Sitting of 27 May 1943

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

  POST-WAR EDUCATION (WOMEN'S LAND ARMY)
  Mrs. Cazalet Keirasked the Minister of Labour why the Women's Land Army is not specifically mentioned in the published list of services which are eligible for consideration under the Government's scheme for post-war educational facilities?
  The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): Members of the Women's Land Army stand in relation to the scheme for further education and training in the same position as workers in the war industries. While the scheme is intended primarily for persons in the categories named in the published list, a number of places under the scheme will be available for persons who have done war work of other kinds.
  Mrs. Keir: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great disappointment and dissatisfaction felt by members of the Women's Land Army that their great service is not specially mentioned in his scheme, and would he be prepared to reconsider this matter?
  Mr. Bevin: I am afraid that I cannot include the Women's Land Army in the same category as the Services. They are exactly in the same position as munition workers, and there would have to be a mention of everyone if I set a precedent here.

  DISCHARGED SERVICE PERSONNEL (REHABILITATION)
  Captain Duncanasked the Minister of Labour what powers he has to direct men and women discharged from the Services on grounds of neurosis or temporary instability to undergo training at residential or other centres under his control; and
  1706
  what steps he is taking to rehabilitate these persons?
  Mr. Bevin: The treatment and rehabilitation of persons discharged from the Services on grounds of neurosis or temporary instability are undertaken in appropriate cases at special centres under the Emergency Hospital Scheme. The centres under my control are vocational training centres, and in so far as persons leaving neurosis centres are in need of learning a new trade, arrangements are made for their admission on a voluntary basis. I have power to direct persons where necessary to the training centres, but I doubt whether compulsion in these cases would be in the best interest of those concerned.
  Captain Duncan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a danger in these cases that if action is not taken to direct people to training, they may drift into crime or, alternatively, may be a burden on the State for the rest of their lives?
  Mr. Bevin: It is very doubtful whether in neurosis cases compulsion is the right method to use. It is a very difficult subject.
  Captain Duncanasked the Minister of Pensions what arrangements he has with the Minister of Labour to afford residential training to men and women discharged from the services on grounds of neurosis or temporary instability as part of their rehabilitative treatment?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions (Mr. Paling): The special arrangements made in October, 1941, in consultation with the other Departments concerned, ensure that the provisions of the interim scheme for the training of disabled persons introduced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour are readily available to all disabled ex-Service personnel who are admitted to the special neurological centres administered by the Ministry of Health and the Department of Health for Scotland, and who are in need of vocational training; and for this purpose, these institutions maintain an active liaison with the appropriate local office machinery of the Ministry of Labour.
  Captain Duncan: Could my hon. Friend tell me how many cases in fact have been trained by the Ministry of Labour?
  Mr. Paling: I could not without notice.

  LIFE ASSURANCE AGENTS (COST OF LIVING BONUS)
  Mr. Mackasked the Minister of Labour whether he will see that machinery whereby life assurance agents can have their claim for a cost-of-living bonus considered is established forthwith?
  Mr. Bevin: Such machinery already exists in the arbitration procedure provided by the Conditions of Employment and National Arbitration Orders, 1940–42.
  Mr. Mack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many offices, in spite of their huge profits, have given no war bonus at all to their workers while others have granted totally inadequate amounts, having regard to the high rise in the cost of living, and as a consequence thousands of insurance agents are suffering acutely? Will he give further consideration to this matter?
  Mr. Bevin: It is open to the unions representing the men, if the facts are as the hon. Member has stated, to report a case, and I pass it on to the arbitration court, where they can argue it. I cannot take on the responsibility of actually fixing wages.
  Mr. Mack : I take it, then, the right hon. Gentleman will go into any cases which are reported to him?
  Mr. Bevin: Certainly.

  WORKPEOPLE (SYMPATHETIC STRIKES)
  Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Minister of Labour the number of prosecutions of workpeople instituted by his Department since the outbreak of hostilities where those proceedings have resulted in sympathetic strikes; how many strikers were involved; and the number of days' work lost by such strikes?
  Mr. Bevin: I am obtaining such information as is available and will communicate with my hon. Friend.

  INDIA

    Congress Leaders
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the recent plea of Sir Tej Sapru and other non-Congress leaders
    1708
    that Mr. Gandhi and Congress leaders should appear before a judicial tribunal in order that opportunity may be given them to refute allegations of pro-Japanese sympathy and other charges contained in the White Paper; and whether any response will be given to these representations?
    The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): I have seen a Press report of the matter referred to. The Government of India have no intention of staging a trial of Mr. Gandhi and the Congress leaders who were placed in detention, as the honourable Member is aware, subsequent to the passing of the resolution of the All-India Congress Committee of 8th August last year. The Government of India's statement re-published in the White Paper was issued in response to a demand for the justification for their action. It does not make charges of pro-Japanese sympathy as the honourable Member's Question suggests.
    Mr. Sorensen: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is to be any response to these frequent pleas by non-Congress leaders for further action by his Department?
    Mr. Amery: No, Sir.
    Mr. Sorensen: Would the Secretary of State kindly reply to my supplementary question?
    Mr. Amery: I replied "No". The point was covered in the answer which I have given.
    Mr. Sorensen: Do I take it there is to be no response to these frequent appeals by non-Congress leaders?
    Mr. Amery: That they should be put in touch with Congress?
    Mr. Sorensen: On that and other matters?
    Sir Stanley Reed: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the only indication of Mr. Gandhi's pro-Japanese sympathies was contained in his own letter to the Working Committee of the Congress, in which he said that if he had power, he would probably open negotiations with the Japanese: and, secondly, whether Mr. Gandhi—
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is not asking a question but giving information.

    British Troops (Income Tax)
    Mr. Fraserasked the Secretary of State for India what is the rate of Income Tax liability of British officers and men serving with His Majesty's Forces in India; and whether any reliefs are given in the way of marriage or dependants' allowances?
    Mr. Amery: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply to Question No. 28 addressed to me on 13th May by the hon. Member for the Eye Division of East Suffolk (Mr. Granville), of which I am sending him a copy.

    MARRIED WOMEN (NATIONALITY)
    Mr. Pethick-Lawrenceasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any opportunity has yet arisen of implementing the pledge made in March last respecting further consultation with the Dominions with a view to seeking a way round the difficulties regarding a revision of the law relating to the nationality of married women?
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): No suitable opportunity of consultation with the Dominions has yet occurred. The matter will not be lost sight of.
    Dr. Edith Summerskill: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this is another half promise which has been given to women and which the Government have no desire to implement?
    Mr. Morrison: The Government have not decided whether to implement it or not. The Government said they would take the opportunity, when it arose, of consultation with the Dominions, who are involved.
    Dr. Summerskill: In view of the fact that the Debate took place two months ago, could the right hon. Gentleman say when an opportunity will arise?
    Mr. Morrison: I cannot say. My hon. Friendis always looking for injustices to women when they do not always exist; she is over-conscious about it. It is a question of the right sort of consultation, and it is very difficult to do, in the midst of war, by telegraphic communication. I am afraid it may have to be personal consultation when the opportunity arises.

  CIVIL DEFENCE

    Fire Fighting Party (Prisoners' Aid)
    Mr. Bensonasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the good work done by some prisoners as members of a fire-fighting party when recently a prison in the South of England was damaged by enemy action; and whether any recognition has been made of the services rendered by these prisoners?
    Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. In accordance with the practice adopted in other cases, a fortnight's remission of sentence has been granted to 14 prisoners who, as members of a fire-fighting party, gave most useful help to the prison staff. I would like to take this opportunity of expressing appreciation of the fine way in which the prison staff dealt with a difficult and dangerous situation, and of the good behaviour and co-operative spirit of the prisoners.
    Mr. Benson: Can the statement of the Home Secretary be communicated both to the prisoners and to the prison staff?
    Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. The Governor of the prison will have the statement which I have made read out to all the prisoners in assembly at the first convenient moment.

    Air-Raid Warnings
    Commander King-Hallasked the Home Secretary whether he will examine the possibility of having two types of air-raid warning signals, one of which would indicate that a small nuisance raiding force was approaching, while the other would indicate that an attack in strength was to be expected?
    Mr. Thorneasked the Home Secretary whether he is considering making any alteration in the method of air-raid warning.
    Mr. H. Morrison: The possibility of using two types of warning signal to indicate the strength of an enemy air raid has been considered, but, for reasons which it would not be in the public interest for me to disclose, it is not considered practicable to do so.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister not aware, that the siren has an even worse effect on the nerves of many women than the guns?
    Mr. Morrison: I am not going to boast that the siren is a particularly tuneful thing. I think that any air-raid warning signal, whatever it may be, is calculated to have a little disturbing effect.
    Mr. Thorne: If the right hon. Gentleman intends to make any alteration in the siren warning, I take it the House will be informed?
    Mr. Morrison: That will be my wish, unless reasons of security operate otherwise. I should imagine it would be necessary and right to inform the House.

    Fire Guard Duties
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Ian Fraserasked the Home Secretary whether, where the husband or wife is a registered blind person or is disabled in the highest degree, he will grant exemption from fire-watching duties to the other partner?
    Mr. H. Morrison: I agree that blind and other highly disabled persons ought not to be left unattended during air raids, but in view of the great variety of individual circumstances I consider that the best way to secure this end is to leave it to the hardship tribunal to decide who should be exempted for this purpose.
    Sir I. Fraser: Does my right hon. Friend intend his answer to convey to local officers that they may use their discretion in this matter?
    Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir.

    Norfolk Broads (Restrictions)
    Sir Geoffrey Shakespeareasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the changed circumstances, he will now review the regulations made over three years ago restricting the use of the Norfolk Broads and bring them up to date, so as not to deprive the public of these amenities?
    Mr. H. Morrison: I presume my hon. Friend is referring to the restrictions on mooring of pleasure vessels in the Broads imposed under a Direction issued by the Regional Commissioner. As I indicated in reply to a Question on 20th May, it is still considered necessary to maintain the requirement of immobilisation of unattended vessels in inland waters in certain counties, of which Norfolk is one. Whether in these circumstances it will be possible to remove the restrictions to which my hon. Friend refers I feel doubtful, but
    1712
    I will consider the matter in consultation with the Regional Commissioner and the other authorities concerned.
    Mr. Sorensen: May I ask whether these prospective journeys on the Broads are really necessary?
    Mr. Morrison: That is another question.
    Colonel Medlicott: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider allowing a limited use of the Broads to local inhabitants for fishing and similar purposes?
    Mr. Morrison: I will consider that suggestion.

    REGIONAL COMMISSIONERS (HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT)
    Commander King-Hallasked the Home Secretary whether the offices of Regional Commissioners are supplied with a copy of Hansard?
    Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Muff: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the North-East Region the Regional Commissioner and his staff read Hansard most religiously every day?
    Mr. Morrison: I am very glad to hear that. I hope they have time for other things as well.

    SPEED OFFENCES (POLICE TIMING)
    Sir John Mellorasked the Home Secretary in how many cases he has authorised the prosecution of motor-car drivers for alleged speed offences in built-up areas when they have been timed by one police constable on a motor-cycle by reference to his speedometer and without any corroborative evidence?
    Mr. H. Morrison: The question whether the evidence reMered in support of a charge is sufficient to satisfy the court that the offence is proved is one for the court itself to decide. I have given no authorisation in the sense indicated in the Question, nor have I any power to do so. Prosecutions, of course, are not undertaken by my authority.
    Sir J. Mellor: Having regard to the impossibility of one constable keeping his eye continuously on the speedometer and

    1713
    at the same time watching the traffic, will my right hon. Friend discourage this method of timing?
    Mr. Morrison: If I were to accept that argument, every motorist would be able to plead that as he was not able to keep his eye on the speedometer he did not know how fast he was going. There is a provision about this in law. The Road Traffic Act, 1930, provides that a person shall not be liable to be convicted for the offence of speeding solely on the evidence of one witness to the effect that in the opinion of the witness the motorist was driving at an excessive speed, and it is for the court to decide on the evidence whether the speedometer is the opinion of the witness. I think the matter could only be dealt with by a change of law rather than by instructions to the police.
    Sir J. Mellor: Is not the difference that the motorist does not need to keep his eye continuously on the speedometer whereas the constable has to judge speed, and it is necessary for him to do so?
    Mr. Morrison: I think every motorist will know that that is not an insoluble problem.

    CHURCH BELL RINGING (REMOVAL OF RESTRICTIONS)
    Mr. Hutchinsonasked the Home Secretary whether he is now in a position to make any further statement as to the operation of the Order relating to the ringing of church bells?
    Mr. Dribergasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of misunderstanding in regard to the ringing of church. bells on 3rd June, being Ascension Day, he will now regularise the position by allowing those responsible for the ringing of such bells discretion in the use of them on week-days?
    Mr. H. Morrison: The Government have now decided that the present restrictions on the use of church bells shall be removed. I have, therefore, made an Order revoking the Control of Noise (Defence) (No. 2) Order, 1943, which prohibited the sounding of any church bell except for the purpose of summoning persons to public worship on a Sunday, Christmas Day or Good Friday. The effect of this revocation is that church bells may be rung for any purpose at any time provided that
    1714
    their sound is not liable to be mistaken for a signal in connection with an air raid or a gas attack. The Government must, of course, be free to review the position in the light of changing circumstances.
    Sir Hugh O'Neill: What will now be the warning in the event of invasion?
    Mr. Morrison: That had better be addressed to the appropriate Minister.
    Mr. Thorne: I take it that the local authorities still have the power to prevent boys and girls going about with hand bells?
    Mr. Morrison: Yes; if the handbell is likely to be confused with a warning connected with an air raid or gas attack, they have the power to stop them.

    PRISON COMMISSIONERS (INFORMATION)
    Mr. Edmund Harveyasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the cessation of the issue of Annual Reports of the Prison Commissioners, he will issue a White Paper giving in brief summary form the essential information usually to be found in the Annual Reports?
    Mr. H. Morrison: As my hon. Friend knows, the need for economising manpower and paper is still urgent but, while I cannot at the moment give a positive undertaking with regard to the publication of this information, I will certainly consider how and in what form it can be made available.

  PUBLIC HEALTH

    Diphtheria (Immunisation)
    Mr. Viantasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has considered the letter from John C. Dixon, 14, Johnson Street, Newton, near Barrow-in-Furness, asking him to investigate the case of his son, aged five years, who was inoculated against diphtheria at school without his patents consent and who has since had septic rashes all over his body and frequent screaming fits during the night; and whether he will reprimand those responsible for inoculating the boy without the consent of his father, who had a strong objection to this inoculation?
    The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): I understand that a form asking for Mr. Dixon's consent to the immunisation of his son was sent to him in March, 1942, and that he took no action upon it. The boy was immunised in March and April, 1942, but I am informed that no protest was made at the time by Mr. Dixon and that he did not seek medical advice about his son until nearly a year later. While I naturally regret any anxiety caused, I cannot accept all the implications in the hon. Member's Question.
    Mr. Silverman: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what authority the doctor or nurse had to immunise the boy without the consent of the parents?
    Mr. Butler: The hon. Member is perfectly correct. The consent of the parents ought to have been assured before immunisation was undertaken. I am drawing this matter to the attention of those concerned. I think this Question will have served that purpose.
    Mr. Quintin Hogg: Are not parents who refuse their consent to the immunisation of their children a danger to other parents?
    Mr. Butler: I would like to say, in answer to that question, that I have taken the trouble myself to issue a special message drawing the importance of immunisation to the attention of parents, in view of the very serious results of diphtheria on children.
    Mr. Viant: Are we to understand that immunisation is still voluntary in this country?
    Mr. Butler: Yes, that is so.

