advantage that in most cases they already know their potential patients and their difficulties, and they are accustomed to deal with them individually, instead of as so many items in the national man-power balance sheet.
I press upon His Majesty's Government the need for setting up such a Department or Statutory Commission at once. It will have to be ready for action whenever the "Cease fire" sounds. It is essential that it should be in full working order then, staffed and with its plans and preparations made. Such a Department should be of immediate service to the country during the war, for it could supervise, co-ordinate and, where necessary, supplement the welfare activities already being done by Government Departments. It would also establish the closest possible relations with the nume-
504
rous voluntary agencies—religious, benevolent, and philanthropic—which are also active in the field. Those of us who are familiar with the welfare work which is being done during the war for the Forces know how ready these agencies are to cooperate with the Government and what fine service is being rendered by them at the present time. There is a danger in the field of voluntary activities, however, no less than in that of Governmental activities, that there may be needless overlapping in one sphere and neglect in another through lack of guidance and coordination. A Department of Welfare would be able to be of enormous help here, advising these bodies about the needs which they seek to meet and putting them in touch with the people whom they are anxious to help.
There is another reason why this Department should be set up now, ready to operate as soon as hostilities cease. While the war lasts, people will put up patiently with inconvenience and hardship; they will blame all their discomforts and troubles on Hitler, and only set their teeth tighter with grim determination to finish the job. But, once Hitler has been defeated, they will have to find a fresh scapegoat, and they will blame the Government for everything that goes wrong. They will blame the Government for every delay. Tom Snooks, puzzled, disappointed, savage at his inability to get back to the happy home life he seeks, will most certainly hold the Government to account for it. His discontent may easily become dangerous. The importance of creating a Department now is that it will be there at the critical moment, and it will have a prime function to maintain the public morale, to interpret to the Government the needs and difficulties of the people, and to the people the policies and difficulties of the Government—the one is as important as the other.
I sum up my argument like this: Snooks has earned the right to peace. The basis of peace is material comfort, freedom from want, freedom from anxiety and a chance to live and work in the old familiar way. It is not enough to provide this or that social service. Again and again for a generation it has been shown that one of the greatest difficulties of the Social Services is that individual citizens do not know how to take advantage of them. The task of the welfare of which I am

505
speaking is to see that they do take advantage of them, that they have a real chance of taking advantage of them. The human approach is the key, and if there is any failure to solve these problems in the critical period after the war, the social and political consequences may indeed be grave. Social Services, however comprehensive and valuable, will not solve these problems alone: they must be reinforced and strengthened by giving body and substance to the new conception of human service. That is what I mean when I address your Lordships upon welfare. I beg to move.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, has usefully brought to your Lordships' attention a question of great importance, and, as he insists, of some urgency. It is a question which Should never he absent from our thoughts. The post-armistice welfare of the men and women who, with a confiding loyalty and an unsurpassed courage, are defending our own lives and are the watchful guardians of a great and historic heritage, is and must be our constant concern. The preparations that we make for their wellbeing will be the test of the measure of our gratitude for their service. The noble Lord has not, however, to convert Parliament or the nation to a proper and decent appreciation of our responsibilities in this matter. All of us, without exception, in every Party throughout the land are resolved to ensure, as far as it is humanly possible to do so, that their sufferings in the war shall not be followed by hardships due to our unconcern or our neglect. Therefore nothing but good can come from a determination on the part of the nation to meet post-war needs by careful thought and by wise planning, stimulated by a sense of moral responsibility. We do not know with certainty what the need will be, and there will be a multitude of critics who will be wise after the event and assess blame very plentifully and readily, as Lord Nathan has suggested, but the test of statesmanship is to try to be wise before the event.
Allow me a further general word on this matter. Lord Nathan appeared to me in his speech to be overwhelmed and depressed by the thought of the magnitude of the task with which we shall be confronted. It would be very easy to let our anxieties for the future magnify to frightening proportions the difficulties that
506
we shall have to face, but I urge that we should face the task before us with hope as well as with zeal, for we gain strength through hope, and we are enfeebled by despair. Therefore, while agreeing with my noble friend Lord Nathan that we ought to be anxious about the future, I think the right and helpful course will be to meet it with courage and with such preparation as we can. My duty is to try to present the attitude of the Government to the general problem that Lord Nathan has raised and, where it is possible, to state their view in regard to some of the criticisms and suggestions that have been made. The Government have had the advantage of knowing Lord Nathan's considered view on the matters that he has discussed through memoranda drawn up by him with a clearness and precision, if he will allow me to say so, which have been most helpful. His speech to-day has been an up-to-date restatement of views that he has placed before His Majesty's Government.
Owing to the fact that the noble Lord's speech was interrupted by an interesting ceremony, your Lordships will forgive me if I try to summarize in one or two short phrases what I conceived the noble Lord's argument to be. It was that the importance of welfare work will be intensified in the resettlement period and will bring with it many new problems calling for personal and individual treatment. Lord Nathan insisted that while a good deal has been done to grapple with the special welfare problems of war-time, the work has not been co-ordinated, and that no effective machinery exists for co-ordination in the post-armistice period. He also insisted that the situation calls for a separate Ministry, or Department, of Welfare under either a Minister of Cabinet rank, or possibly a subordinate Minister attached to the Ministry of Labour and National Service in the same way as the Secretary for Mines was attached to the Board of Trade. He wanted, to use his own words, an organization to act as a link between his friend Snooks and the various Departments.
That is a crisp but accurate condensation of the noble Lord's argument. Let me deal with the claim for a separate Department at once. There can be no argument as to the important and difficult nature of the problems which will arise on the welfare side in the resettlement period,