    Venereal Diseases
    Dr. Summerskillasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that a woman informed against under Regulation 33B was imprisoned for failing to complete treatment, he will consider penalising the men who informed against her for any default in treatment?
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): No, Sir. There is no power under the Regulation to deal with the persons indicated in the latter part of the Question.
    Dr. Summerskill: Can the Minister justify the position in which an individual informed against under Regulation 33B can be sent to prison but the two informers, people suffering from the disease and liable to transmit it to innocent people, are not penalised in any way?
    Mr. Brown: They themselves are undergoing treatment, and the House fully understood that when the Regulation was made.
    Dr. Summerskill: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those individuals can default in their treatment and not be penalised?
    Mr. Brown: The answer is that I am watching the operation of the Regulation to find out whether the hon. Lady's supposition is actually working out in fact.
    Dr. Summerskill: While the right hon. Gentleman is watching the operation of the Regulation, is he aware that these people who are defaulting in treatment are transmitting this disease to their innocent wives?
    Mr. Brown: I am aware that the hon. Lady makes these assumptions, but she does not give us the facts.

    Disabled Persons (Rehabilitation)
    Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Minister of Health, whether, in view of the growing importance of the rehabilitation and resettlement of disabled persons and the fact that the Tomlinson Committee was not entitled to take evidence from any quarter, he will consult those who have,had experience of handling these cases in order that the scheme may prove successful?
    Mr. E. Brown: The recommendations of this Committee which affect my Department are concerned for the most part with the development and extension of measures of rehabilitation already adopted under the Emergency Hospital Scheme. In this matter my officers are proceeding in consultation with those having experience in this field of medicine, not only centrally but in the hospitals throughout the country, where a special review of the subject is now in progress. I have also had the advantage of a discussion with representatives of the Trades Union Congress. If my hon. Friend has

    1717
    any suggestions as to other persons who should be consulted, I shall be happy to consider them. The Committee's other recommendations are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service.
    Mr. Davies: It is very well to consult trade unions and employers in this connection, but will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the doctors who are actually doing this very special work feel that they are not consulted adequately in connection with rehabilitation? Will he look into that?
    Mr. Brown: I do not accept that. I shall be glad to have a talk with my hon. Friend and give him details of the consultations with the bodies which are specially interested.

    Mental Treatment Services
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Health whether further consideration has been given to the necessity of including mental treatment services in his plans for a more effective national health and medical service; whether he will ensure an organic relationship between mental and medical health services; and what reply he has given to representations on this issue?
    Mr. E. Brown: The ideas in my hon. Friend's Question are having full consideration in the preparation of plans.
    Mr. Sorensen: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that all those who are interested in the mental services of this country regret very much that mental services should be divorced from the general health services?
    Mr. Rhys Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman include mental deficiency, as well as mental disturbance?
    Mr. Brown: The answer is directed to mental treatment services.

    National Health Service (Discussions)
    Mr. Storeyasked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the. announcement by the British Medical Association, published in the "Lancet" for Saturday, 22nd May, of which a copy has been sent to him, about the discussions upon a national health service; and whether he has any statement to make thereon?
    Mr. Manderasked the Minister of Health the position with regard to his negotiations with the medical profession concerning a full medical service free to all; and when a White Paper will be published?
    Mr. E. Brown: I would refer my hon. Friends to the answer which I gave yesterday on this subject to my hon. Friend the Member for London University (Sir E. Graham-Little).
    Mr. Storey: In view of the fact that that answer does not refer specifically to the British Medical Association's statement, and in view of their statement that in the opinion of their representative Committee the proposals are quite unacceptable to the great majority of the medical profession, will my right hon. Friend now consider issuing a White Paper setting out the proposals made as a basis of discussion between the medical profession, the local authorities, and the voluntary hospitals, and can he arrange for a debate in this House?
    Mr. Brown: Not until the present discussions with all three bodies are concluded.
    Mr. Mander: Is it not a fact that the B.M.A. put forward counter proposals of their own and does my right hon. Friend intend to publish those and his own proposals?
    Mr. Brown: I am glad to say that we have had very fruitful discussions in the last few days.
    Mr. Storey: Is it not a fact that the voluntary hospitals do not know what the proposals made by the medical profession and the local authorities are, and that the local authorities do not know what the proposals of th,e other bodies are? Would it not clear the air if the Minister issued a White Paper?
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is misinformed. With regard to the voluntary hospitals, I have received definite and constructive proposals from them only last week.

    Maternity Accommodation, West Riding
    Mr. Dunnasked the Minister of Health what steps he is still taking to make available maternity accommodation in the southern portion of the West Riding

    1719
    of Yorkshire; and whether he is aware that concern exists among the local authorities, including the West Riding County Council, at the failure of his Ministry to give permission to these local authorities to proceed with maternity accommodation?
    Mr. E.Brown: I have approved the provision of 89 additional maternity beds in five separate institutions in the West Riding of Yorkshire during the last six months. Five more projects are under active consideration, in consultation with the appropriate Departments. Only one proposal has been refused approval. My hon. Friend will appreciate that the present stringencies of labour and materials make it essential to restrict approval to proposals of outstanding urgency.

    EDUCATION BILL
    Mr. Kirkwoodasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has considered the resolution of the Sheffield Council of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, a copy of which has been sent to him, calling for the raising of the school-leaving age for secondary education, common standards of staffing adequate nursery schools, &c.; when he proposes to introduce the Education Bill; and whether he proposes to include all or any of these matters therein?
    Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) on 20th May, a copy of which I am sending him.

  HOUSING

    Overcrowding
    Mr. Silkinasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the grave overcrowding which exists in many parts of the country; and whether he will cause the necessary local surveys to be made in the over-populated areas with a view to allocating surplus accommodation according to need?
    Mr. E. Brown: I am aware of the serious problem presented by overcrowding. Surveys have already been made in 862 districts in connection with arrangements for
    1720
    finding lodging accommodation for transferred war workers where conditions were difficult so as to assist in putting any existing surplus accommodation to the fullest use and these surveys have been of great assistance. I should be glad to consider any area in respect of which my hon.' Fnend cares to give me information.
    Mr. Gallacher: Has the Minister seen a pamphlet by Henry McShane dealing with overcrowding in Glasgow, and will he get it and confer with the Secretary of State for Scotland?
    Mr. Brown: That question should addressed to the Secretary of State.
    Earl Winterton: Do I understand, with regard to the last part of the Question, that surveys have or have not been made where gross overcrowing exists?
    Mr. Brown: Eight hundred and sixty-two areas have been surveyed.

    Agricultural Workers?
    Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Health whether he can state either the highest or lowest all-in estimate accepted from any.contractor for each type of the 3,000 rural cottages?
    Mr. E. Brown: No tenders have yet been accepted.
    Mr. Bossom: Could the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be able to give information to the House?
    Mr. Brown: I am not sure. Perhaps the hon. Member will put a question down for the next series of Sitting Days.
    Earl Winterton: Do I understand that of this plan for 3,000 cottages not a single tender has yet been accepted?
    Mr. Brown: Not yet.
    Sir Irving Albery: Have any tenders been called for for the construction of cottages in chalk?
    Mr. Brown: I should want notice of that question.
    Mr. De la Bere: Let us get on with the job.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the Minister aware that it is several months since he decided to proceed with the erection of these 3,000 cottages? When is he going to speed up delivery?
    Mr Brown: There has been no undue delay.
    Mr. Liddallasked the Minister of Health whether it is officially proposed to use English green unseasoned timber for roof works in connection with the Government scheme of houses for agricultural workers, or whether seasoned imported timber will be available?
    Mr. Brown: The answer to the first part of the Question is, "No, Sir." I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply, who is responsible for timber control, that every endeavour will be made to supply suitable timber where timber is to be used, but operational and Service demands for which seasoned timber is essential must, of course, have precedence.

    War Damaged Areas
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Health approximately how many local authorities have now prepared provisional plans for rebuilding houses in their localities; how many houses these will provide; and whether he is satisfied that all possible preparations are being made, in view of the shortage that now exists, and that will be accentuated by the end of hostilities?
    Mr. E. Brown: I am not in a position to add to the general information I gave my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Leicester (Major Lyons) on 20th May. The particular question of rebuilding war damaged houses, whether by the local authority or by the private owner, will be given further consideration immediately labour and materials are available, as a matter of the highest priority.
    Mr. Sorensen: Can the Minister at least give some indication of how far local authorities have been making the preparations urged upon them some time ago? Can we have an answer?
    Mr. Brown: If my hon. Friend win look at the rather long answer that I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Leicester, perhaps he will decide, in the light of that, whether he wants to put another question.
    Mr. Sorensen: If my memory serves me right, that answer does not cover my Question. Could we have an answer to that Question, in view of the very grave situation?
    Mr. Brown: The answer points out that the, preparations for the first year's programme by local authorities, in accordance with my circular of 4th March, are making progress.

    Standard Rents
    Mr. Cluseasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, as under the present law the first rent becomes the standard rent, owners are able to charge high rents in new tenancies, first rents in some areas in houses of equal value have varied from £70 to £100; and whether he will introduce amending legislation to provide that where a standard rent has never existed, the first rent fixed shall have some relation to rateable value and the rents charged for similar houses?
    Mr. E. Brown: I am aware of this anomaly in the Rent Restrictions Acts, and have already noted it for consideration when amending legislation is undertaken.
    Mr. Cluse: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that under the present Act a person who was an owner-occupier in 1939 could let his house in December, 1940, at £125 per annum when the rateable value of that house was only £22? Is not that an example of profiteering and taking advantage of the law of supply and demand as it operates at present?
    Mr. Brown: I am not aware of that particular case, but my attention has been drawn to several others. Only a small proportion of the total number of houses in the country are affected add as I have said in my answer, I have noted the matter.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Can amending legislation be expected quite soon?
    Sir Percy Harris: Is my right bon, Friend aware that landlords can keep getting round this Act? Will he give the matter his attention? It is a growing scandal as a result of the growing shortage of houses partly due to the lack of building and partly due to destruction.
    Mr. Brown: I have already said that I have noted the point for consideration when the time comes for amending legislation.
    Mr. Silverman: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in the end he will find it impossible to control rents

    1723
    adequately unless he is prepared to control prices too? Has he abandoned the idea that he once entertained of asking a Committee of this House to consider the whole question of rent restriction with a view to abolishing the anomalies that exist?
    Mr. Brown: That is a very much wider question.
    Mr. Cocksasked the Minister of Health, whether he will consider making it obligatory on all landlords to register with local authorities the 1914 and 1939 standard rents?
    Mr. Brown: No, Sir. I do not consider that the adoption of my hon. Friend's suggestion would be of any practical advantage.
    Mr. Cocks: Would not the suggestion assist local authorities in their work of preventing profiteering in rents?
    Mr. Brown: It might add to the difficulties. If my hon. Friend will address his mind to the number of houses built between 1914 and 1939 and the changes that have occurred, he will see that it might add to the difficulties.

    POLICE (PART-TIME WAR WORK)
    Mr. Bullasked the Minister of Health, whether policemen, both regular and war reserve, who, when off duty, are doing part-time work at local factories and have therefore to pay health insurance, are entitled when their part-time work ceases to become voluntary contributors, thereby becoming eligible for the old age pension at 65 years of age?
    Mr. E. Brown: Regular members of the Police Force who have taken up part-time insurable employment when off duty are entitled to become voluntary contributors for health insurance or contributory pensions, or both, on the cessation of their part-time employment if by that date they have been so employed for not less than 104 weeks. I should mention, however, that where a policeman within this category has attained the age of 45 before taking up part-time insurable employment and subsequently retires from the Police Force on superannuation, the rate of old age pension payable to him at age 65 by virtue of his insurance will be lower than
    1724
    the full rate of 10s. a week, the amount of the reduction depending upon his age at the date of his becoming insured. Whole-time members of the Police War Reserve are, with few exceptions, cornpulsorily insurable in respect of their police service and their position in regard to insurance would therefore not be affected by reason of their taking up part-time work in addition to their police duties. These men will become qualified for voluntary insurance on completing 104 weeks of service with the Police War Reserve.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS
    Captain W. T. Shawasked the Minister of Health whether it is competent for the Assistance Board to take into account the rise in the cost of tobacco when considering applications for supplementary pensions?
    Mr. E. Brown: The scales in accordance with which supplementary pensions are determined. have been approved by Parliament, and the Assistance Board have no power to vary them, except to meet some special circumstances of an individual case.
    Captain Shaw: Is not the rise in the cost of tobacco a especial circumstance?
    Mr. Brown: I think it is of general application, and not a special circumstance.
    Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman take note, when drawing up the forthcoming Regulations, of the point raised by my hon. Friend? Will the Minister answer?
    Mr. Brown: I will discuss that with my colleagues concerned.
    Mr. Shinwell: Are we to understand that the reluctance of the right hon. Gentleman indicates that there is no intention on the part of the Government to provide any increase in the scale?
    Mr. Brown: Perhaps the hon. Member had better await the Regulations.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Does not this Question show that it is just tinkering with the matter? Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with the Board to get them to give adequate consideration to the question?

    ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS)
    Mr. Walter Edwardsasked the Minister of Pensions what advice he has given to the British Legion about their attitude towards the policy of trade unions representing their ex-Service men and women members on pension questions; and whether he will make a statement on the matter?
    Mr. Paling: My right hon. Friend has not given, nor would he presume to give, advice to the British Legion as to their policy in this matter.
    Mr. Edwards: Is my hon. Friend aware that the "British Legion Journal" for May reports a speech by his right hon. Friend, in which he states that the British Legion should prevent trade unions from interfering with the question of pensions of ex-Service men and women? Will he look at that journal, and ask his right hon. Friend whether he is prepared to withdraw that statement?
    Mr. Paling: My attention has been called to that report, and I can give the assurance that it was never intended to apply to trade unions as understood by my hon. Friend. It was intended to apply to ex- Service associations catering for these people.
    Mr. Edwards: Will my hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend, when making speeches on such occasions, to make his meaning more clear?
    Sir I. Fraserasked the Minister of Pensions whether he will reimburse claimants for pensions for the expenses they incur in obtaining medical certificates or other evidence to satisfy his Ministry's inquiries or to prove their cases before the forthcoming appeal tribunals?
    Mr. Paling: No, Sir, my right hon. Friend is unable to undertake to reimburse claimants for these expenses.
    Sir I. Fraser: Will the hon. Gentleman represent to the Minister that it ought not to cost an old soldier money to sustain his claim and to bring the necessary evidence?
    Mr. Paling: I will represent that to my right hon. Friend. But we do not find that there is any difficulty in getting these statements, particularly from a man's own doctor.
    Sir I. Fraser: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is because the doctor, being in sympathy, nearly always gives his services free? There is no reason why the doctors should have to do so, though I hope they will go on doing it until such expenses are allowed.
    Mr. Shinwell: Can we have an assurance that when the necessity of obtaining such evidence has caused additional expense, that expense will be met?
    Mr. Paling: I will make that representation to my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. De Ia Bere: What excuse is there for not doing it; why not do it?
    Sir I. Fraserasked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the fact that the legal presumption in pension claims before appeal tribunals is that the State is not liable until the contrary is proved, he will insert a Clause in his forthcoming Bill which will ensure that the tribunals to be set up to judge the cases of this war shall give the benefit of reasonable doubt to the claimants?
    Mr. Paling: My right hon. Friend does not accept the premise on which this Question is based, as the terms of the pensions instruments are sufficiently wide to enable the benefit of any reasonable doubt to be given to the claimant. The tribunal will be required, in the same way as the Ministry, to have regard to the terms of the pensions instruments, so far as they relate to the issue before the Tribunal.
    Sir I. Fraser: In view of the fact that there is grave uncertainty where the presumption lies, would not the Minister take advantage of forthcoming legislation to make it clear?
    Mr. Paling: The answer already deals with that, where it says:
    "The terms of the pensions instruments are sufficiently wide to enable the benefit of any reasonable doubt to be given to the claimant."
    Captain Godfrey Nicholson: Is not this a question of interpretation, and is my hon. Friend aware that up to date the interpretation has not been read in the way that my hon. and gallant Friend asks the question?
    Mr. Stephen: Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance on this matter that the presumption shall be upon the Minister?
    Mr. Paling: If the benefit of the doubt is already there, as already indicated, I see no necessity for giving an assurance on this matter.
    Mr. Stephen: But will not the hon. Member agree to make it perfectly clear, as it is not so at present?
    Mr. Paling: I think it is fairly clear
    Hon. Members: No.

    AFFORESTATION AND AMENITY PLANTING REPORT
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Report on Afforestation and Amenity Planting after the War will be published?
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton): The Report will, I hope, be published before the Whitsun Recess.
    Mr. Sorensen: Will that be available to Members of the House?
    Mr. Assheton: Yes, Sir, certainly.

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Favoured Customers
    Mr. Silkinasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that preference is being given to certain favoured customers in the supply of food at some large stores and restaurants; and whether he will, with a view to securing equal and fair treatment to the general public, consider making regulations prohibiting these practices?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane): If my hon. Friend will be good enough to let me have particulars of the preferences given to favoured customers to which he refers, I will gladly have inquiry made and communicate with him.

    Rabbits
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Ministry of Agriculture want rabbits destroyed irrespective of any consideration of their food value and that the Ministry of Food, by controlling the price of rabbits, has discouraged their destruction; and will he, in view of this conflict of policy, give instructions for the decontrol of rabbit prices?
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): There is no conflict of policy. Price control for wild rabbits was introduced by the Ministry of Food in full agreement with the Agricultural Departments. There is no evidence that the present maximum price is discouraging rabbit destruction where trapping can be effectively used. Complete extermination normally involves gassing during the breeding season under arrangements made by the Agricultural Departments. Decontrol of prices would conflict with the extermination policy and might lead to the retention of a nucleus of breeding stock, apart from the risk of exploiting consumers of rabbit flesh.
    Mr. Gallacher: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider organising the poachers in order to get rid of the rabbits?

    Cake and Biscuit Manufacturers' War Time Alliance
    Mr. Francis Beattieasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what percentage of the voting rights of the Cake and Biscuit Manufacturers' War Time Alliance, Limited, is controlled by his Department?
    Mr. Mabane: The Articles of Association of the Cake and Biscuit Manufacturers' War Time Alliance, Limited, presently provide that the Minister of Food or his duly authorised representative shall have on the Committee a number of votes exceeding by one the total number of votes which could be cast by all the other Committee men entitled to vote. It is expressly stated, however, that the Minister or his authorised representative may not vote upon any resolution fixing the amount or basis of a contribution to be made by members or affecting the finances of the Alliance nor upon a resolution whereby any recommendation is made to the Government or any Minister or Department thereof.
    The Minister's voting powers have not, so far, been exercised at any time and notice was given to the Alliance on 11th December, 1942, that in accordance with my Noble Friend's policy in regard to the relationship between my Department and "War Time Companies" it was proposed to relinquish such powers and to retain only the right of veto at a General Meeting of members of the Alliance. The Articles of Association are now in course of revision with the object of giving effect

    1729
    to this and other changes on the occasion of the next General Meeting of the Alliance.
    Mr. Gallacher: Would it be permissible to ask the Minister to read that answer over again and to read it more slowly, so that we can get to know what he says? Nobody knows what he says.
    Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: As the Question was simply, What percentage of the voting rights of the Cake and Biscuit Wartime Alliance, Limited, is controlled by his Department, will my hon. Friend say what the percentage is?
    Mr. Mabane: I am sorry. It was rather a long answer, and I thought I had better not go too slowly, as the House is sometimes a little impatient at long answers. It is not possible to state a precise percentage because there are complicated conditions governing the exercise of voting rights which I have set out in my reply; and further, there is shortly to be a material change in the exercise of control, and that is clearly set out too, and I think that my hon. Friend will appreciate this.
    Mr. Maxton: Do I understand the Parliamentary Secretary to say that the Government representatives have rights of voting they are now giving up?
    Mr.Mabane: That is so.
    Mr. Maxton: Why?
    Mr. Mabane: Because it is more convenient to operate in the way proposed.

    Shop Assistants (Tipping)
    Mr. G. Straussasked the Parliamentary Secretary to. the Ministry of Food whether he is aware of the widespread complaints about the tipping of shop assistants in some areas; and whether he intends to take any further steps to stop this practice?
    Mr. Mabane: I would refer by hon. Friend to the reference I made to this practice during the Debate on Thursday, 13th May, 1943.
    Mr. Strauss: I am aware of that reference, but as there are such widespread complaints about this and peculiar annoyance at the unfairness that arises or may arise from tipping, cannot the Minister take some definite and quantitative action to stop this abuse?
    Mr. Mabane: I indicated that it is an offence, particularly in connection with price-controlled goods, but I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate the difficulty of getting complete evidence, because neither the tipper nor the tippee is likely to reveal the offence.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: In view of the very serious position to shop assistants, has the Minister actually any evidence that there is any tipping of shop assistants in this country, and would he be good enough to take it from me that there is no tipping among Co-operative employees?
    Mr. Mabane: I do not know about that, but I am afraid that there is undoubted evidence which appears to have very substantial foundation in fact that the practice of tipping is employed by certain members of the public and in certain establishments.
    Mr. Sorensen: Not Co-operative though?
    Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: Is it possible to have notices displayed in all the big stores that this practice is illegal and that penalties can be inflicted for indulging in it?
    Mr. Mabane: I would be glad to consider that, but there is the disadvantage of calling attention to an abuse though it exists.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Is not a great deal of this tipping in kind and not in cash?

    BOMBING POLICY
    Wing-Commander Hulbertasked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that no representations made to His Majesty's Government by neutral countries suggesting the abandonment of air-bombing will be considered and that it is the policy of His Majesty's Government relentlessly to pursue all forms of military attack upon the enemy?
    Mr. Attlee: The destruction Of the Axis war potential by air bombing is a vital and indeed major feature of our strategy, and neither the enemy nor anyone else will divert us from it. Nor shall we relax the vigorous prosecution of the war by this and other legitimate methods until the complete victory of the United Nations is achieved.
    Mr. Stokes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is an ever-growing volume of opinion in this country which considers the indiscriminate bombing of civilian centres both morally wrong and strategic lunacy?
    Mr. Attlee: There is no indiscriminate bombing. As has been repeatedly stated in this House, the bombing is of those targets which are most effective from the military point of view.
    Mr. Lawson: Can we have the kind of thing that the hon. Gentleman calls public opinion on this matter?
    Sir William Davison: On a point of Order. Is there any way of preventing statements like this being made in the House?
    Mr. Sorensen: The Gestapo.
    Wing-Commander Hulbert: Does my right hon. Friend realise that his answer will be appreciated by all sensible people in this country?
    Mr. Sorensen: Will the right hon. Gentleman at least give consideration to any representations made by Christian Churches on this matter?
    Mr. Attlee: We have not received any. We must wait until we do.

  AGRICULTURE

    Italian Prisoners of War
    Commander Locker-Lampsonasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the rule whereby Italian prisoners must number 10 before they can be employed has operated to the disadvantage of the small farmer and smallholder; and whether he will allow single Italian prisoners to be employed as in the last war?
    The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): No, Sir. There is no such rule.

    Wheat Subsidy (Payment)
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, to provide money for harvest wages, he will arrange that the payment of £3 per acre wheat subsidy be made on 9th August to all wheat growers who rendered their 4th of June return to the Ministry of Agriculture by l0th June?
    Mr. Hudson: No, Sir. It would not be practicable to adopt my hon. Friend's proposal.

    MACHINE TOOLS
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Production whether he is satisfied that we are utilising the machine tools capacity to obtain the maximum output; and what action has been taken recently to deal with the problem?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Production (Mr. Garro Jones): I can say that having regard to the many factors which govern production the fullest practicable use is being made of machine tool capacity. This is a matter which receives the constant attention of the Supply Departments. In addition the Machine Tool Control exercises a general supervision of the use of machine tools. The measures adopted for this purpose are described in a reference book which the Control has recently issued for the guidance of contractors and others concerned. I am sending a copy of this book to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Smith: Can my hon., Friend say whether a recent survey has been made by the Ministry with a view to seeing that machine tools throughout the country are utilised in order to obtain the maximum production?
    Mr. Garro Jones: Yes, Sir, a survey was made recently, and any necessary action is being taken upon it and in fact has been taken.
    Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Is not the complaint in this Question largely due to late realisation by the Ministry of Labour that excessively long hours are not desirable?
    Mr. Kirby: Is it not a fact that there is a large surplus of machine tools at the present time, whereas there is a shortage of springs, ball bearings and things like that?
    Mr. Garro Jonec: I do not think I could accept the broad generalisation of my hon. Friend. There are some classes of machine tools for which at the moment full use cannot be found, but I do not think they are a large number.
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Production (1) why so many machine tools are not working at a factory of which he has been informed; why,

    1733
    on the 14th April night-shift, 32 costly machines did not operate; how frequently that has occurred; who is responsible; and what action has been taken to improve the output;
    (2) Whether he is aware of the important product being manufactured at a factory, of which he has been informed; that the internal management and the workpeople are efficient and eager; and who is responsible for the failure to obtain maximum production?
    Mr. Garro Jones: I have had investigation made and find that, generally speaking, production at the factory referred to is up to programme. In one section, however, as I have already informed my hon. Friend in correspondence, action to improve machine tool utilisation as a whole has been impeded through a change in production involving modifications in jigs, fixtures and tooling. This cannot be accomplished without some machine tools temporarily standing idle.
    Mr. Smith: In view of the fact that the Ministry of Supply nominated certain directors to run this place and that action has been taken against workpeople when they have been responsible for slackness, can my hon. Friend say what action has been, or is being, taken against the directors who have been responsible for this situation in this firm?
    Mr. Garro Jones: My hon. Friend's Question refers in the main to the utilisation of machine tools. I can tell him that the position has been closely examined and that in so far as it has been possible to make any improvement by removing surplus machine tools, of which there were a certain number there, that action has been taken.
    Mr. Smith: That is appreciated by the men, but in view of the fact that it is the directors who have been responsible for neglect, as has been proved, what action has been taken against them?
    Mr. Garro Jones: I think my hon. Friend ought to give me notice of that question, because what he has put on the Paper does nut refer to management at all.

    IRON AND STEEL RAILINGS (COLLECTION)
    Mr. De la Béreasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of
    1734
    Works the approximate total tonnage of iron railings collected for conversion to war material since the inception of the scheme; and whether it is the intention of the Government to endeavour to increase still further this tonnage by improved methods and organisation?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Hicks): Over 500,000 tons of iron and steel railings have been collected since the commencement of the campaign in September, 1941. The quantity, which remains to be recovered, is estimated to be comparatively small, and I am not persuaded that any change in the organisation or in the methods employed is called for.
    Mr. De la Sére: Can the hon. Gentleman assure me that the scrap which is lying about in many parts of the country is receiving his attention?
    Mr. Hicks: Yes, Sir, I can assure the hon. Member that it is receiving my attention.
    Mr. De Ia Bére: But will the hon. Gentleman get on with the job of collecting it? The matter may be receiving his attention, but I want something done.
    Mr. Maxtot: Can my hon. Friend say whether any of this railings scrap has been used in steel production?
    Mr. Hicks: Yes, Sir, about 400,000 tons have already been smelted in furnaces and used in munitions manufacture. Just over 100,000 tons are still available. The Ion and Steel Control have about 80,000 tons under their control, and the residue is in merchants' yards, where it has to be treated by cutting to suitable sizes for feeding into the furnaces.

    ROYAL PARKS (BROKEN CHAIRS)
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Mooreasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works whether he will take steps to repair the broken deck chairs in the Royal Parks, particularly now that people are asked to stay in town; and whether he will approach such organisations as the Lord Roberts' Memorial Workshops to make up any deficiency of labour in his Department?
    Mr. Hicks: Every effort is being made by the contractors, whose liability it is under the terms of their licence, to repair the deck chairs in the Royal Parks, but progress is unavoidably held up, not owing

    1735
    to any deficiency of labour, but to the limited supply of canvas material which is urgently required for the manufacture of fire fighting equipment and other vital war supplies.
    Sir T. Moore: As the hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that the best means of spending a holiday is in the open air, especially for war workers, could he not provide seats for them when they get their holidays by devising some other form of material which will enable these chairs to be repaired, so that people can enjoy the sunshine?
    Mr. Hicks: I have great sympathy with the hon. and gallant Gentleman's point of view. Everything that can be done will be done.
    Professor Savory: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the piles of disabled chairs in St. James's Park, the majority of which can no longer be utilised and the remainder of which are dangerous to life and limb?
    Mr. Hicks: Over 6,000 free seats are provided in the Royal Parks in London, and the chairs are under the control of a contractor, whose job it is to repair them. It is not the job of my Ministry. The contractor is responsible for repairing them to our satisfaction, and representations have been made to him. There is no shortage of labour, but the material required for repair is just not available at the moment.
    Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Will the hon. Gentleman arrange for tests to be carried out by himself and the Minister of Labour?

    COAL (PRICES AND OUTPUT)
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Minister of Fuel and Power the policy of the Government concerning prices allowed to the coalowners; and to what extent are they dependent on maintenance of output?
    The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George): The general policy of the Government in relation to pithead prices of coal is that they should be fixed at such a level that they will meet all items of cost incurred in the production of coal and provide a reasonable credit balance, having regard to the importance of maintaining the industry in a healthy condition
    1736
    and encouraging the maximum. development of marginal output. The national average credit balance is regulated at an amount per ton, and it follows that the profits of the industry are directly dependent on output.

    LOWE LIFEBOAT (TRIALS)
    Mr. Kirbyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether the new ship's lifeboat, designed by Mr. Francis H. Lowe, of Merseyside, has now successfully passed all tests; whether he has now received official reports on its efficiency, buoyancy and suitability for general use; and whether he will make a statement as to the supply of this kind of lifeboat in replacement of obsolete types?
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): Mr. Lowe's lifeboat has satisfactorily passed the official tests which have been made, and I have now arranged that it shall be immediately subjected to trials at sea. If these trials confirm the favourable opinion already formed, I will do what I can in present conditions to encourage its supply to ships in which it may be practicable to install it. I hope my hon. Friend will not assume from this answer that I regard the lifeboats now in use as obsolete. On the contrary, they have met the requirements of the war remarkably well.
    Mr. Kirby: May I thank my hon. Friend for his reply and beg him to make haste with the trials in order that this new boat can be put into general use so far as is possible?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: We want to make the maximum possible use of what we regard as an important improvement.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Will this and other improved types be available to colliers and other coastal craft?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I do not think it would be suitable under present conditions.

    RATION BOOKS AND IDENTITY CARDS (DISTRIBUTION)
    Sir J. Mellorasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War

    1737
    Transport what steps he has taken to prevent disorganisation of transport in rural districts arising from the collection of new ration books from food offices?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I see no reason to expect that the collection of new ration books will cause disorganisation of transport in rural districts. The Regional Transport Commissioners, in conjunction with the transport undertakings, are always ready to adjust services so as to meet demands for essential travel as far as their resources permit.
    Sir J. Mellor: Will the hon. Gentleman give special attention to those cases where no practicable transport service exists between villages and the appointed food offices?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir, I will give special attention to any difficult cases, but I hoped this matter might be covered by the statement made yesterday by the Minister of Food and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food.
    Mr. Buchanan: Is my hon. Friend aware that transport in Glasgow, which is already strained, is being further strained? Will he give consideration to the question of district offices being opened for distribution?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: The arrangement of offices is a matter for the Ministry of Food. I will make inquiries about transport in Glasgow, but all the inquiries I have made up to now have shown that there has. been no disorganisation.
    Mr. Buchanan: I know there is no disorganisation, but it is putting on an added strain which is not necessary.
    Mr. Stephen: If the Ministry of Food are not able to provide local offices, would the Minister of War Transport arrange for special trains to take people to the distribution centres?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I would like to have notice of that Question.

    MANDATED TERRITORIES
    Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will give
    1738
    an assurance that all British territory held under mandate from the League of Nations continues to be administered in accordance with the terms of the mandate?
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Colonel Oliver Stanley): In so far as the Question refers to Mandated Territories for which His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom is responsible, the reply is in the affirmative.
    Mr. Mander: Can the Minister say whether that includes recruiting of native labour for military purposes?
    Colonel Stanley: I could not say what is included in each territory, but in so far as it is included in the mandate it is being observed.
    Mr. Hopkinson: In view of the fact that we are the only member of the League of Nations which pays a subscription, are we not entitled to exercise the mandate system?
    Colonel Stanley: The fact is that the mandate system forbids us to do a certain number of things that I do not think any of us would ever dream of doing.
    Mr. Sorensen: Are reports of the mandatory Powers to the League of Nations still periodically made?
    Colonel Stanley: No, Sir, in view of the man-power difficulty and the immense amount of labour involved, it was decided some time ago, early in the war, that they would have to be dropped during the war.