507
and it is right that attention should be directed to them well before the end of the war. I am instructed to say that the Government's view is that the proposition that it is only by the creation of a separate Ministry that these matters can be effectively dealt with is a rather dubious proposition. Lord Nathan recognizes that welfare embraces a very wide field. In the sense in which he conceives welfare, there is hardly any aspect of the community's life on which it may not impinge, and there is hardly any activity in a Government Department administering any of the Social Services which does not have some welfare aspect. Clearly, therefore, it is not possible to frame and execute policy on housing, health, feeding, employment, and unemployment—to mention only a few examples—in isolation from considerations of welfare. The Government find it difficult to see how a separate Minister to co-ordinate and supervise could avoid being a fifth wheel in the coach, and possibly even a drag on its progress. Lord Nathan argued that individual citizens ought not to be required to traipse around the different offices of half a dozen Ministries to get their problems of housing, health, food, and labour dealt with. But the Government feel that a separate Welfare Office in a separate Department would not dispose of each or all of these matters, and the citizen would be in danger merely of finding one more Department added to the list.
Lord Nathan in the early part of his speech asked categorically, "Where are the plans to meet the expected crisis?" He recognized that a good deal has already been done by various Departments to develop the welfare side of their work during the war. In the Ministry of Labour and National Service this is a matter to which particular attention has been devoted. The Minister has more than once emphasized in the House of Commons the importance he attaches to the special machinery developed since he took office to deal with welfare problems of work-people, particularly those transferred from their homes. For instance, the Factories and Welfare Department of the Ministry has attached to it regional and local welfare officers all over the country whose main job it is to stimulate and co-ordinate the activities of the various Departments, agencies, and unofficial organizations con-
508
cerned. At the centre co-ordination is secured through the Factory and Welfare Board on which the main organizations are represented. This service and organization was developed because of the great problems presented by the large-scale transference and movement of labour during the war, and its functions are closely related to those of labour supply and to the efficient mobilization of manpower for war work. It was therefore natural that it should be developed as part of the war-time machinery of the Ministry of Labour and National Service, and it could not satisfactorily work in isolation from the employment service.
Your Lordships should note in this connexion that in the resettlement period the machinery existing will have to go into reverse. The staff that has been engaged in mobilizing labour for war service and war industries will have to turn to the task of putting it back and resettling it in civilian occupations. The welfare aspect of this task will be no less important than in war-time, and there can be little doubt that the welfare organization that has been built up during the last three years will have to be adapted to play its part in close association with the related services of the Ministry. Lord Nathan quite properly laid important stress upon the individual aspect of this matter. He said that the constant questions in the individual's mind are: "What is to happen to me when I get home? Shall I have any work to do? Will my home be existing? Shall I just have to take my chance in an unorganized struggle for life? "Lord Nathan would no doubt agree that the welfare problems of some groups of the community are quite distinct from those of others and can only be dealt with effectively when that fact is recognized. The best example of that is, perhaps, the seamen, whose special needs have been recognized through the institution within the Ministry of Labour and National Service of a Seamen's Welfare Board on which the principal organizations concerned are represented as well as Government Departments. As part of this development, committees have been set up in the main ports, and much has been done, especially in the way of providing hostels and other amenities, to promote the welfare of the seaman ashore. There can be little doubt that this institution has come to stay and that its value will be even greater in the post-war period.

509
Then there is the great question of the rehabilitation of the disabled person. Some special arrangements for this afford another example of what is being done. These cases will require the closest cooperation between a number of Departments, principally the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Labour, and the foundation for this has already been substantially laid during the war in dealing with special war-time problems. There is also attached to this problem the question of what we may call psychological rehabilitation, for a disabled spirit in a man may retard or even prevent the recovery of a disabled body. The question of homes and furniture has been mentioned, and that forms an important aspect of this great problem. It is urged that there will be a need for the provision of homes and furniture at reasonable prices to meet an unprecedented demand immediately after the war. This is quite clearly a question to which the Government will have to give the closest attention, but to regard it as a function appropriate to a separate Department of Welfare, whether attached to the Ministry of Labour or not, only illustrates the difficulties which arise from Lord Nathan's basic conception of a separate organization.
It is therefore suggested that the need is not for a separate Department with a roving commission for welfare in general, which by the very nature of things would not have executive responsibility over the whole field, but could only have functions of co-ordination and stimulation. The real need in the view of the Government is to ensure that the various Departments and authorities are fully alive to the welfare implications of the policies which they are responsible for framing and administering, that proper co-ordination is secured at all levels, and that their organization is suitably adapted and equipped for the special tasks of the resettlement period. Close co-operation with the voluntary bodies will certainly be essential. No one who has any close knowledge of the work that they are doing, and of their general fitness for performing most useful tasks in this great matter, will doubt that it is a most important aspect of the question. What has been built up in war-time to promote the welfare of the people must not be and will not be lost, but it would be a mistake in the view of the Government
510
to attempt to concentrate in one Department what must essentially be a constituent element in the policies and administration of a great many Departments and authorities.
I have now given briefly, but I hope clearly, the Government's attitude to the criticisms and the suggestions that have been made in this debate. They have reached no final conclusions, nor have they made any irrevocable decisions. They hold themselves ready to modify or to extend the scope of their present preparations, and they will not neglect to do so as needs become more clearly defined. Lord Nathan may therefore rest assured that the question to which he has drawn your Lordships' attention is not pigeon-holed only to be forgotten; it is, on the contrary, the constant preoccupation of all the appropriate administrative Departments. The debate to-day will itself extend and intensify the already wide interest which the question arouses, and all the suggestions that have been made will be carefully noted.
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his careful and sympathetic reply, and to learn from what he suggested, as indeed I surmised, that some attention has been given to two memoranda, to which he has referred, that I submitted during the past twelve months or so to His Majesty's Government on this subject. The noble Lord referred to the magnitude of the problem with which we are confronted, and said we should not be overwhelmed by it and that we should face it with hope and zeal. Of course we should face the problem with hope and zeal, but hope and zeal are not machinery, although they may be and should be motivating forces. It is some kind of machinery that my friend Snooks will be seeking. I am committed in the way of machinery in no way to a separate Ministry. It might be equally a Statutory Board or a Statutory Commission, but if the welfare of various Departments is being dealt with adequately, as my noble friend suggested, how does it come about that there have had to be set up special organizations to deal with welfare in the Forces, that in every part of the country citizens are invited to deal with the welfare of those not in the Forces, and that voluntary organizations have mobilized their resources with money and personnel to deal with the problem; to say nothing about the poor man's lawyers? If my noble friend's

511
diagnosis completely covered the position there would be no need for these manifold organizations.
The truth of the matter is that there is a real difference of understanding as to what is comprised in the term "welfare." The noble Lord has used it in the sense of Social Services. Of course, there is a vast amount of welfare work in the sense of Social Services, and I would be the first to pay tribute to it, but the welfare of which I am speaking is of an entirely different kind. The noble Lord seemed to think that the situation would be met were there welfare which is capable of being measured, weighed and appraised, welfare of what I might call a tangible character, the welfare work and Social Services with which we are familiar. But I am speaking of something that is worlds asunder from that. I am speaking of that which cannot be measured, which cannot be weighed, which can only be appraised in the minds of men. I am speaking of that which is a human service. I want not only to provide for Snooks Social Services but I want to provide the service of the friendly hand. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

PRIORITY PURCHASE CERTIFICATES.
LORD BARNBY LORD BARNBY had given Notice that he would call attention to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer calling for a policy of post-war expansion so that employment is maintained; ask views on a policy such as is outlined by priority purchase certificates; and also move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it seems a peculiar and happy coincidence that my Motion should follow on the eloquent appeal that we have just heard from my noble friend whose Motion has occupied our attention during the earlier part of this sitting. In the course of his most interesting speech my noble friend emphasized the importance of post-war arrangements to make happy the return into civilian life of John Citizen, who, till then, will have been a soldier. My noble friend suggested that he would return bewildered, frightened and angry, and he included in his remarks a minatory recommendation to the Gov-
512
ernment that such a situation would, if not provided against, inevitably direct all criticism upon the Government of the day.
My Motion is aimed at assisting a postwar expansion policy that will make for good employment. This subject was emphasized by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a very important debate on the post-war economic situation that took place recently in another place. That speech was indeed a speech which must have impressed those who read it as a weighty and helpful contribution to all those who are gallantly trying to deal with this immediate problem. It was succeeded three days later by another very informative, helpful, guiding speech, advanced in a very eloquent manner by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade. He in his speech reiterated many of the points made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer three days before. In this matter we have heard much about the inflationary gap and the hazards to the community as a whole. Briefly the thing is based on the belief that as the war proceeds we shall further develop a situation where increased earnings projected on to a diminishing supply of consumer and consumer-durable goods will tend to make a difficult internal position.
In your Lordships' House recently we have had several debates in which have been brought out the ideal solution of many of these problems of which we are all conscious as facing us in the post-war period. Much that is desirable has been urged, but I am inclined to think that while a good deal of it has been produced with the aim, certainly a proper aim, of solving this question, too much of it has disregarded practical means. Let me take an example. Recently we had a discussion in your Lordships' House on agriculture; it was most impressive and most informative. Your Lordships' House includes authorities second to none who are qualified to speak on that subject. Those authorities put forward their views, but I must say I was impressed by the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook's comment: "You are all impractical. Of course what you want to do is all right, but none of that can be done unless you do a certain thing." That certain thing was to reserve the home market for home producers. It was a Puckish humour that

513
impelled the noble Lord to make that suggestion because that is impractical too. In addition to all these debates we have had a spate of articles from eminent personalities fully qualified to speak as economists. They are all qualified to speak, but as we know they are always conspicuous by their general disagreement.
What has impressed me is that they have always disregarded the overriding fact that an international monetary mechanism must be decided upon before you can decide how to restore world trade. It is easy to visualize ways by which you can give full employment for the industrial plant of this country and other industrial countries, but that in turn involves some way of enabling the products of that plant to be received in other parts of the world. Malnutrition and a backward standard of life, if corrected, can very soon find a home for all this vast volume of industrial products, provided yen produce some international monetary mechanism which will take into portfolio the promises on the part of those parts of the world to pay at a subsequent date for the merchandise they receive. That is not easy to decide upon and it can only be done by the United States, who are in the box seat. It is to be hoped that the recent pronouncement that a Conference is going to be held with the object of finding some solution really opens a prospect of early attention to this problem.
The post-war industrial position is what really impelled me to raise this point. I would take the opportunity, with the permission of your Lordships, to give some quotations from the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer just to give the authority on which my reasonings are based. He said that "there will be a very considerable shortage of all kinds of goods for civilian requirements" and he added "For the necessary increase in our export trade there will be additional payments for goods and services in this country." He said in another place "It is not worth having money if there are insufficient goods to buy," and he also said—a point to which I shall return later—that "we shall have to maintain, for a time at any rate, considerable measure of control of our economic life." It will be within the memory of your Lordships what a scramble there was after the last war for consumer and consumer-durable goods and that it created much hardship.
By some means apart from the various controls and regulations that it is foreshadowed will continue, there must be found some additional means of dealing with or softening that problem. It is with that object in mind that the simple idea is put forward that you should work out a scheme whereby you cart forthwith deflect into the coffers of the Government free of interest funds which become surplus to permissible or appropriate requirements at the moment against the promise which the subscriber will get that in the post-war period he will have a definitely preferred position in reference to the supply of such goods as he will want.
For the purpose of illustration I would mention things like domestic equipment of all kinds, including electrical equipment. You can have also bicycles, washing machines, sewing machines, furniture, automobiles and houses. There is a wide range of choice within the capacity of the earner to provide the money. I purposely refrain from going, in great detail, into what the proposals involve. I do not consider that my refraining from doing so vitiates the proposals. I think it must be obvious to your Lordships, and to the public in general, that this idea, in its fundamental aspect, is so simple that it does not need much elaboration, and that an immense variety of combinations could be devised to increase its desirability. It is a plan which is flexible in regard to the practical methods to be adopted in putting it into operation. Broadly speaking, I would have no hesitation in saying that the majority of people who give it some consideration or explore it, will be satisfied as to the desirability of its ams.
I frankly confess that what puzzles me is the possibility of establishing the mechanism to put it into effect. On that point I would remind your Lordships that we, in the early part of the war, had never thought that clothes rationing could be brought in overnight. Nor did we think that there would be planned and brought into operation many of the schemes, containing as they do such immense complexities and complications, for which Lord Woolton has been so eloquently and so rightly eulogized in this House. It would never have been thought possible for clothes rationing to be achieved in the way in which it has been achieved. In this connexion, I think that