    CEYLON (BRIBERY COMMISSION REPORT)
    Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the reasons for the resignation of the Governor's nominees from the Ceylon State Council; and whether it is proposed to publish the Report of the Bribery Commission?
    Colonel Stanley: The Report has been published in Ceylon, and the Governor is being asked to despatch a small number of copies by the quickest route. As soon as copies are received I will arrange for one to be placed in the Library of the House for Members' convenience. The

    1739
    Commission found that three European-nominated members of the State Council came within the purview of its terms of reference because they had been remunerated by the Associations which recommended their nomination. This arrangement was publicly known arid had in fact been suggested by a previous Governor in order to make it possible for the best representatives to serve in the Council. The Governor, in requesting these members to send in their resignations as a result of the Constitutional irregularity disclosed, made it clear to them that no opprobrium whatsoever attaches either to them or to the Associations concerned.

    BREWERY PRODUCTS (WAR DEPARTMENT TRANSPORT)
    Mr. Silkinasked the Secretary of State for War the reason for an order recently made forbidding the use of War Department transport for the conveyance of brewery products; and, in view of the hardship caused to units which have no Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes canteens, will he make provision to assist such units to obtain necessary supplies of brewery products?
    The Financial Secretary to the War Office(Mr. Arthur Henderson):: The instruction referred to was issued in order to cut down the unnecessary use of transport. Arrangements have, however, been made to meet the needs of units and isolated detachments not directly served by N.A.A.F.I. vehicles. The breweries concerned will deliver to the military supply depot from which these units receive their rations and the War Department vehicles which carry rations to the units will carry at the same time the products referred to by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Silkin: Have these arrangements been concluded, and are they in operation?
    Mr. Henderson: I think it can be taken that they are in operation, not perhaps throughout the country, but an A.C.I. is about to be issued which will stabilise the position.
    Mr. Mathers: Are more necessary products provided for?

    ADMIRALTY CONTRACTS, BLYTH
    64. Mr. Thorneasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will make a statement in connection with the conspiracy regarding Admiralty contracts at Blyth, Northumberland; and what he intends doing about the matter?
    The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I regret that I have no statement to make, as this matter is sub judice.

    ALLIED HOSPITAL SHIPS (GERMAN AND ITALIAN SINKINGS)
    Sir William Davisonasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will give particulars of the hospital ships which have been sunk or damaged by Axis forces from the beginning of the war to the latest available date; and whether all such ships bore distinguishing marks in accordance with the requirements of the Geneva Convention?
    Mr. Alexander: Full particulars are only readily available of German and Italian attacks on hospital ships and carriers, but even so the list is unhappily a long one, and with the hon. Member's permission I will circulate a full statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT. All the ships in the list were properly marked in accordance with the Geneva Convention.
    Sir W. Davison: What protests have been made through the International Red Cross or otherwise against this scandalous infringement of international law, and what excuses, if any, have been put forward by either Germany or Italy?
    Mr. Alexander: Representations have been made on all occasions through the Foreign Office.
    Sir A. Southby: Will the right hon. Gentleman discriminate in the list between attacks by bomb and by torpedo?
    Mr. Alexander: That is another question. The list will be circulated to-day, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman can put down any further Question that he wants answered.
    Sir W. Davison: Will the list state in what cases the crews and the wounded have been machine-gunned while escaping in open boats?
    Mr. Alexander: There is a very large number of cases. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the list and then put any

    Date.

    Name of Ship.

    Locality.

    Nature of Attack.

    Result.

    1940

    May 1-11

    "Atlantis"

    Off Norway

    Bombed on 4 occasions

    No damage

    May 18-24

    "Brighton"

    Dieppe Harbour

    Bombed on 3 occasions

    Sunk

    May 21

    "Maid of Kent"

    Dieppe Harbour

    Bombed

    Destroyed by fire

    May 24-26

    "St. Andrew"

    Near Calais

    Shelled on 2 occasions

    No damage

    May 27-31

    "St. Andrew"

    Near Dunkirk

    Bombed on 2 occasions

    No damage

    May 24-27

    "St. Julien"

    Dunkirk; off Calais and in the Downs.

    Shelled on 2 occasions and bombed once.

    No damage

    May 29th

    "St. Julien"

    On passage to Dunkirk.

    Bombed and machine gunned.

    Slight damage

    May 25th

    "St. David"

    Off Gravelines

    Shelledfrom shore batteries.

    No damage

    May 31st

    "St. David"

    Off Dunkirk

    Bombed,shelled and machine gunned.

    No damage

    May 25-26

    "Worthing"

    Off Calais

    Shelled on 2 occasions and bombed once.

    No damage

    May 27th & June 2nd

    "Worthing"

    Nr. Dunkirk

    Bombed and machine gunned on 2 occasions.

    Severe damage

    May 26th

    "Isle of Guernsey."

    Off Calais

    Shelledfrom shore batteries.

    No damage

    May 29th

    "Isle of Guernsey."

    On passage to Dunkirk.

    Bombed and machine gunned.

    Slight damage

    May 27th

    "Isle of Thanet"

    Off Calais

    Shelled from shore batteries.

    Damaged

    May 27th

    "Isle of Thanet"

    English Channel

    Bombed and machine gunned.

    No damage

    May 30th

    "Dinard"

    Off Dunkirk

    Shelled once and bombed once.

    Slight damage

    June 2-3

    "Paris"

    On passage to Dunkirk.

    Bombed on 3 occasions

    Sunk

    1941

    Jan. 31st & Feb. 1st.

    "Dorsetshire"

    Off Sollum

    Bombed once, machine gunned once.

    No damage

    Sept. 12th

    "Dorsetshire"

    Port Tewfik

    Bombed

    Slight damage

    Feb. 23rd

    "Aba"

    Tobruk Harbour

    Bombed

    Slight damage

    April 20th

    "Aba"

    Suda Bay, Crete (at anchor).

    Bombed

    Slight damage

    May 16th

    "Aba"

    Canea, Crete

    Machine gunned

    Slight damage

    May 17th

    "Aba"

    On passage to Haifa

    Bombed on 2 occasions

    Damaged

    April 14-21

    "Vita"

    Tobruk

    Bombed on 2 occasions

    Damaged

    April 22nd

    "Vita"

    On tow in Mediterranean.

    Bombed

    Badly damaged

    April 27th

    "Ramb IV"

    Nr. Tobruk

    Bombed

    Slight damage

    Aug. 7th

    "Amra"

    Gulf of Suez

    Torpedoed from aircraft.

    No damage

    Sept. 5th

    "Karapara"

    Tobruk

    Bombed

    Damaged

    Nov. 7th

    "Llandovery Castle"

    Suez (in dock)

    Bombed

    Slight damage

    Dec. 7th

    "Somersetshire"

    Between Tobruk and Alexandria.

    Dive-bombed and machine-gunned.

    No damage

    1942

    Jan. 30th

    "Somersetshire"

    Between Tobruk and Alexandria.

    Dive bombed

    No damage

    Feb. 21st

    "Somersetshire "

    Tobruk Harbour

    Bombed

    No damage

    April 7th

    "Somersetshire"

    Between Alexandria and Tobruk.

    Torpedoed

    Severe damage

    Feb. 10-12

    "Llandovery Castle"

    Between Alexandria and Tobruk.

    Bombed on 3 occasions

    No damage

    Mar. 27th

    "Llandovery Castle"

    Tobruk Harbour

    Bombed

    Slight damage

    May 10th

    "Ramb IV"

    Near Alexandria

    Bombed

    Sunk

    further. Question, I will do my best to answer.

    NEWSPAPER EXPORT BAN
    Mr. G. Straussasked the Minister of Information whether he has issued any instructions prohibiting the cabling abroad, or broadcasting of, any of the contents of those papers whose export abroad is banned?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry. of Information (Mr. Thurtle): There is no change in the position described in my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friends the Members for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield) and East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) on Thursday last. The censorship will not permit the cabling abroad of any quotations from these papers which are likely to cause disunity among the United Nations.
    Mr. Strauss: Then no instructions were given placing a ban on the contents of these papers, and the story that such a ban was made and withdrawn a few days later is inaccurate?
    Mr. Thurtle: As far as my knowledge goes, no. If my hon. Friend wants more specific information, I should like to have notice.
    Mr. Strauss: That is the Question that I put down.

    POLISH NATIONALS, GREAT BRITAIN (MILITARY SERVICE)
    Mr. A. Edwards(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Polish nationals are being called up for service in the Polish Forces and directed by the Polish Consulate to register by 28th May; and whether he will issue a statement that such Polish nationals are at liberty if they prefer to serve in the British instead of Polish Forces?
    The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): I have read the notice in question, which seems to me a perfectly legitimate exercise of the right of the Allied Polish Government to call upon their citizens of military age in this country to perform military service in accordance with the law of Poland. It is recognised even in peace that a friendly State has the right to call up its nationals for military service who are residing in the territory of another friendly State, and this is a right which is obviously very important to our Allies in time of war. My
    1744
    right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs dealt with this point during his remarks in the Debate on 9th July in the Committee stage of the Allied Powers (War Service) Bill, when he made it plain that the right of the Allied Governments to call up their men was not accompanied by power to enforce the calling-up notices in this country, and the Allied citizens who did not respond to such notices would in due course be called up for the British Forces under our own National Service Acts, in accordance with the provisions of the Bill. The Bill has since passed into law, and has been applied among others to Polish nationals, who will accordingly become liable to be called up for military service under the United Kingdom National Service Acts from 1st June next if they fail to join their own national Forces.
    Mr. Edwards: Is it clear that many people in this country who are only nominally Polish subjects; and much prefer to join the British Forces, now have a right to do that, and, further, was the right hon. Gentleman consulted in the matter before this advertisement appeared, with its threat of dire penalties, on those who failed to register before the 28th? Could the right hon. Gentleman not ask them, in view of recent happenings, while they are enjoying our hospitality to exercise reasonable courtesy in avoiding misunderstandings of this kind?
    Mr. Eden: I do not admit that anything is wrong at all. I take very strong exception to any suggestion that the Polish Government are in a different position from any other Allied Government. It is not so. The position is that each of these foreign Governments under the Bill that we passed have a right to call upon their citizens to join up. If they do not respond, they are called up in our Forces, under our own Act. If there is any doubt, I hope that what I have said will make the position clear.
    Mr. G. Strauss: Is not the threat issued by the Polish Government against those of their nationals who did not respond to the call-up in fact a breach of the spirit of the arrangement between the British and Polish Governments?
    Mr. Eden: I do not think so. I have read the call-up notice. It says that the provisions of the Polish law shall be applied to such persons. The Polish

    1745
    Government are entitled to say to their nationals that that is what will happen. In this country our own law operates except in so far as we have given special rights to other Governments under the Act of Parliament.
    Sir A. Southby: Is it not much better, generally speaking, that foreign nationals should serve in the Forces of their own country?
    Mr. Silverman: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the intention of the Act, which was a result of long and patient negotiations, was to give these people an absolutely free and unfettered option between joining our Forces and theirs, and is not the threat of a penalty inconsistent with the exercise of a free and unfettered option?
    Mr. Eden: I do not think so. I have re-read what my right hon. Friend said in the Debate, and I can find nothing in the call-up statement inconsistent with that. If there is any doubt, the fact that the Question has been asked, and. my answer given, will make it clear.
    Captain Cunningham-Reid: Have any other foreign Governments in this country adopted the same procedure as the Polish Government?
    Mr. Eden: Yes, this applies to all foreign Governments in this country.
    Miss Rathbone: Is it not probable that the threat of penalties referred in fact only to loss of Polish nationality rights, though it has undoubtedly caused widespread uneasiness among those affected?
    Mr. Eden: I think that the words are quite proper words for the Polish Government to use. They state that the provisions of Polish law shall be applied to such persons. That does not bind us.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is it not clear that no penalty will be enforced if the person concerned expresses a preference to join His Majesty's Forces and is accepted?
    Mr. Eden: The position, I think, is absolutely clear, If these citizens join the Polish Forces or any other national Force, be it Dutch or Belgian, well and good. If they do not, they will be called up by us. There is no penalty that can be applied to them here. So far as their own country is concerned at a later date, it is a matter for their own Government.
    Mr. A. Edwards: The advertisement definitely says that those who do not respond by 28th May will be treated as persons evading military duty, but that is just not true. They are not evading military duty, for they may have good reasons for not joining their own Forces.
    Mr. Eden: It goes on to say that the provisions of Polish law shall be applied to such persons, and that seems to me to be quite all right.
    Mr. Silverman: In view of the lack of clarity which results from all these answers, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter at an early opportunity.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the Business for the next Sitting Days, and at the same time to explain the. purpose of suspending the Rule to-day?
Mr. Eden: The Business for the next series of Sitting Days will be as follows:
First Sitting Day—We shall ask the House to agree to pass a special Consolidated Fund Bill for the Vote of Credit through all its stages. A Debate on Civil Aviation will take place on the Third Reading of the Bill.
Second and Third Sitting Days—Committee stage of the Finance Bill.
During these Sittings we hope to make further progress with the Railway Freight Rebates Bill [Lords] and the Telegraph Bill.
To-day we would like the Report and Third Reading of the Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland) Bill. We also want to get the Second Reading of the Nurses (Scotland) Bill. For that reason we propose to move the suspension of the Rule, as a precautionary measure.
Mr Buchanan: Yesterday there were a large number of Questions about the distribution of ration cards, about which there is some anxiety in the country. It is an urgent matter, and an hon. Member gave notice to raise it on the Adjournment. Getting the Adjournment, however, is a problem, either because of exempted Business, or because the Rule is suspended, or because some other Member has priority. As this matter is more

1747
urgent than the usual questions raised on the Adjournment, could the right hon. Gentleman arrange, if the Questions to the Minister of Food on the Second Sitting Day do not meet the position satisfactorily, giving an opportunity for the matter to be raised in Debate?
Mr. Eden: I heard the answers of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food yesterday, and I thought he had gone a long way to allay the anxiety of some hon. Members. I think the best procedure would be, as my hon. Friend suggests, to see what happens on the Second Sitting Day and see whether the position between now and then is further clarified. If our hopes are disappointed, we can consider the position then.
Captain Cunningham-Reid: With regard to the suspension of the Rule, the majority of Members are all for increasing the time of Debate, but I am wondering whether my right hon. Friend is aware of the fact that by suspending the Rule it often happens that the Privileges of Private Members are curtailed. In view of the fact that during the war those Privileges have been taken away to such an extent, would the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of allowing Adjournment Debates to come on whenever ordinary Business ends? After all, it is only halfan-hour, and it would be much appreciated by many Members who have been waiting for weeks to get in on the Adjournment.
Mr. Eden: The hon. and gallant Gentleman's suggestion is not compatible with the Standing Orders.
Mr. Gallaeher: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has made no mention of the Pensions Bill, can we take it that he has been responsive to the feeling of the House and is going to withdraw the Bill and bring in another Bill to raise old age pensions?
Mr. Eden>: We all try to be responsive to the feeling of the House, but the hon. Gentleman and I do not always gauge it in the same way.
Sir Frank Sanderson: With regard to the discussion on civil aviation, is it intended to permit personalities to be discussed, in view of the fact that such discussion has a detrimental effect on the Government's
1748
securing the services of the type of man they so frequently require in the war effort?
Dr. Russell Thomas: Can my right hon. Friend say when the Settled Land Bill will be taken? Several hon. Members are interested in Amendments and would like to know.
Mr. Eden: Certainly not in the next series of Sittings. Perhaps my hon. Friend will repeat his question on the third Sitting Day.
Mr. Silverman: When may we expect the promised statement by the Home Secretary about electoral arrangements?
Mr. Eden: I cannot say for certain, but I hope soon.
Mr. Silverman: Will there be a substantial opportunity for debating the right hon. Gentleman's statement, and will the statement be published some time before such a Debate?
Mr. Eden: Let us see what the statement is and whether the hon. Gentleman himself still feels eloquent after it has been made.
Sir F. Sanderson: If my right hon. Friend cannot reply to my question, will he state whether it is the Government's policy to discourage personalities being discussed in the House?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is asking a question which concerns me and not the Leader of the House.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS
That they have agreed to—
Housing (Agricultural Population) (Scotland) Bill,
Sunderland Corporation Bill,
without Amendment.

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to give leave to the Lord Terrington to attend to be examined as a witness before the Sub-Committee for Production and Supply Inquiries (B) appointed by the Select Committee on National Expenditure— [Mr.SilRin.]
HYDRO-ELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL
As amended, considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Consumers to benefit from reduction in charges.)
Any authorised undertakers who receive a supply of electricity directly or indirectly from the Board shall furnish to the Electricity Commissioners such information as they may require from time to time to enable them to determine the amount by which the cost of such supply is less than the cost that would have been incurred by the undertakers in providing or obtaining a like supply had this Act not been passed, and a sum equal to such amount shall be applied by the undertakers for the benefit of their consumers by way of discount or otherwise as the Electricity Commissioners may direct.—[Mr. T. Johnston.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause is in substitution for the existing Clause dealing with the passing on to the consumer of the benefit from reduction in charges. All hon. Members who spoke on this Clause during the Committee stage expressed the view that the wording was unnecessarily cumbersome and difficult. The hon. Members for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), South Ayrshire (Mr. Sloan), Stockport (Sir A. Gridley), The Wrekin (Mr. Colegate) and others all asked us to do what we could to clarify the wording. Everyone agreed with the principle that whatever benefits were secured in the way of cheaper electricity should not be intercepted by undertakers but should be passed on to the consumer. The proposed new Clause clarifies the wording of the Clause which was approved in the Committee stage. There is, however, an addition which I ought to explain. The words:
"authorised undertakers who receive a supply of electricity directly or indirectly"
have been inserted. As the Clause passed through Committee it was only the benefit on electricity supplied directly to one undertaker which could be passed on to the consumer. We are informed that there may be cases in which one undertaker gets electricity and passes it on to another undertaker, and it is therefore necessary to provide that in such cases the second undertaker shall pass on the

1761
benefits to the consumer. I understand that all the various local authority and other interests concerned, who have seen this Clause, are satisfied with the wording.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(General towers and duties of the Board.)
The Lord Advocate (Mr. J. S. C. Reid): I beg to move, in page 2, line 5, to leave out "areas," and to insert "area."
This and the following Amendment on the Order Paper are purely drafting Amendments.
Amendment agreed to.
Consequential Amendment made.

CLAUSE 3.—(Powers of Board for discharge of their functions.)
The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 2, line 42, after "collect," to insert:
"for the purpose of their powers and duties."
During the passage of the Bill through Committee some apprehension was expressed lest paragraph (b) of this Clause might lead to roving inquiries by the new Board. It was never intended that the Board should conduct inquiries, except for the specific purposes of carrying out their duties, but in view of the apprehensions which have been expressed, we think it well to include these words.
Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Constructional schemes.)
The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 4, line 19, to leave out "for inspection."
This Amendment is consequential on Amendments which were made during the Committee stage. As the Bill was originally drafted, copies of schemes were to be deposited only for inspection, but as the result of Amendments they are also to be deposited for sale. Therefore it becomes necessary to remove these limiting words "for inspection."
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Johnston: I beg to move, in page 4, line 20, to leave out "the time (being not less than," and to insert "a period of."
1762
This Amendment is being made to meet the wishes of hon. Members opposite who raised considerable discussion and some apprehension lest the words in the Bill "not less than" might lead to the period of inspection being dragged out for an unnecessarily long time. The Amendment will definitely limit the period of inspection to 40 days.
Amendment agreed to.
The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 5, line 13, to leave out from "not," to "unless," in line 14, and to insert:
"provide supplies of electricity from the said works."
This Amendment and the next Amendment on the Paper fall to be considered together. The proviso at the end of Clause 5 has been found on examination to be rather hampering, and we therefore wish to alter the drafting. The point is that if the proviso as it stands were strictly read, the Board would have to produce the scheme before they started work. Everybody's intention was that the scheme should be available before there was electricity for sale, and in order to remove any doubt we seek to make this first Amendment. The Amendment which follows is of a more minor character. The provision in the Bill is in respect of "the area to which the constructional scheme relates," but that is not quite wide enough. What we want is the area in which the electricity is to be disposed of, and therefore we propose to insert instead the words "covering the North of Scotland District."
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 5, line 16, leave out from "Act" to the end of line 17, and insert: "covering the North of Scotland district."—[The Lord Advocate.]

CLAUSE 6.—(Distribution schemes.)
The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 5, line 38, to leave out "for inspection."
This and the following Amendment on the Paper are consequential on the Amendments which have just been accepted by the House.
Mr. Henderson Stewart: I do not wish to raise a discussion on this Amendment, but I would ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on the discussion of this Clause. During the Committee

1763
stage the Lord Advocate very kindly undertook to consider certain suggestions which I had put to him in regard to this Clause. I took it that the intention was to convey to us at this stage whether the Clause had been reconsidered, and, if so, the results of such reconsideration. Would it be in Order to invite my right hon. and learned Friend now to deal with that point?
Mr. Speaker: On the Report stage the hon. Member can speak only on the Amendment which is before the House and not on the Clause as a whole.
Mr. Stewart: Can I, then, raise this matter on the Third Reading of the Bill?
Mr. Speaker: On the Third Reading hon. Members are limited to what is in the Bill and cannot refer to what, they would like to see in the Bill.
Mr. Stewart: I wish to be advised on the proper course to adopt. A definite undertaking was given by the Government to reconsider this Clause. There is nothing on the Paper to indicate that they have done so, and I am asking the representative of the Government now, what they propose to do to carry out the promise which was given to me.
Mr. Speaker: I imagine that that is a point which could be raised on the Third Reading, if it is the case that such an undertaking was given, but it cannot be raised now.
Mr. Stewart: Would it not be in Order for me to move the rejection of the Clause?
Mr. Speaker: Certainly not. The Clause is not before the House. Only the Amendments are considered on the Report stage.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 5, line 38, leave out "the time (being not less than," and insert "a period of."—[The Lord Advocate.]

CLAUSE 8.—(Acquisition of Land.)
The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 6, line 43, after "pursuance," to insert "of subsection (2)".
During the passage of the Bill through Committee I gave an undertaking that Subsection (4) of Clause 8 would have a purely temporary effect. I think even in its present form it has, but I would like
1764
that the undertaking should be made quite beyond doubt, and the limiting words make sure that this only refers to Subsection (2).
Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 16.—(Transfer of powers of Central Electricity Board and relations with Trade Board.)
The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 13, line 7, after "smaller," to insert "maximum."
This is a technical matter. I would not propose to trouble the House with it unless anyone desired an explanation. It relates to the manner in which the price of the electricity shall be charged, and it is necessary to bring this into line with the other provisions in the Bill that the word "maximum" should be inserted in two places to make it clear that what we are referring to it the maximum in each case.
Amendment agreed to.
Consequential Amendment made.

CLAUSE 18.—(Acquisition of undertakings by agreement.)
Mr. Johnston: I beg to move, in page 14, line 14, to leave out from the beginning, to "shall," in line 17, and to insert:
"Before entering into any negotiations with a view to an agreement for the transfer to the Board of any undertaking which any other undertakers are empowered by or under any Act to acquire, the Board shall notify those undertakers of their intention, to enter into such negotiations and the Electricity Commissioners, before approving any such agreement."
Hon. Members will recollect that when Clause 18 was being considered in the Committee stage some apprehensions were expressed by hon. Members that an injustice was being done to existing undertakers who by their charters given by this House had a right to purchase by agreement other undertakings within their areas. Hon. Members believed that Clause 18, as we had drafted it, only provided for the Electricity Commissioners informing the existing undertakers who had these charters that negotiations had been entered into by the Board with the other properties that were sought to be acquired after discussions had taken place. Some Members felt that this was unfair to the chartered undertakings and that they ought to be informed before the negotiations began, so that they might be

1765
in a position to make representations in the public interest as well as in their own that negotiations would take a certain form or should not be concluded, and what this Amendment seeks to ensure is that before the Board enter into any negotiations they shall notify these undertakers of their intention to do so before the negotiations begin. We think this is fair and reasonable, and there is general concurrence on this matter.
Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 20.—(Consumers to benefit from reduction in charges.)
The Lord Advocate: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
This is consequential on the passing of the new Clause which the House adopted a few moments ago.
Mr. Henderson Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I observe you have permitted a proposal that a certain Clause should be omitted from the Bill. That is the proposal that I wished to make, and I want to know why it is right in one case and not in another.
Mr. Speaker: The whole matter was a consequential one. The matter was put down as an Amendment, not on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." I do not understand the hon. Member's objection.
Mr. Stewart: A proposal was accepted for the rejection of a Clause.
Mr. Speaker: Because there was an Amendment on the Order Paper. If it had not been on the Order Paper, I would riot have accepted it and certainly would not have put the Question to the House.
Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 21.—(Application of Electricity Supply Acts to Board.)
The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 15, line 8, after "thereunder," to insert "shall."
This and the next Amendment are purely drafting.
Amendment agreed to.
Consequential Amendment made.

CLAUSE 24.—(Local inquiries.)
The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 15, line 34, after "held," to insert "by the Secretary of State."
1766
This Clause refers to inquiries. There may be certain inquiries which at least come under this Bill to some extent which are not held by the Secretary of State or at his instance, and Clause 24 is only intended to apply to inquiries held under the procedure which refers a matter to the Secretary of State, and therefore it is desirable, for the removal of doubt, that there should be the insertion of those words "by the Secretary of State" at this point.
Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 27.—(Interpretation.)
The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 16, line 19, at the end, to insert:
"The expression maximum number of kilowatts in relation to any electricity directed by the Central Electricity Board to be supplied by the Board, or to any electricity supplied by the Board, in any period, means twice the largest number of units of electricity directed to be supplied or supplied, as the case may be, during any consecutive thirty minutes either from the commencement or from the middle of any hour of the twenty-four hours of any day in that period."
This is necessary in order to make certain that modern practice in the electrical industry shall be adopted in calculating the price of current to be produced under this Bill. I am told that it is the practice to work in the industry by half-hour periods, and it is necessary to make reference to that in order to ensure that the price shall be fixed in a manner which is quite definite.
Amendment agreed to.

FIFTH SCHEDULE.—(Adaptations and modifications of provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1936, and of the Schedule to the Electric Lighting Clauses Act, 1899.)
The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 22, line II, to leave out "sections", and to insert "provisions."
This is a drafting Amendment consequential on the Amendment to the Schedule made in the Committee stage. The word "sections" is not wide enough to cover the Amendment made on the Committee stage.
Amendment agreed to.
The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 23, line 7, at the end, to insert:
"and for the words on an annual salary in the proviso there shall be substituted the

1767
words in the performance of administrative, professional, clerical supervisory or technical duties not being a person employed by way of manual labour on a weekly or less than a weekly wage.'"
This is consequential to an Amendment accepted on the Committee stage. We agreed to put in a substitution in one place for the words "on an annual salary". The same words occurred in another place in the legislation, and therefore it is necessary to make the Amendment in the second place to bring it into line.
Amendment agreed to.
The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 24, line 14, to leave out "from time to time."
This Amendment and the following one are to deal with a point which was brought forward on the Committee stage of the Bill. It relates to long-term contracts, making it clear that it is permissible for the new Board to make them.
Amendment agreed to.
Consequential Amendment made.
The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 26, line 8, to leave out be omitted, "and to insert" not apply to the Board."
This Amendment and the one which follows are intended to deal with a point which has been brought to our notice. There are existing controls on the power of authorised undertakets to put up overhead lines. It is not desirable or necessary that those controls should operate in the case of the Board, because the control over the Board under this Bill takes the shape of a construction or a distribution scheme, but it is desirable that the control should continue to operate in the case of any undertaker other than the Board operating in the area, and it is in order to make certain that the controls just come in the right place that these two Amendments are necessary.
Amendment agreed to.
Consequential Amendment made.
The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
I think it will be for the convenience of the House for me shortly to move the Third Reading and for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make his remarks after other hon. Members who
1768
desire to address the House have spoken. There is one point I should like to deal with, because my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) has referred to it. I think I can, within the Rules of Order, say this, in considering what is now in the Bill, that the present form of Clause 6 has been scrutinised very carefully in the light of the observations of my hon. Friend. As so often happens, two proposals are made, but they are not very easy to marry, and it is better to have one proposal standing by itself rather than try to incorporate with it something that does not go very well with it. We came to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that to adopt any of the suggestions made would not improve but, on the contrary, would rather impair the provisions as they stand in the Bill; but I can assure my hon. Friend that all he said in his speech has been carefuly examined by myself, and I have, of course, consulted my colleague, and in the light of that examination we are of the opinion that it would be better to have the Bill as it stands.
Sir Arnold Gridley: We have now reached the last stage of this Bill in this House, and I think it will be agreed in all quarters of the House that during its progress it has been considerably improved by the Amendments which have been made, but I feel bound to place on record that in the view of some hon. Members and myself it still remains a bad Bill, and in the few remarks I propose to make I will invite the House to agree with me. I think the fact that it is a bad Bill is to some extent due to the unfortunate history of this House itself. This problem as affecting this particular part of Scotland has frequently been before the House in recent years, and I would like to remind hon. Members of what was said in the Cooper Report in reference to the point I am now on. In paragraph 14 it says:
"Since 1922 20 years have passed during which the Highlands have sunk into deepening depression and the greater part of their valuable power resources is still running to waste. The discouragement which has been offered to any further private enterprise or initiative in this field has been very grave, for it is not easy to answer the challenge that the only policy which can be deduced from the action during these 20 years of a succession of Parliaments and of Governments is that they will neither develop the resources themselves nor allow anyone else to do so.
That makes my point, that the record of

1769
this House in dealing with this long-outstanding problem is not one of which we can be very proud. There is one other reference in the Cooper Report to which I would draw attention. Criticism has been directed at times and much prejudice created against the Grampian Company, and the Report says this:
"In view of the criticisms which have so frequently been directed against the Grampian Company in the course of their Parliamentary promotions, we feel bound to record our conclusions that they have proved them, selves under conditions of unusual difficulty to be competent planners of electrical development and capable suppliers."
The Report goes on to say:
"The net revenue of the company after deducting working costs and depreciation has averaged over the whole period of the Grampian Company's existence a little over three and a half per cent."
I hope the House will not think it inappropriate if I interpose this: For many years we had a colleague in this House who was the former Member for, Hampstead, the late Mr. George Balfour. He was largely responsible for the development of electricity throughout a large part of Scotland. He possessed a sturdy independence and tenacity of view which may not always have appealed to some Members of the House, but I think the Cooper Report, which he never lived to see, is a complete vindication of the Work he carried out in Scotland, and I hope when it comes to our turn to pass on we shall have a record to leave behind us which is no worse than that of our late colleague.
I have said that this is still a bad Bill, much as it has been improved, and I say that for one or two reasons. In the first place, it still remains a very bureaucratic Measure. Why do I say that? The Electricity. Commissioners are given far wider powers under this Bill than Parliament ever previously granted to them. There are no less than ten circumstances under the Bill in which full authority is left to the Commissioners to make decisions. In Clause 2 (I, b) they are empowered to decide whether the Board or the power company should supply in bulk to an authorised undertaker inside the power company's area. That is a power that was not granted by this House even to the Central Electricity Board when it was set up under the Act, I think, of 1926. The point I want to make is that there is no appeal. Either of the two parties may
1770
think it has a grievance which it would like to refer to an independent arbitrator, but there is no appeal whatsoever. In Clause 2 (I, c) the Commissioners are empowered to decide whether the Board or an authorised undertaker may supply large power-users in the hitherto "chartered areas", to use the Secretary of State's term, of the authorised undertakers, and again there is no appeal. Under Clause 4 (2) they have to approve the development scheme. That is one of the appropriate powers. Under Clause 5 (3) they have to approve a construction scheme, but this time they have to obtain the approval of Parliament by the submission of an Order. So here, for once, we do exercise some measure of control.
In Clause 6 (3) they are empowered to approve distribution schemes. I agree that it may be argued that there they should have absolute authority to decide what may or may not be done. When we come to Clause re, we find they are empowered to decide what tariffs should be charged. There may be differences between the Board and the Commissioners, but again there is no appeal. Under Clause 12 they are empowered to decide how capital shall be raised and on what terms. Here there is a Safeguard, because they are subject to Treasury approval, and when it is a question of £30,000,000 and the principal and interest are to be guaranteed by the Treasury, obviously it is only right that the Treasury should have something to say about it. In Clause 18 they are empowered to decide whether the Board may acquire undertakings inside the chartered area of any power company, thus conflicting with the latter's rights conferred upon them by Parliament, and once again there is no appeal. In Clause 19 the Commissioners may decide the terms upon which transmission lines belonging to others may be jointly used, and though there may be a genuine difference of opinion between the two bodies, again there is no appeal.
Finally, under Clause 20, they may decide what economies have been secured by an undertaking taking supplies in bulk from the Board and how that economy should be passed on to the consumers. Although we have passed a greatly improved Clause 20, and therefore I am much more satisfied with it than I was, again I would point out there is no appeal. In six out of the ten instances I have given in which they have complete