515
everybody must pay a great tribute to those most capable civil servants who, with such brilliance, have worked out the mechanics of such things as clothes rationing, following the limitation of supply and the concentration of industry, and have worked out solutions of those many other intricate problems which have arisen in connexion with our progressive handling of the economic situation during the war.
Before I pass to objections which may be raised, I would like to make sure that I have—as I hope I have—satisfied your Lordships as to the aim in view. It is that some scheme should be worked out whereby those lending to the Government to-day can secure, in return, a claim to obtain a selected standard article of their choice in the post-war period in a rotation which will secure them supply in priority over those who make no such current arrangements. Doubtless the first objection which will be raised will be put something like this: What about the demobilized soldier, the man returning home from the war, for whom the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, has made such an eloquent appeal to-day? Of course that man must be provided for, but surely there will be no more difficulty about that than about providing the solutions for the great problems which have been solved in connexion with clothes and food rationing. It will not defeat the whole intention of individuals who want to find a solution for this problem.
Then it may be asked, what about the people who have been "blitzed"? Equally, some provision must be made for them. I am not at all sure that something could not be done on somewhat the same lines as in the case of the discharged soldiers. In their case you could, doubtless, tie this up with the war gratuity, which offers admirable possibilities in connexion with such a scheme. You could reserve for them a determined percentage—say, not less than 25 per cent. This percentage would have to be worked out having regard to the numbers of the discharged soldiers as compared with the population as a whole, and having regard to their likely ability to participate in a scheme of this character. The same would be true of those who have been "blitzed" and it should be possible to work out provision for their needs on somewhat similar lines.
It may be argued that there would be difficulty for the Government in finding the money to pay out for all these things. Well, they are going to pay out on demand on certificates of all amounts which have been issued. The Government are going to be faced with the need for meeting demands promptly, though I do not know how much they are likely to be called upon to pay in this connexion. Lord Mottistone is sitting here, and no doubt he could give us figures. He has been doing great work in the War Savings Campaign and no doubt he is familiar with the relevant statistics and could readily give them. A point which I would like to bring to your Lordships' notice is that this scheme has been suggested in the United States. Mr. Morgenthau, commenting on it, has said that the average person would rather have War Savings Bonds redeemable in cash than claims to specific goods. It is clear therefore that he, in the United States, contemplates this vast astronomical sum, billions of pounds, for which bonds have been issued, being payable immediately after the war at the option of the holders. The money has got to be found somehow and somewhere.
Further, there is the objection that there may be variations in the level of prices which would have to be borne by the Treasury. That is not contemplated at all. Some means can be devised for getting over that. We must remember that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his recent speech drew attention to the change factor. He said that it would be desirable to continue the policy of the stabilization of the cost of living and of the price of goods in common use on the lines we are maintaining to-day. He therefore foreshadowed that there is not going to be much change in the purchasable value of tangibles in terms of money. That is encouraging. It does, I admit, contribute substantially to the possible mechanics of working this thing out. Then there is another objection based on the possibility of people changing their minds. Well, the certificates would have to have a surrender or sales value, possibly with some discount; at any rate, negotiability would have to be a feature. There is also the question of re-sale. Why should not re-sale be permitted? Whatever programme we have after the war, there will have to be the possibility of re-

517
sale, as there was after the last war. The objection has been raised that those who are earning more during the war will be in a better position to make their payments, to secure their position on the rota, than those who are earning less, and who are thus less happily situated. In that connexion, the position of the discharged soldier has been raised, but with that I have already dealt. It must be borne in mind, however, that the position of the munition worker who is earning more than some others will remain in any case; he will have an advantage as compared with those who are earning less. Money will always have buying power. That objection, therefore, cannot be raised to the scheme.
I appreciated the patience which your Lordships have shown in listening to my argument, but I should like to go on to emphasize that this whole scheme assumes the retention of private enterprise. In that respect it should have the sympathy of your Lordships, with the exception, perhaps, of some of my noble friends on the Labour Benches. This scheme assumes the retention of private enterprise, and it bears in mind the fact that, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us, for some extended period—a flexible term—after the war there will have to be control and regulation of materials and labour. That fact enhances the propriety of introducing a scheme like this, which will help manufacturers to build up large orders and to know their requirements for materials and labour.
I believe that the real difficulties will arise in what I may call the mechanics of the scheme, but I am hopeful that they will be solved. I realize that vigorous opposition may be raised by the Treasury, but that does not dismay me. I have seen many schemes eventually adopted which have first been opposed. It is the novelty of this scheme, the fact that it is unorthodox, which will give rise to the greatest objections to it Your Lordships will be familiar with the objections raised in the early days to schemes of social service; yet all their opponents were eventually confounded. Curiously enough, vigorous opposition to such schemes continued in the United States much longer than it did here, where we were pioneers in that direction. In view of the fact that those who opposed such schemes were shown to be wrong, I am not dismayed when opposition is raised to this
518
scheme now. I bear in mind the fact that Lord Keynes, who is now in a position to bring the great weight of his experience to our aid in these debates, as we hope that he will in due course, suggested in the early part of the war, before he was a member of this House, a scheme for the retention of deferred earnings. If my recollection is right, the present Lord Chancellor, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, rejected that scheme in what some of us who were enthusiastic about it regarded as rather contemptuous language, though I should be reluctant to imply any such intention to the noble and learned Lord Chancellor, who deals so brilliantly with every subject. However, the scheme was rejected; but, in spite of that, it was subsequently adopted, and we now regard it as a most practical part of our war-time economy.
Your Lordships will all be familiar with the instalment system of finance, and will know how much this was resisted when it was first introduced. In the early twenties, the big joint stock banks regarded it as improper even to think of lending money to any firm engaged in what was regarded as such a low-class activity. It was not until the Bank of England participated in the United Dominions Trust that that form of finance received any dignity or standing at all; but now it is a fundamental part of the economic machinery of the country. If I may, with the permission of the House, give a personal experience, I have always believed that in foreign trade the political hazard should be borne by the State and not by the exporter. When I was a Member of the House of Commons I advocated this very strongly. A Committee was appointed, of which I was a member, and that Committee made recommendations to Parliament, which were subsequently adopted, and which led to the establishment of the Export Credits Department. That plan, however, was most vigorously and vehemently opposed, partly by the vested interests in the private banking houses. That was not unnatural on their part, and I sympathized with them; but their opposition was not to the advantage of progress. In passing, I should like to make a brief reference to the metric system. It may seem remote from the subject with which I am dealing, but, had we adopted the metric system, we might well be in a better position than we are in to-day.
Japan supported for seven years the agony of passing from an obsolete system of weights and measures to a modern one.
I should like to make one last reference to this spirit of resistance to new ideas. I hope that I shall be able to persuade your Lordships to look on this proposal in an adventurous spirit, and not to regard it as something to be avoided because of its financial intricacy. It is in fact a very simple scheme. It has much to recommend it, and I hope that it will receive the sympathetic support which it deserves. Your Lordships will recall the plan which was urged in America to deal with the situation which arose because of the lateness of the passing of the Finance Act of 1942 in the United States, which makes it extremely difficult for the taxpayers in 1943 to pay their taxes for 1942. This scheme recommends the United States Treasury to abandon the receipts for 1942, and to concentrate on 1943. It is pointed out that they will get just as much money in that way as by trying to sue millions of taxpayers who have not the resources to pay, and who did not know that they would be liable for taxation, but who are liable to prosecution for non-payment of taxes. Because that scheme was a novelty, it was very vigorously opposed; but only last week it was adopted virtually in its entirety, or at any rate in principle, by the Canadian Minister of Finance.
I know that the scheme which I am putting forward will be objected to very much by Lord Kindersley. I mention him in particular because it gives me the opportunity of saying that I realize what a debt the nation owes to him, and how grateful we should be for his unselfish and unflagging efforts in achieving the most effective method of placing the vast voluntary savings of the community at the disposal of the State. With that tribute I should also like to associate Lord Mottistone, who has been very active in this matter. But I do not believe that this would be competitive or would conflict with war savings contributions; it is rather complementary. It is going to tap a different source of savings, and it is going to have—and here I appeal to the House for reflection—a possibility of urging the wage-earner to put out a bigger effort, to earn more, EO that he may acquire the
520
savings which will enable him to buy on this priority system the long-coveted and cherished articles which particularly appeal to him. A ten per cent. or five per cent. increased effort would raise a vast sum of money, which would not be in conflict with war savings but would be supplementary to them, and would make a valuable contribution to the coffers of the State.
I understand that the Lord Chancellor is to reply for the Government. I have no doubt he has been briefed by the Treasury to give a vigorous rebuttal to these proposals, which are novel and unorthodox. He might well apply his unparalleled forensic skill to demolishing me, and he might easily have a field day, but I appeal to him to forgo what would be attractive to hear—and I should be the first to enter into the gaiety of the occasion. I would appeal to him to regard this as a matter worthy of careful examination. It is in that hone that I raise it, believing that it can be a contribution to the national effort now, that it can help to solve the difficulties of the post-war period. On those grounds I hope he will recommend this scheme to the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Progressive ideas have before been disregarded and turned down, and this may receive a similar fate, but it merits a better one. I hope the noble and learned Viscount will recommend to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a Committee be appointed to explore this proposal, and so avoid disappointment to a vast number of people in the country interested in it, who regard it as a practical business proposition, and who have an earnest hope that it may be thoroughly explored. I beg to move for Papers.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Addison has asked me to apologize to Lord Barnby for the fact that he has had to leave the House, but he has a certain point of view, which is also the view of the Labour Party, which he has asked me to put forward on this important question. If it coincides with the views about to be expressed by the Lord Chancellor, that will make Me rather doubtful about it, but in any case there is a certain logic in what I am going to put forward, which I am sure Lord Barnby will appreciate. The mover of this Motion has been navigating very deep waters: I am going to keep close inshore, and I am only going to refer to