1771
or almost complete powers under this Bill there is no appeal, although in my view there ought, in common justice, to be a right of appeal from their decisions when serious differences arise.
The next reason why I ask the House to agree that this is a bad Bill is that I doubt very much whether any hon. Member has ever seen a more appalling case of legislation by reference. In the Fifth Schedule no fewer than eight Acts of Parliament are referred to. Some Clauses in those. Acts are to be omitted and others are to be applied, and anyone who tries to ascertain what may or may not be done under this Bill will have to refer to a mass of Acts to make quite sure that the power or the prohibition is there. This type of legislation is novel and bad because it completely ignores all past legislation governing all existing electricity undertakings, and it shows how easy it is to have to bring in appallingly bad legislation when you depart from the Measures which Parliament, in its wisdom, has put on the Statute Book for the guidance of a great industry like this.
There is one almost amusing point to which I would direct the attention of the House. This Bill is backed, as hon. Members will observe, by Mr. Secretary Johnston, supported by Sir John Anderson, Secretary Sir Archibald Sinclair, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Ernest Brown, Sir William Jowitt, and—who comes next?—Major Lloyd George, Minister of Fuel and Power.
Mr. Kirkwood: What is amusing about that?
Sir A. Gridley: The Electricity Commissioners were appointed under Section 35, I think it is, of the Act of 1919, to be under the direction of, and to be responsible to, the Minister of Transport, who now, of course, is replaced by the Minister of Fuel and Power. They are responsible to the Minister of Fuel and Power. Where has he been throughout all these proceedings? Not conspicuous by his presence, but by his absence. I see he is here to-day. The only power I can discover in this Bill which is retained for my right hon. and gallant Friend is a joint power with the Secretary of State for Scotland to appoint the members of this Board. But the Electricity Commissioners will now have two masters. They are responsible
1772
under this Bill to the Secretary of State for Scotland, and except in this particular area they will be responsible to the Minister of Fuel and Power throughout the rest of the United Kingdom. "No man can serve two masters." He will despise the one and love the other. I am not quite sure on which Minister the love of the Commissioners will eventually be bestowed. I am still unhappy, very unhappy, about Clause 2 (3), on page 2 of the Bill. I would ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State whether he would look at it. We had some discussion on the Committee stage on this Sub-section. The Secretary of State said that this Subsection was not intended to confer upon the Board any powers other than those dealing with electricity. The view of my hon. Friends and myself was that the Sub-section goes far wider than that, and can be so interpreted. I am referring to Clause 2, Sub-section (3), on page 2.
Mr. Kirkwood: Is it line 28 the hon. Member is dealing with?
Sir A. Gridley: Yes, line 28. What did the Secretary of State say during the Committee stage on this point? He said this: I am quoting from Column 233 of Hansard of 5th May:
"I do not want to mislead, either intentionally or otherwise."
I am sure the Secretary of State has never made any attempt to do that throughout the whole of the discussions on this Bill. He has been transparently honest with everybody. He went on to say:
"I merely want to say that half the purpose of this Bill is to restore the population to the Highlands, to provide social amenities for the area; and we desire to have some Clause in the Bill providing that this. Board shall be something more than merely, as someone said to-day, a cold-hearted hydro-electric organisation. It is a development Board as well."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th May, 1943;
col. 233, Vol. 389.]
That confirms the fears we have about this Sub-section. If I might give a very brief illustration of the fear I have, it is that the Board, under this Clause, might acquire great areas of land in anticipation of future development, pay for it, and get no revenue from it for a number of years. Land is often bought and held, as we all know, and legislation is being considered by this House at the moment for the better control and prevention of that sort

1773
of thing. But here they might acquire a considerable amount of land, and if they have to hold it without any material revenue for a number of years—
The Secretary of State for Scotland(Mr. T. Johnston): I am sure the hon. Member does not want intentionally or otherwise to mislead the House. May I draw his attention to the fact that the Board cannot acquire land unless under a constructional scheme, and that a constructional scheme must be approved by the Secretary of State and the House before such proceedings as he envisages can take place.
Sir A. Gridley: I always like, if possible, to accept the assurance of a Minister, but we all know that assurances given in Debate cannot be taken into account when lawyers have to consider the effect of an Act of Parliament. Speeches in the House then count for nothing. I have asked the Secretary of State more than once to put in just one word in this Subsection which will remove all doubts, so that the Sub-section would read:
"The Board shall, so far as their powers and duties hereunder permit, …"
The interposition of that one word "hereunder" would satisfy us, and I would ask the Secretary of State whether he would again consider this matter between now and the consideration of the Measure in another place.
There is not much more I want to say, but I want to refer to the Treasury guarantee of £30,000,000 without which the promotion of this scheme would, of course, be utterly impossible, because money could not be raised for it without a guarantee of this kind. The future prospects of the scheme to meet outgoings are at least problematical for some years to come, yet I think that any scheme which is likely to benefit this part of Scotland is one which every Member of this House would like to further. But I want to issue this final word of warning. If there should be any so optimistic as to imagine that this scheme is likely to be in operation three or four years from now, I think they can disabuse their Minds of it; it is most unlikely that this scheme will come into being as an operative measure for five or six years. It will be constructed at a time when civil engineering costs must inevitably be considerably higher than if this scheme had been allowed to proceed in the pre-war years
1774
when it was invariably turned down by this House. Therefore the time when income and outgoings will balance may be nine or ten years hence. That does not necessarily mean that the scheme ought not to be proceeded with. I do not say that for a moment. There is not a single power company undertaking in the country that in the earlier pioneering years, which may have been from 6 to 10 years, earned a dividend for its shareholders. It was only after the last war that they got on to their feet and went forward. Let no one think that this is going to be a scheme which will balance itself very speedily. In fact the time may come when some of the original construction cost, because it is more than it would be in normal times, may have to be written down. In that case the Treapry must be prepared to see, with the consent of the House, that extra cost written off. All the same, and though it is a bad Bill, I and those with me give it our blessing and hope it will confer great benefit on this area of Scotland at no distant date.
Professor Gruffydd: When this Bill was last before the House I endeavoured to voice the very grave disquiet that was felt by some Members and in some parts of the country, not only in Scotland but throughout Britain, at the doubtful finance contained in it, both as openly revealed in its provisions and as underlying them, and particularly the manner in which it had been made palatable by the incorporation into the promises made, in the speeches introducing the Bill, of what I might call by the very blessed and Mesopotamian word "regeneration." Unfortunately I was ruled out of Order when I tried to make those remarks on the Committee stage, and rightly, but now, on the Third Reading, I cannot let this opportunity pass without making at least one protest against what I consider to be a menace not only to Celtic Scotland but to the general social well-being of the whole of Britain.
Before I proceed very briefly to discuss these points may I explain why a mere Welshman should be so concerned for the fate of Celtic Scotland? It is partly on the analogy of the poor stranger of the Gospel who alone returned to give thanks for the benefits which the natives did not appreciate, and partly because professionally I am concerned with the fate of all Celtic

1775
countries, and not Wales alone, and because I am only too well aware of how the old way of life which depends on the survival of the Welsh and the Celtic languages, is regarded by some members of the present generation with contempt and even with hatred.
In the first place, there is the more general matter of the provisions of the Bill, in Clause 2, for the distribution of electricity to Scotland. As I understand it —and I suggest that one cannot understand the Bill without reference to and thorough familiarity with the Cooper Report, that superlative example of a company promoter's prospectus—as I understand it, the heavy industries which are described in the Bill as "large power users" will be enticed 443 the Highlands by the provision of electricity at a specially favourable rate.
Mr. McNeil: I understood the hon. Member to say that the heavy industries would be attracted.
Professor Gruffydd: Perhaps my definition of these industries as heavy industries is not a good one; the Cooper Report says that the chemical and metallurgical industries would be attracted.
Mr. McNeil: They are not heavy industries.
Professor Gruffydd: I should say that the metallurgical industries are fairly heavy. Let me quote the words of the Bill,
"appreciably more economically than the authorised undertakers."
Because the Board is to be sustained by the guarantee of £30,000,000 of public money it will be able—indirectly of course —to place certain industries in such a privileged position that they can command profits impossible elsewhere in Britain, and, while, of course, there is a limit prescribed by the Bill to the profit to be made by the Hydro-Electric Board itself, there is no limit or control of the profits made by those industries which will come in its wake.
Mr. Mathers: Is it not provided in the Bill that the cheapness of the electricity which is obtained from these undertakings must be passed on to the consumer?
Professor Gruffydd: No, I am speaking of industrial undertakings, not electricity
1776
undertakings. There is no provision in the Bill for dealing with the profits of concerns which come to Scotland because they are attracted by cheaper electricity. At the same time, the one undertaking which is designed to serge the public interest in the matter of electric power, the Grid, is compelled by Clause 16 to buy all the electricity that the Hydro-Electric Board prescribes at a very enhanced rate, the top price of steam-generated' power in Scotland. So industries, in Scotland and elsewhere, drawing their power from the Grid will necessarily be unable to compete with the new favoured industries in this area. In other words, by the authority of Parliament, as expressed in this Bill, these new industries will be able to close the deadly hand of monopoly around the throat of all other enterprises. We have often listened to Members on the other side of the House decrying the killing of private enterprise by State interference. This is not the place to comment on that, but what will the guardians of private enterprise think of a condition in which one private enterprise, uncontrolled and un-scrutinised by the State, is enabled by the help of State interference to strangle all other private enterprise. To describe that, I would borrow Shakespeare's phrase—"A chartered libertine "—if it were not too mild. It seems to me that the only phrase that is adequate to describe such a proceeding is the name given to that discredited form of piracy in the old days—" Letters of Marque."
I come to the benefits that are to accrue to the farmers, the crofters, and the fishermen by the provision of cheap electricity. If there is one matter on which all Members of this House are agreed, it is the necessity of providing cheap electricity for the countryside all over Britain; and if this Bill were designed, as the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State, honestly believes, to make life in the Highlands more comfortable and more abundant for the crofter and the fisherman, there is no man in this House who would not welcome it with acclamation. The Bill, as now amended, contains the words:
"Including isolated areas."
But what can possibly be the value of that guarantee when we know that the Cooper Report drawn, up by the experts has stated unequivocally its opinion, in these words:

1777
"It is, in our view, plain that the general provision of electricity to crofts and fishing hamlets throughout the Highlands for domestic and small-power users is quite impracticable."
And again:
"It has become apparent to us that in certain quarters expectations are entertained as to the possibilities of electrical developments in the remoter areas of rural Scotland."
What is the comment on that?
"— which under no conceivable circumstances can be realised."
No words of mine can be nearly as strong as what is said in that Report. I think these words give the lie direct to the words
"including isolated areas"
now added to the Bill. They dispose, of the contention that life in the Highlands, the traditional manner of living in Celtic Scotland, is going to be benefited by this Bill. What possible value except "made-to-sell" value can be in the futile and disingenuous addition of such words? This Bill, in my view, will not only fail to achieve the objective of regeneration, but it will actually help to destroy what life there is in the Highlands at present, as I hope to show very briefly.
Now we come to the Hydro-Electric Board as a public utility undertaking. I make no apology for claiming that such a concern, especially when backed by vast sums of public money, should fulfil the meaning of both words, "public" and "utility." In other words, it should serve the greatest possible number with the least possible concomitance of private gain. This great undertaking, backed by the nation to the extent of a guarantee of £30,000,000 should be a national concern, and should benefit the Highlands directly and openly, by the provision of cheap national electricity, and not, I maintain, indirectly and covertly by secondary activities which have as their only concern purely private profit, or, to borrow the language of hon. Members on the Labour benches, a vast extension of the capitalistic system and the creation of a vast new ganglion of vested interests. We hear a good deal these days of the black-coated interests of this country; perhaps this is a case which might well be described as the black-vested interests. While the farms, homes and workshops should be able to benefit by the close proximity of electric power, the residue of that power should go to the first and natural claimant, the National Electricity Board, the Grid, so that when similar
1778
schemes are brought before Parliament in future they may be adopted by the unanimous welcome of Cornwall as well as Caithness, of Kent as well as Anglesey, of Glasgow as well as London. The product of a public utility company, financed by the Treasury, must go to the benefit of the whole nation.
I need mention only one other similar monopoly, the wireless service, which is common to the whole nation at a uniform rate. The B.B.C., without reluctance and without question, has expended vast sums in bringing its benefits to the more remote areas of Scotland and Wales, where the listeners are very few and the licences make a very small contribution to the B.B.C's revenue. Or, to turn to a case to which a national utility is comparable, no sane person would dream of encouraging new industries to go to other areas by giving those new companies a cheaper telephone rate or a reduction in the cost of stamps because they happened to pitch their factories near where they made telephones or where they manufactured stamps. Such a scheme should be asked to do two things: first, to make a generous provision for the development and betterment of its own countryside—in this case of rural Scotland—and, secondly, to hand over all the rest for the benefit of the country in general. In both ways the Bill fails. The benefit to Scotland is small and problematic, in the light of what the Cooper Report says; and, by its hardly-concealed concession to big business, it is creating a vicious extension of monopoly capitalism. Yet speaker after speaker from the Labour benches has welcomed it as something which offers such outstanding benefits to the Highlands that their principles may for the time being be regarded as conveniently shelvable—a state which I believe the theologians call "interim morals." A wife beater once—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): Order.
Professor Gruffydd: I am giving an example.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am not in the least interested in what theologians may think. On Third Reading we must stick absolutely to the Bill.
Professor Gruffydd: With great respect, I am only giving an illustration.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Not on what the theologians may think. The hon. Member may illustrate what is in the Bill, but not what he thinks ought to be in the Bill—not on Third Reading.
Professor Gruffydd: I am dealing with the Bill and with what its provisions fail to do.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is just the point. The hon. Member may not, on Third Reading, go into what he thinks should be in the Bill. He can deal only with what is actually there.
Professor Gruffydd: I thank you for that guidance, Sir. So far I have not referred to what I think ought to be in the Bill. I have tried to address myself to what is actually in the Bill. I was quoting an example. One Labour Member expressed the attitude of the party very clearly when he said that we must accept the industrial development of the Highlands in order to preserve the Highlands. What does "preserving the Highlands" mean? There was a time when "preserving the Highlands" meant denuding them of men and women in order to place deer there instead. The words still, to my ears, bear a very sinister sound. Did that hon. Member suggest seriously that such industrialisation of the Highlands as will follow on this Bill is going to preserve the Highland community, or put back among those desolate mountains the men and women who alone are entitled to the term "Highlanders"? If he did, then I think he believes in modern miracles.
I feel considerable diffidence in objecting to a Scottish Bill which has been welcomed so heartily by all my hon. Friends, but I am heartened to know, however, that one Member—the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sloan)—did share my apprehensions on this Bill and said so on Second Reading, and I am in complete agreement with what he said. The idea that by introducing large industries or manufactures or what not you can repeople the Highlands with their own natives, or even with Scotsmen, seems to me to be a foolish and dangerous delusion, as we in Wales only too well know, who saw the "repopulation" of the Welsh valleys not by our own sons and daughters, not even by Welshmen, but by masses of hungry hordes from the most backward districts of England. A dead
1780
lier method of destroying what remains of Highland life I cannot conceive. It is a method which will end for ever the life and civilisation of the Highlands and substitute for them, not even the life and civilisation of the Connemara cabin; it will be the life and civilisation of the Dublin slum. That has already happened in the rural parts of Scotland and in the Lowlands—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is getting right away from the Bill with these illustrations and I must ask him to keep to the Bill.
Professor Gruffydd: I bow to your Ruling, Sir. I gave exactly one illustration, and I intended to give one more, but in accordance with your Ruling, I shall not do so. It is agreed that the main concern of the Secretary of State is a very worthy one; it is based on a desire to regenerate the Highlands, and it is equally clear that he hopes to do so by industrialising them. He intends to do it, I take it, by the financial provisions of this Bill which lend themselves to giving big business what is virtually a bribe to carry on in the Highlands as they have carried on elsewhere. But this might have been done a long time ago when there was a fair population in the Highlands. It is now too late.
Before I sit down I would like the right hon. Gentleman to consider what will be the results of industrialising the Highlands. He will not bring back there those people who speak the Gaelic tongue and whose history, language and literature created a new romance for the whole of Europe during the nineteenth century. Almost the last pibroch has been played through the glens, and almost the last coronach has lamented the sons who will no more return from their world-wide diaspora in lands beyond the sea. We can no longer rebuild the clachans of the Highlands; let us take heed lest we plant there instead the cities of the plain.
Sir Murdoch MacDonald: I would like to congratulate the Secretary of State for Scotland upon having brought In this Bill to the House and taken it to the stage which it now has reached in this Chamber. I was amazed when I heard an hon. Gentleman opposite say that it was a bad Bill. If anything in the history of Parliament in recent years ever justified a Bill of this kind it was what happened during many years when Electricity Bills

1781
were brought forward for the development of water-power in the Highlands. Almost invariably, they were rejected by the House probably for a variety of reasons. As far as I am personally concerned, they were rejected because private people coming forward with Bills, so arranged their designs that they interfered with other people lower down the valleys and had no regard whatever to the interests of those other people. When these Bills went to the Examiners of the House they met the Standing Orders and the procedure of the normal Private Bills, and were rejected for reasons such as these, and possibly for a variety' of other reasons. I do not profess to say what moves the average Member to support or reject a Bill; I know what moved me to vote against particular Bills when they came forward, and it is the reason I have just stated.
This Bill obviates all that sort of thing. It appoints a Board which is to have the duty imposed upon it of developing the Highlands; and money is to be provided whereby it may carry out that development. If it produces a scheme to which local people object, those people have ample opportunity to make objections to the Board in the first instance, and to the Secretary of State for Scotland subsequently, if they so desire, and have the schemes amended. But it is not at all likely that a Board which is specifically set up for the purpose of benefiting the Highlands is likely to do anything that will militate against the interests of any great body of people in the Highlands. It is obvious to me that in a matter of this sort a Board of this kind was required, and I am glad to see that it has reached this stage. The Board will be set up and money will be provided for it to help in the development of the Highlands in the manner to which the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd) was objecting a moment or two ago. He objected to the selling of power to the Central Electricity Board at a rate that was equal to that of a steam-run plant. Any manufacturer who comes to the Highlands of Scotland might, possibly, get some cheaper power than he could get in the South of Scotland or elsewhere, because he has to pay in the latter case for steam-generated power, which presumably is dearer than water-developed power. The hon. Member forgets that there is an additional cost to anyone who goes to the Highlands. There is the transport of material
1782
to the Highlands and of manufactured products back again. I should be very glad indeed if the Secretary of State for Scotland and this Board would be able, even under the conditions of this Bill, to persuade manufacturers to go to the Highlands.
It is true that large concerns like the carbide producing companies may possibly take advantage of this Bill. But smaller normal power users will make use of it only if they can get some advantage to compensate them for the additional transport to the Highlands and back again to the centres of population where their goods wig be distributed. Is it not most desirable that industries should be, spread as widely as possible throughout the country? It is obvious therefore to me that the Clause which gives the Board the power to supply electricity at the rate at which the steam-generating station can produce it is a right and justifiable suggestion. Any excess profit in the production of their own power from water has to be used in the area itself. The words of the Clause are:
"It would be the duty of the Board to provide supplies of electricity required to meet the demands of ordinary consumers including isolated areas."
I hope that that will be done to the greatest possible extent. I notice that the words "as far as practicable" have been added to the Clause. I regret to see those words there because the Board having an option of developing various areas may neglect others. They may say that to develop the other areas the cost will be so great that it is not practicable, whereas I would like to see, if it were possible, the whole area developed and the cost equally divided over the area concerned. That may not be practicable and it may be for that reason that the words "as far as practicable" are included in the Bill, but I earnestly hope that the instructions that the Secretary of State for Scotland will give to the Board will be to develop the smaller areas to the utmost possible extent. I hope they will spread electricity wherever possible and in that way they will undoubtedly benefit the Highlands and restore to them once again the population which they had many years ago.
Mr. Leslie: Unlike the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd) I pin my faith to this Bill which, I believe, will do a great deal

1783
for the Highlands and Islands. We can congratulate those responsible, on the skilful piloting of this Measure through a multiplicity of Amendments. It is good to know that it is a State Measure based on service for the good of the community, and not for profits to shareholders. Hence its general acceptance by the Highland counties. The Highlands certainly offer facilities for electricity second to none in Britain, and what has been done in this respect in Switzerland and Scandinavia is now possible in Scotland. By means of this Bill I hope to see development of industrial activity which has hitherto been denied to the Highlands and Islands. Those concerned about amenities and beauty spots will, I hope, now be satisfied with the safeguards provided. But, after all, we want to see the Highlands and Islands something more than a mere holiday resort or a sporting ground for deerstalkers for a few weeks. The tragedy of the Highlands and Islands has been depopulation, and to-day thousands of the descendants of Scottish exiles have returned from Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Africa to fight for their mother country.
This Bill promises to be the key to economic and agricultural revival. The Highlands and Islands are a storehouse of non-metallic minerals which could and should be developed. Some concern has been shown about recent land speculation in the Highlands and this is of great importance to this Hydro-Electricity Measure. A glaring case is that of the purchase of 50,000 acres in Invernessshire by Panton Investments Ltd., a company that was formed in 1934 as the Prince of Wales Theatre Products Ltd. These 50,000 acres cover farms, croftings, townships, hill pastures, water-power resources, and light industry sites. What possible interest could such a company have in the Highlands? It certainly could not be to erect theatres. My contention is that a very watchful eye will have to be kept on land speculation of this kind. Electricity development in the Highland must not be plagued by land speculators. In planning for the future this Bill offers something worth having and I wish my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland the best of luck in this great new venture.
Major Lloyd: As one who has followed closely the progress
1784
of this Bill from its inception to the present stage and who had not an opportunity of commenting upon it during the Second Reading Debate, I welcome this chance of making some observations which have been in my mind from the first moment that I saw the. Measure. First, I take this opportunity of paying a very sincere tribute to the exceptionally friendly, courteous and accommodating way in which those particularly interested in the details of this Bill have been treated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Lord Advocate. An outstanding feature of the progress of this Measure has been theft extreme courtesy and consideration towards the many points of view which had to be brought to bear upon it. But for that I suggest that the Bill might have had a much rougher passage. We all know that there were many Amendments down to it which, had they been pressed, might have made the Bill so controversial as to cause its withdrawal by the Government. But all this has been avoided and I think the fact that it has been avoided is almost entirely due to the courtesy, consideration and accommodating spirit which has been shown in the conduct of the Bill.
This Bill is a great experiment and one which I have no intention whatsoever of frustrating. I am glad that the House by an overwhelming majority has obviously accepted the Bill in that spirit but I think it is right at this time that a caveat should be entered, lest certain people in Scotland, notably in the,Highlands, are carried away with enthusiasm for, and great expectations from, the Bill. I would like to quote a remark which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made in one of his Budget Speeches when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer:
"Blessed is he that expecteth little. Verily, he shall not be disappointed."
I feel that an impression has been created in certain minds in Scotland that this Bill will do great things for the Highlands and I think it would be a pity —and I think the Secretary of State himself, enthusiastic as he is for the Bill, would agree—if expectations were raised too high. After all, we have to remember that this Board is not really a Development Board in the true sense of the term. Its functions and collaboration, particularly under Clause 23, are really restricted to the provision of electricity.

1785
I sincerely hope, and I think there is every reason to believe, that some new and doubtless very important industries will come to the Highlands of Scotland as a result of this great new development of electrical power, but on the other hand it is important to remember that these industries are likely to be more in the nature of electrical-chemical and electro-metallurgical industries which T understand, although I am no expert, do not employ great numbers of people and are not likely to have a very material effect on employment in the Highlands, although they will use a considerable quantity of electricity and thereby be a substantial profit-making asset to the new Board. That is well and good and the new Board, no doubt, will welcome them with open arms to the Highlands although Highlanders may have mixed feelings when these industries start operations. If they think they will get a large measure of employment as the result, I think, they may be substantially disappointed.
While it is hoped that these industries will be attracted, they will not be attracted solely because of cheap electricity or the provision of abundant hydro-electric power. Other considerations will have to be taken into account, such as transport, the supply of raw materials, local rating, and convenient markets for the goods. Do not let us run away with the idea that the mere provision of this electricity will, automatically, cause a rush of industries to the Highlands of Scotland. While I believe specialised types of industries will be attracted, I think it is important to remember that what we need most of all in Scotland, especially in the Highland areas, is the provision of more light industries. The provision of these industries, in which the Secretary of State is so deeply interested, and which he has done so much to assist already, will depend to some extent on the provision of cheap power. But even then it is not a fundamental factor because I understand that in the total cost of production in light industries electricity, the cost of power as a whole, does not exceed about 3 per cent. So, I emphasise, as the first part of my remarks, that we should not be led' away into great expectations with regard to the advantages we shall get from the Bill from the point of view of employment in the Highlands of Scotland. I do not think we ought to have great expectations with regard to other
1786
advantages which the Highlands might get from the provisions of this Bill. In spite of the permissive Clauses in the Bill I do not think that the average glen, Highland village or croft will get very much benefit from the point of view of getting their own electricity unless it pays the Board to supply it. I imagine that it would not pay in many instances and if it does not, I have grave doubts as to whether the Board will supply it.
I have a feeling that the principal people behind this Bill are the Secretary of State—whose enthusiasm for bringing industries to Scotland leaves us in debt to him for what he has already done, and who is providing the stimulus towards this great objective—and the major metallurgical and chemical industries who feel that this will be a great opportunity for them to develop their business and trade, although not necessarily to the great advantage of Scotland. I have a feeling, too, that another of the major parties in this triumvirate are the Electricity Commissioners who are deeply concerned and who should be extremely gratified at the great powers which the House of Commons has given to them in this Bill. I hope and believe that they will use those powers with the greatest possible impartiality, having regard to the essential necessity for safeguarding the interests of all undertakers and because the Board has to see that it does not exercise its powers to the detriment of existing undertakers. It would be most unfortunate if, in this great experiment in which the existing undertakers are willing to co-operate, they should feel that they were, in any way, being crippled, handicapped or overridden by the great powers given to the Board and the still greater powers given to the Electricity Commissioners. I say this deliberately because it is obvious that in this Bill we are setting up a precedent in giving such powers to the Commissioners. I have confidence that those powers will in no way be abused, and that therefore the precedent may stand for the satisfaction of all concerned, but it will be watched very closely by those who are very much concerned with that important point.
I wish now to pass to the finance of the scheme. I have a feeling that there is some danger in assuming that the new board must be self-supporting, and yet the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate have repeatedly said that it was a

1787
fundamental of the Bill that it must be a commercial proposition and must pay its way. That is, of course, sound enough from some points of view, but what the Highlands want, and what industries want if they are to go there, is cheaper electricity, and I am not yet entirely convinced that the Board will be able to provide this cheap electricity, as everyone desires it to do. After all, its profits are really dependent on the results of the supplies to the Central Electricity Board. That is where the main revenue will come from. The earnings and profits from this source are dependent on two speculative factors, the capital cost of construction of hydro electrical schemes and the cost of coal in steam stations. The lower the costs of construction and the higher the cost of coal the more possibility there is of making profit. The whole question of the solvency of the Board and of the cheapness of the supply of electricity depend upon two highly important but essentially speculative factors, so there is no absolute guarantee that the Board will be able to produce the electricity at an economic price which will keep it solvent and, at the same time, enable it to supply electricity at a really cheap cost, which is essential if the Bill is to effect its object.
A further point which it is essential should at least be mentioned, which I know he has not forgotten, and which he will implement, is the question of valuation and rating. He has told us he is going to set up a committee by which the whole question will be examined. I hope it will not be long before that committee is in being. These factors are of very vital moment from the point of view of the cost of electricity. If we can get the rating—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think we must leave rating alone.
Major Lloyd: I think I have said enough on the point. With regard to the composition of the Board, I know the right hon. Gentleman will not misunderstand me or take any offence. He is not that kind of Minister, but some of us have been concerned about the final composition of the Board. I think it is absolutely essential—I feel sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree—that the members of the Board should be chosen solely for their commercial, industrial, business and
1788
technical knowledge. Any possibility of any accusation that their selection was due to any sort of political prejudice, would be most deplorable. I am convinced that any suspicions that some people may have had in that direction will be proved unworthy by the final action of the Secretary of State. The setting up of this public Board is a great experiment, and I hope that is fully realised. I accept the fact that private enterprise was, probably, not the right agent to conduct this great experiment in the remote areas of the Highlands, but not for a moment would I accept the suggestion that private enterprise has not proved itself capable in every part of the country, and not least in Scotland, to conduct great electricity operations, to the great benefit of the people concerned and with the utmost efficiency.
Mr. McNeil: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will not expect me to follow him the whole road. In fact, we are sufficiently friendly for me to say I assume he will be quite glad that I am not going to join with him where he left off, If the economics of the situation were as he asks us to believe they are, there would have been no need for the Secretary of State to undertake this most arduous job of pushing the Bill through the House. I want to congratulate the Minister and thank him for amending the Bill in the fashion that I and several of my hon. Friends suggested he should on the Second Reading. I mean the Amendments to Clause 5 and the consequential ones giving a definite instead of an indefinite period in which objections can be tabled and sustained. I am sure I cannot be misunderstood if I point out that my-argument really was that an indefinite period would have provided a weapon for obstructionists. My right hon. Friend has gone so far as to lay down a definite period of 40 days. I wonder whether he will consider whether that is a sufficiently long period. I see him smile, but if he reads what I said, I in no way suggested that 40 days was too generous a period. Before he amended the Bill the, phrase was, "not less than 40 days," which might have meant 340 days. I know he understands thoroughly the difficulties of local authorities, particularly in such large areas as Inverness-shire, and in counties so badly served with transport as Sutherland. I suggest that he should make it