521
this proposal of priority certificates. We consider that it would be unfair to the poorer sections of the community, who can only just keep their heads above water now, who have not the margin of money to invest in these priority certificates, but who after the war will need goods, which we hope will then come on the market, just as much as, or even more than, will the better-to-do. This system would give an advantage to the well-to-do over the poor purchaser. In other words, the rich woman would go to the head of the queue in front of her poorer sisters. From what I know of the British people, I do not think that would he popular; in fact, it would be unworkable.
LORD BARNBY: Would there be any difference if you did net have this system, because those who are in possession of money would inevitably have the advantage?
LORD STRABOLGI: I was coming to that; my noble friend and I see eye to eye there. What we shall undoubtedly have to do after the war is to maintain control for a considerable period, and we shall have to take step; to see that the people who most need the goods receive them. I think that we shall have to adopt the policy of priming the pump—Lord Barnby, with his close study of American practice, will recognize that process—and we shall have to make loans to the people who have been bombed out, to the returned soldiers, and to the displaced munition workers who have had to leave their homes, and who have not been making the huge wages that we hear about. We shah nave to make loans in kind and grant certificates for the right to purchase furniture, bedding, household utensils, crockery and cutlery, which everybody is short of now, and which these people will need. We shall have to do that in order to start the wheels of industry, and partly as a social insurance—the sort of thing that my noble friend Lord Nathan was speaking about earlier this afternoon. It is on those lines that you will have to proceed, I think, and this proposal of my noble friend would be impolitic and unworkable.
I would ask my noble friend to consider this also. I hope that we shall not have too much attention directed by these interesting proposals to what is going to happen immediately after the war. I am
522
all for the Government making their plans in advance and having some machinery for resettlement and welfare ready, but if we devote our attention too much and start public debate on what is to happen after the war it will distract public attention from the great need now—that is, to win the war. My noble friend gave me the impression that all was over except the shouting. I respectfully suggest to him that we are only now beginning the war in earnest, and I hope that in the next six months we shall fight it in earnest and carry out the promises of the Casablanca Conference.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, my noble friend has raised an interesting question, and in the remarks I am going to make I desire first to call the attention of the House to what the question really is. He wishes to know the views of the Government on "a policy such as is outlined by priority purchase certificates," and I think it would perhaps be the clearest course to state first what my understanding is of such a proposed policy and then to call attention to some considerations which have to be weighed before such a policy could be approved. Now what is the policy of priority purchase certificates? It is not, I think, quite so novel as my noble friend Lord Barnby seemed to suppose. In different forms, both in this country Sand in America, it has been put forward for some time past. if you consider the position of manufacturers who, it may be, find their peace-time trade suspended or prejudiced by the war, who want naturally to maintain their sales organization and their canvassing during the war, and want to assure themselves of a post-war market for their produce as soon as the war is over—which in its turn would mean a strong claim for priority of supplies for making the goods which they have promised to sell—you can see that an idea such as that outlined by the noble Lord is one which may well have attractive features.
I should define the scheme thus, and if I do not define it correctly I am sure my noble friend will tell me so, and I shall he very glad to be put right. It appears to me that, whatever be its exact form, the scheme is this: it is a scheme under which the public is to lend money to the State now, free of interest or at a very low rate of interest, in return for a certi-

523
ficate, a promise, which guarantees to the lender priority in the delivery, after the war, of the particular kind of goods which the individual decides he wants. I hope I have put it perfectly plainly and fairly. I may even have the good fortune to be told I have not put it contemptuously! The question is whether that is a good scheme or not. While my noble friend who is, I gather, one of the most prominent of reformers in all matters of change during his life-time—I was not sure that that was the Party to which he belongs—points out with great truth that many new ideas which were at first criticized have turned out to be profitable, he must not—I am sure he will not—fall into the rather elementary error of saying that this is a new idea, therefore it must be a good one.
There are a good many reasons which might be given against this proposal, but it is sufficient for my purpose if I mention for consideration three of them. First of all, what is this new attraction which is to be put before those of our citizens who have a little spare money? How does it affect war savings? Up to the present, ever since the beginning of the war, the foundation of war savings has been that we would get people, to the utmost of their resources, to lend money to the Government for the purpose of carrying on the war. We have had so high a view of our citizens' sense of duty as to appeal to them in these terms, and we have not appealed in vain. What is this appeal? It is to be a rival appeal; it is to be an appeal to those who have some spare money to hand it over to the Government, not in order to carry on the war, but to secure that the man who produces the money shall obtain furniture, wireless sets, motor cars, or houses, as soon as the war is over, with a promise of being put in front of everyone else.
The first objection that occurs to me—and I did not need to be briefed by the Treasury on this point—is that that is, to say the least, a very great lowering of our civic ideals. Here we have this immense "Wings for Victory" campaign going on in London this week. Why not put up on an adjoining hoarding: "Would you not perhaps prefer to pay your spare money to the Government, not to assist the Royal Air Force, but to secure a nice suite of furniture for your
524
drawing-room when the war is over?" I think the Government are likely to object altogether to this possible combination. My noble friend says he appreciates the point, but claims that there will be no rivalry because he regards this new appeal as being of a different character and calculated to empty pockets which would never be touched by anything more noble. I do not think he is right. As a matter of fact there is no limit to what the British people are prepared to do by scraping and saving for the purpose of helping to fight the war. I should be very sorry to see Government approval given to a plan which at any rate would not contribute to that end and which, within limits, might even act against it.
Moreover, there is this further consideration. We cannot lend our savings propaganda to encourage the view that money saved during the war is intended to be spent as soon as hostilities cease. My noble friend spoke of the money being at call at a moment's notice, of the Government being in the position of having to find the money if called upon, but that is not so. All the different forms of war investment are very carefully dovetailed together, and the scheme is a far more elaborate one than that. It is one that by no means places the Government under the duty to find great sums of money just because the war is over. This scheme would have that result and the more it succeeded, the more it would have that result. If the manufacturers of the country, with their sales organizations, Send their canvassers down every street to book from everyone who may be induced to agree priority orders for every sort of commodity, this would be the means of bringing into the hands of the Government money which would have to be surrendered when the war ends. That is a very serious prospect to so old-fashioned a fogey as the British Treasury. That is the first consideration.
The second consideration is this. Before we can decide whether a scheme like this is one that ought to be encouraged and approved, we must have a clear view of the importance of a consistent post-war economic policy. My noble friend quoted—he quoted very much to the purpose—the observation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that we shall need to maintain for a time after the war a considerable measure of control over our economic life.

525
We shall need to do more than that. We shall need, as far as we can, to make sure that in the post-war world the priorities go, not to the quarters that have paid to buy them, but to the quarters where, on a view of our economic and social needs, they ought to go. That is quite a different thing. The best priority for the future is not necessarily a priority of supplies to manufacturers who have got orders which have been obtained in this way. I would not myself expect, after the war is over, that there will be anything but a tendency to boom for a time, but what we have to see is that the first supplies of material and labour released from war purposes go to the production of the civilian goods which are most needed. It appears to me to be quite inconsistent with that to give to manufacturers, of high sales potential and special powers of appeal, the right to say "The Government have authorized that our customers shall be supplied in front of everyone else."
My noble friend spoke as though further difficulties would be avoided, because after all, he said, there must he some special arrangements made for poor people. I am coming to that in a moment. But his proposal is not at all limited by saying that only a priority certificate is to be given to an individual who can prove that he really must have the articles. It is to be given to the individual who has a good many pounds to spend, who chooses to buy twice as many or three times as many things as are necessary. The priority would be there for the manufacturer to supply him with them.
That brings me to the last reason, and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, will not mind too much, because the reason is one which he has already very forcibly mentioned; at any rate it is by far the most fundamental one. This scheme appears to the Government and appears to me really to involve a very grave measure of social injustice. It means that the people who at this moment have the resources are going to make sure that they are the people who are going to get the supplies. It consequently means that the people who have not got the resources may whistle for supplies until those who have come in before them are satisfied. The words "to him that hath shall be given" occur in the Scriptures, I think in a connexion which is not altogether clear,
526
but at least in the matter of future policy there can be no doubt at all that this scheme is at once condemned when it is seen to be one which is calculated to give to people who already have resources preference and priority above all those people who have not got resources at all. Of course this objection has been realized. I could not help seeing that my noble friend was approaching it, may I say, a little gingerly, because he knows quite well that this is one of the main objections that have been taken to the scheme in America. The suggestion was of course that we must provide a special little place for the discharged soldier.
LORD BARNBY: I must interrupt the noble and learned Viscount—not a little place for the discharged soldier. Throughout my speech I laid emphasis on the fact that provision would have to be made in liberal measure for the discharged soldier and the unfortunate person. The emphasis that I laid on this has been disregarded.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Let us work that out. Provision must be made. It it is not a very difficult phrase. It must be stated in money. Who is to provide the money? Or take the second difficulty. There are discharged soldiers who will have some resources and other discharged soldiers who will not have resources. If these two people are to be on a parallel then the whole notion of priority disappears. There is nothing left in it at all. The whole essence of priority is that the people who have resources shall get at the head of the queue while other people shall be kept behind. I say that is in itself the greatest possible social injustice, and it is because it is that, as Well as for other reasons, that, as I understand it, this scheme has not found favour in the United States. Certainly Mr. Norgenthau has denounced it. Let me assure my noble friend that neither on this nor on any other subject do I wish to be obstinate. If it would help the matter to pursue his speech into the metric system and malnutrition I should do it with all the goodwill in the world, but as it is it seems to me that there only remains for me to say that you do not prove that a scheme is right by claiming that it is a novelty, and that the considerations I have most respectfully put before your Lordships should perhaps induce the House to think that this is not a well-founded plan.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, before Lord Barnby replies perhaps I may say a few words as representing that great national War Savings Campaign which is now engaged in a quite tremendous effort, to raise the sum of £650,000,000 for the further prosecution of the war. Lord Barnby made reference on three occasions in his speech to the efforts we are making, and suggested that his plan might be complementary to, though not identical with, ours. I may say at once that this is no novelty to us. It is interesting to reflect that two years before the war one of His Majesty's present Ministers said to me: "If you want to get more savings out of the people, and in the war that is bound to come"—he made a good shot there; you will want a lot more—"you have got to sell priorities." This Minister is still a Minister of the Crown rendering most valuable service, not in this country. We asked ourselves whether it was possible that we could use this argument of priorities among the many arguments that are used to ask people to lend their money to the State for the prosecution of the great cause for which we are fighting. When I say "we," I mean not only all those connected with Lord Kindersley but the many civil servants and other economists who advise us. I can assure Lord Barnby that, having considered this suggestion, we rejected it unanimously because of those considerations, amongst others, that have been put before us to-day by the Lord Chancellor.
Two arguments against it are worth stating briefly in this House on behalf of the great movement upon which, we are told, the Chancellor of the Exchequer relies so much for the financing of the war. The first is that it seemed that it would be unfair to some people when the war comes to an end, for there will be people who have done pretty well out of the war and others who have not done well. This in itself is bound to cause bitterness; but you will add to that a far greater bitterness if you give those people with wealth a priority by which they can obtain the things that people may want so badly—a bed to sleep on, a wireless set as a luxury, and the actual tools of a man's trade. If that were to happen it would cause much bitterness. The second reason is that, in appealing for those £650,000,000 now and all the millions to follow, we do not want to say: "Lend
528
it to the Government now to help us win the war and when the war is over have a jolly time and spend it at once." Everybody knows that to do that would cause infinite dislocation. What we want to do is to say: "It is good for you to know that you have this nest egg to help you when the war comes to an end. Nobody quite knows what things will be like then, and it will be a help to you then, won't it? If we may give you advice, it is that you should not be in a hurry to spend it." This priority plan is an encouragement to spend it at once. For those two reasons, therefore, we rejected the scheme without, it should be observed by my noble friend Lord Barnby, rejecting altogether some of the arguments in its favour which he has pointed out.
I suggest, if I may, that it would be a good plan if the noble Lord were to concentrate his great abilities on supporting the present plan by which we say to the citizen: "Lend all you can to the Government. Then you can get your own priority when the war is over by being in control of that small amount of capital you yourself have saved, always remembering that you would do much better if you exercised that control decently, kindly and gently, waiting for the poorer people to have a chance." I would end by saying with deep respect to my noble friend, who I know cares much for the welfare especially of the poorer classes, that if he were to go on with this agitation he would confuse the issue of the great appeal we are trying to put over, or, in more homely language, he would queer the pitch. I beg him to use his talents to support the present National War Savings Campaign.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I am very much indebted to my noble friend Lord Mottistone for reminding the House that there is no novelty in this scheme. I would reassure the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack that I am under no illusion about that. It is an old suggestion, but many suggestions, like daylight saving, became very old before they were adopted. I would also like to thank my noble friend Lord Mottistone for refraining from what he might have said, but for his generosity, about choosing this particular moment for the debate. I had intended drawing attention to the point in my opening speech, but it escaped my

529
memory. Of course, it is not really necessary to remind your Lordships that circumstances sometimes compel one to bring forward things which otherwise one would refrain from doing in a particular week. My noble friend Lord Mottistone emphasized that the appeal should be to all, "Lend what you can." That is very proper and very right, but I think he overlooked the fact that my appeal is based upon the belief, reiterated throughout the country by authorities that must be respected, that means should be devised to induce people to put out still more efforts. I think the coal miners—I am casting no aspersions upon them—might possibly produce more, and if they produce more they will earn more. Give them a character and let them earn more.
I thank the noble and learned Viscount for the moderation of manner in which he dealt with me. He might quite easily have dealt with me much more severely. I know that the advocate of a new theme is often a martyr. I had anticipated leaving this Chamber in the spirit of being a complete martyr. I appreciate the Lord Chancellor's indulgence. The noble and learned Viscount said that such subscriptions would not be lent for carrying on the war. I refrain from embarking on an economic controversy with so eminent an authority as the noble and learned Viscount, but I suspect that when the Government get the money that does not necessarily mean that it has been decided how the money is going to be spent subsequently. It seems to me there is very little difference in the case of a man who cashes a War Savings Certificate and spends the money inopportunely. The articles to come within this scheme would be carefully selected and would not be left to be dealt with indiscriminately. The noble and learned Lord Chancellor emphasized that this scheme suggested a social injustice. I could not refrain from interposing a reminder about provision for the discharged soldier or people who may be unfortunate. If you do not have this scheme, how are you going to prevent somebody with money grabbing something from somebody who has not got money? The noble and learned Viscount scoffed at my idea. He might have consulted the views of the Treasury. I am glad he let the cat out of the bag that he bad not consulted the Treasury.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I cannot let there be any misunderstanding on this
530
point. I was speaking on behalf of the Government and naturally in a case like this I have been in communication with the Treasury. I merely made the remark that I thought one or two observations might have occurred to me without consulting the Treasury.
Lotus BARNBY: I am sorry I misunderstood what the Lord Chancellor said, but if the idea is looked on with disfavour by the Treasury it might still be reconsidered with a view to exploring its possibilities. I thank the noble and learned Viscount for his reply and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

WOOL PURCHASES.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg to ask the other question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, whether their attention has been drawn to reports that the Australian Minister of Commerce foreshadows an early conference, with attendance by representatives of New Zealand and South Africa, to consider the extended collective purchase of their wool clips; whether they will give assurance that should such conference be arranged, opportunity will be sought to secure appropriate British representation, and for this to include responsible British wool trade associations.]
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Portal has to be away from the House on Government business I have been asked to reply to this question. I assume that my noble friend is referring to a report which appeared in the Press here in December last. This foreshadowed the holding of a conference of wool growers of Australia, New Zealand and South Africa to consider post-war marketing problems. If this suggestion is proceeded with the precise scope of the conference and the question whether it will be useful to invite also the representation of consuming interests would, of course, be matters for the convening country to consider in the first instance.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, arising out of that reply I would ask leave to express my disappointment that His

531
Majesty's Government, who are so largely interested in the very big stocks of wool they hold, will not be in a position, according to the reply we have been given, to insist on participation in any such conference affecting the wool owned by them. I must tell my noble friend that I hope to raise this matter in the very near future.

UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE
LORD DAVIES: My Lords, I beg to ask the question which I have on the Paper.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government if there is any foundation for statements which have recently appeared in the Press to the effect that arrangements are now being made for the organization of a United Nations Conference in Washington; if the agenda of the Conference is to be restricted to economic questions or will include the discussion of plans for the creation of a post-war international authority; and if they are in a position to make any statement on the subject.]
THE LORD PRIVYSEAL (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE): My Lords, the United States Administration have recently publicly declared their belief that there would be advantages in early discussions between the United Nations in regard to certain post-war arrangements, notably in connexion with food, and generally on methods of achieving freedom from want. No agenda has yet been settled, but there is reason to believe that such discussions would be confined to specifically economic questions. His Majesty's Government welcome this initiative by the United States Government. As the noble Lord will be aware, they have already been in touch with the Dominions and India on post-war financial questions. His Majesty's Government have also held a number of informal meetings with the Allied Governments in England.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Act to the
532
Parish of Aldenham in the Rural District of Watford:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and ordered to lie on the Table.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (GOV ERNORS' ALLOWANCES AND PRIVILEGES) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1943.
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the India and Burma Orders Committee.
  SPEED LIMIT.
  SPEED LIMIT.