1789
60 or even 90 days. I hope I shall not be misunderstood in making that point.
I am a trifle disturbed by the pessimism that we have heard expressed from the hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley), the qualified pessimism of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, and the greater pessimism of the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd). His has been the only blunt attack on the Bill as amended. I feel inclined to say, although he is not present, that he is no master of the new Bill nor of the Cooper Report, or he would not have made such misstatements as he made and such doubtful inferences. However, I will not pursue that, as he is not present. None of us on this side is in danger of making the mistake against which both the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockport and the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for East Renfrew (Major Lloyd) warned us of thinking that this marks the millennium for the Highlands. We know that there is nothing revolutionary in the Bill. We know that it is a masterpiece of accommodation, and most of us have appreciated the efforts the Secretary of State for Scotland had to exert to secure such accommodation. As Scots we respect hard work, and ask Scots to admire the amazing and persistent work my right hon. Friend has put in to get so far with the Bill.
We expect nothing more for the Scottish Highlands than that this great and valuable experiment may become the basis of a new economic life for the North. We are in agreement with the hon. and gallant Gentleman that there is a great deal to be added before there can be any kind of secured and continuous activity for the Northern part of our land. We know also that we have still to tackle the problem of the other light industries and the whole question of transport. I think this is the first defined post-war Measure. We are extremely indebted to the Lord Advocate for the warnings he gave us on the Second Reading that the pace of development and of the operation of the Bill itself will depend upon the composition of this House and upon the pressure Scottish Members particularly are prepared to exert. If our constituents are not aware of that, they will get less than they might get. The question which the hon. and gallant Gentleman posed can only be answered by
1790
the same kind of logic. We are prepared to follow the Bill with these ancillary measures which it would be out of Order to discuss on the Third Reading. The hon. Member for Stockport said he had very great fears about Clause 2 (3). His fears are our hopes, and we are confident that we can from this side of the House make those hopes real in the operation of the Bill. I most warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Henderson Stewart: May I refer at the beginning of my remarks to the speech made on Third Reading by the Lord Advocate, in which he referred to the discussion in Committee on Clause 6? In the course of that discussion I pointed out that the machinery laid down with regard to distribution schemes was unduly and exceptionally cumbersome. I showed that in the case of other electricity undertakings in England the company concerned had only to submit its distribution scheme to the Electricity Commissioners, sending a copy to the local authorities in the area, and that was its duty done. Under the Bill there is a very heavy weather procedure laid upon the new Board. They have to offer opportunities, indeed almost to goad individual members of the public to object to the scheme. Throughout the Debates I have been urging the Government to give the Board greater freedom. In this case it is loaded up with regulations which seem quite unnecessary and which I clearly showed are unprecedented. If in years past this House has passed Measure after Measure dealing with the supply of electricity in different parts of the country and has on this very point of distribution provided a very simple procedure, I cannot see why, in the case of Scotland, we should pass away from that simplicity and overload the procedure with bureaucratic methods. I am sorry that the Lord Advocate has offered so few reasons for rejecting the proposal I made. Large parts of England have enjoyed freedom from these restrictions and I cannot understand why the people of the Highlands should not enjoy the same-freedom.
Passing to the more general situation, I of course join with all my hon. Friends in congratulating the Secretary of State upon the energy and enterprise he has shown in translating this great idea, which in other forms some of us have supported consistently in this House for many years,

1791
into concrete form. There is difference of opinion as to the wisdom and practicability of the particular form of the machinery set out in this Bill, but on the broad principle underlying the Bill—of a planned, wholesale development in the public interest of the hydro-electric resources of the Highlands—we are all agreed. All Scotland supports it and desires to see it carried through as quickly as possible and to the largest possible extent. The thought uppermost in my mind to-day is therefore to wish this project good luck. But I am bound to say, like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Renfrew (Major Lloyd), that I have my doubts about the effectiveness of the machinery provided; and it is proper that those doubts, which are shared by many highly skilled and competent men in the electricity industry, should be expressed lest the people of the Highlands should imagine that once this Measure, with its £3,000,000 subsidy, passes, prosperity and an easy life lie before them.
Mr. McNeill: It is not a subsidy.
Mr. Stewart: It is a pure, unadulterated subsidy. It is a provision intended to support the Board when it cannot pay its way, and if it is not a subsidy, I do not know what it is. Any impression of the kind I have mentioned which is given to the Highlands would be both unreal and dangerous. The only way the Highlands can win prosperity after the war is by hard work on the part of t4e individual dwellers in that area, supported by a sound, enlightened policy carried through with vision here in London. That combination of individual enterprise within the framework of a sound Government scheme is the only hope for Scotland. The provision of electricity, even to every strath and glen in the Highlands, would not touch the fringe of the problem, the age-long problem of bringing life and vitality to these long deserted lands. As hon. Members in many parts of the House have said, much more than this Bill is needed. There must be efforts in 100 other directions with great energy behind them before we can preen ourselves that we have started this mighty job of improving the Highlands.
The question we have to consider to-day is whether this Bill is likely to serve the important but limited purpose for which
1792
it is designed. I will not repeat the criticisms that I have made on the Bill in earlier stages, except to say that the more I reflect upon it and discuss its provisions with those who may have some part in working it the more certain I am that the views I have expressed are sound and that they will be found to be sound in the days to come. I have done my best in the ways open to me to improve the Measure, but the Government have not thought fit to accept my suggested amendments. The responsibility now rests on the Government; it does not rest on me. All we can do now is to consider how this new Board will work when it starts operations in the terms laid down in this Measure.
As I see it the success of this enterprise will depend upon two major factors, one of them incalculable, the other resting within the responsibility of my right hon. Friend. These two factors are the price of coal and the personnel of the Board. What about coal? It is clear from the most cursory examination of the Bill, confirmed by further study, that the main customer of the Board, certainly at the beginning and perhaps all through its life, will be the Central Electricity Board. It will be the bulk buyer, and the new Board will depend not only upon the Central Board for the bulk purchase but for the bulk of its income and the only part of its income which will show a profit. It is essential that the Highlands should grasp that matter. I gather that it is hoped that the Central Electricity Board will pay a price so calculated as to leave a slight margin over the cost of production of the supplies it takes from the Highland Board. Such a margin will be vital to the new Board. Without it it will find it impossible to carry on and will go bankrupt. For, let the House note, there is no other possibility of a margin from the sales of electricity in any other direction.
Take the other possible directions in which the sales of this Board may take place. There is the large electro-chemical industries of which we have heard much. As an hon. Member said, such industries will not look at the proposition of coming to the Highlands unless the electric power they required is offered at the very minimum price. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Sir M. MacDonald) knows that better than I do. He made plain the disadvantages of the Highlands to a great industry of that kind—the great distances away from the markets and

1793
centres of population, the increased cost of transport, the shortage of ordinary services, the difficulties of obtaining labour and where to house them. These are great commercial difficulties which have discouraged industries from going to the Highlands and they will still discourage them. The only way the new Board can hope to induce them to enter their area is to offer them electricity at the very minimum cost price. Therefore there will be no margin there. And the same considerations will apply to the Co-operative Wholesale Society in Scotland. The shrewd business men who control this organisation will apply precisely the same principles when they are faced with this proposition. They will not go into Highland territory unless they get power at the cheapest possible rate.
The next group of possible purchasers are the authorised undertakers, municipal undertakings, and private companies. But these undertakers are already fully protected under the Electricity Acts. The Board dare not charge them a farthing more than they themselves would pay if they were producing electricity by their own plant. The cost of production to them is also the actual selling price and there is no margin to be had there.
It is inconceivable that private consumers, remembering the excessive costs of transmission and distribution which will be involved in supplying the outlying places, will offer a price that will result in the slightest margin of profit for the Board. The very reverse is more likely to happen. It is more likely that private consumers will be paying less than the cost price. Therefore, it is plain that the Board will depend directly and all the time upon the Central Electricity Board —in other words the great industrial populations of the midlands of Scotland —for their success. That demand from the midlands of Scotland is what will make possible the development of this great scheme. How does the Central Electricity Board fix its price? It is laid down in Clause 16 of the Bill, and it is as well that the Highlands should be reminded of the position It states that
"the price to be charged by the Board for electricity supplied under this subsection to the Central Electricity Board in any year shall … be a sum … equal to the cost of production in that year of a like supply of electricity at the steam generating station operated under the directions of the Central Electricity Board."
1794
It further indicates that it must be the most economic station so operated. In other words, the criterion of the price to be paid by the Central Electricity Board for the bulk of the supplies manufactured by the new Board is the price of coal. If the House can conceive of a great improvement in the scientific production of coal resulting in substantial new economies, and a lowering of the price of coal, the Board's income from the Central Electricity Board will fall and the vital margin from which its daily expenses are financed may possibly go. So we are faced with the strange dilemma that the more we improve the method of producing coal and so reducing the price per ton, the more difficult will it become to offer electricity to the Highlands.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think we can go into the methods of producing coal, except as a short illustration.
Mr. Stewart: I feel that this is the very crux of the matter. I am trying to explain that the bulk of the new Board's supply will be bought by the Central Electricity Board and that their price is based on the cost of coal. I am trying to show how that cost is likely to move, because upon that depends the success or failure of the Board. I feel that if I do not enlarge on it too much I may be in Order.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I was only warning the hon. Gentleman that it would not be right for the Debate to develop into a Debate on the cost of production of coal.
Mr. Stewart: On the other hand, if the House can conceive of another set of circumstances, namely, that the young men of the mining areas will increasingly decline to go underground; or, if they do go, will work only for shorter hours and higher wages, then the price of coal will rise and more money will go into the coffers of the Hydro-Electric Board. In that case the more the Midlands housewife pays for her fire and light the more her opposite number in the Highlands will benefit. But if circumstances are such that after the war the price of coal rises, as it is doing now, is it not very likely that other prices will rise also and that the Board's capital expenditure, on all the things that go into the making of great hydro-electric works, cement, steel, labour and so no, will heavily increase and thus

1795
counter-balance the higher income received from the Central Electricity Board? In that event there would be no gain to the new Board. With these possibilities in mind one cannot look ahead with any certainty at all as to the future standing of this Board, and that is why I think the House must address itself to the further factor to which I have referred, the personnel of the Board.
I have already referred to the limitations under which this Board has to work. The Government have declined to bestow on the Board that freedom for which I have pleaded. The Board is going to be tied hand and foot by bureaucratic control in London and Edinburgh and bound to a short-term, scheme-by-scheme policy, unknown to any similar enterprise in the country. It is bound to that system to which I have protested so vigorously, a system which is calculated as I believe to hamper the Board if not to hamstring its efforts in the highly intricate technical work it has to perform. I think on the Second Reading I suggested that the task before the Board was one of the proudest any body of Scotsmen could undertake. I think that is true, but I think it is also the most difficult task any such body could face. We cannot now alter the Bill itself; the time has passed. We have tried, and we have failed. The machinery is laid down under which the Board has to operate. There is only one provision left unspecified and on which the House can exercise its influence, namely, the composition of the Board which is to work this great scheme. In these circumstances it is impossible to exaggerate the importance attaching to the quality of the man appointed to direct it.
At the risk of repetition, let me emphasise again that this great project is a business project. It is no good my right hon. Friend saying it is a development board. There is no doubt it must have regard to the social development of the Highlands; certainly, but to describe it as a development board is fatal to its prospects. It is a business proposition and can only achieve its purposes if it is run on sound, strict, business lines and the Board is inspired by great efficiency and by enterprise and initiative. These are the things that are going to make this Board a success, and it is really vital that the Secretary of State should indicate to us to-day what type of men he is going
1796
to appoint. If the men turn out to be duds, the whole show is a failure and we shall have done great harm to the Highlands. It can only succeed if we get the best men available in charge of this mighty, difficult enterprise.
I tried in the Committee stage and put down Amendments to get an opportunity of discussing the personnel of the Board and the qualities of the men. Unfortunately the Chair did not call my Amendment or Amendments of other hon. Members directed towards the same end. Clearly the Vice-Chairman, who is to be the chief executive of this Board, has got to be a first-class business man with sound electricity experience behind him. I would like confirmation of that from my right hon. Friend, and all Scotland is waiting for it. Clearly there should be one member of the Board with wide general experience and, I hope, a good knowledge of the Highlands. I think a man like Mr. Neil Beaton would be excellent for the job. He has wide experience and was brought up as a Highlander and has first-class business ability. Merely. that a man should live in the Highlands is surely a poor qualification. That a man with other qualities should also know the Highlands is a good thing.
There are three other members of this Board to be considered. What sort of men is the right hon. Gentleman going to appoint? I hope politics is not going to enter into this matter.
Mr. Buchanan>; I hope it is not going to be a bar.
Mr. Stewart: I do not think it should be a bar, but if it is to be a successful project, political appointments might be the least advantageous to the Highlands. What I seek to see there is a body of practical men with the highest possible experience. I cannot emphasise too much the importance of this fact. Of, course the Secretary of State will be aware of all these considerations but the country is entitled to know and the House is entitled to know if the men are already selected.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend not only upon having done this thing—I do not think it is the best thing he could have done—but having done it I want to thank him also for his courtesy in the course of the proceedings. He has done little for me. I think he accepted one of my Amendments beforehand and

1797
another in the course of the Debate. The Lord Advocate did not accept any. But for all that they have both been very polite. I think they have been most unwise to reject some of the proposals made to them, but there it is. This House wishes this new enterprise well, and I share that sentiment.
Mr. Galkteher (Fife, West): I have listened to the speeches made here today, and I felt that this Bill on its Third Reading stage was getting a very melancholy start. I asked myself, "Are we celebrating new life or are we gathered around mourning the dead"? and I have a feeling that both are involved, for I remember that the hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) said, "This is a bad Bill," and I felt my heart warm to the Bill. I was absolutely amazed to hear the hon. Member for Stockport quote the Cooper Report, in connection with the neglect of private enterprise. Is the hon. Member for Stockport unaware of the fact that private enterprise has had 200 years in Scotland, no one interfering with it, and it has completely depopulated the Highlands and turned Scotland into a derelict area? When I heard him say it was a bad Bill I realised that there was something good in the Bill. Anything that goes against the desires of the hon. Member for Stockport is bound to be in the interests of the people, but I will say to the Secretary of State for Scotland that it would have been a much better Bill had he accepted the Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sloan) and myself. The hon. Member for Stockport is typical of the other side of the House, all good business men. Where there is a shilling to be grasped they will grasp it. But in general they are very dull-witted. The hon. Member for Stockport makes fairly strong criticism of the constitution of this Board because he says the Board will be under two masters. He is correct; at last his eyes are open to the truth, but we had an Amendment down to eliminate the dual control of the Board and have the Board appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Scotland responsible to this House. Where was the hon. Member for Stockport when that Amendment was discussed before the House?
1798
This Board is of the very greatest importance to the people of the Highlands. The hon. and gallant Member for East Renfrew (Major Lloyd) said that the Board should be composed of business men and men of experience and there should be no politics entering into it. The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) followed up and is even prepared to throw cut a bait in the form of a co-operator in the hope that the rest will be good Tory or Liberal business men. When these people talk about no politics being introduced, they talk about it from the sense of their being members of the Tory Party.
Major Lloyd: How could the hon. Member have interpreted my remarks in that way?
Mr. Gallacher: The hon. and gallant Member said he hoped that the members of the Board would be chosen for their business experience—
Major Lloyd: Well, go on.
Mr. Gallaeher: —and that no politics should be introduced into the question of their selection, but when you get a suggestion of that kind it always conveys, it must convey, the idea of having representatives of capitalist economy. What are our business men to-day but representatives of capitalist economy? If you want a good Board from the point of view of the people of the Highlands and the development of Scotland I can give a list of names, every one of them a Communist. Yes, and it is not good profits that will be the dominating motive of the Board.
Major Lloyd: Would the hon. Member be included?
Mr. Gallacher: I would not mind going on. The Board will be faced with a very difficult task. There are people who will try to use this Bill to exploit the Highlands. We want it to be used for replenishing the Highlands with the population which has been driven away. I am certain that is what the Secretary of State wants. We have in this House and in the country people with a peculiar morality: Anything is permissible, the depopulation of the Highlands, poverty, starvation, anything, as long as the sacred rights of property and profits are secure. That is their morality. It comes out in everything. Never once has the moral fibre of these business men on the other side of the House been disturbed by the power of the Minister of

1799
Labour to transfer Scottish girls from Scotland to England, but as soon as the Minister of Aircraft Production interferes with the shares—not the lives—of Shorts—what protests!
From the point of view of all those on the other side a good business man is one who can show a profit on the balance-sheet and a good dividend, not a man who can show a good profit in the health and the well-being of the people. The people may be perishing—but how is the balance-sheet, is there a good dividend? Members on the other side from Scotland who are watching this Bill have all their lives been concerned with the question, "What sort of dividend are we getting?" while all around them in Scotland and in the Highlands people were being driven from their homes, people were living in the most unspeakable poverty. A former Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) said in this House that conditions in the countryside in Scotland and in the Highlands of Scotland were absolutely shocking, a disgrace to civilisation. It was the business men of Scotland which produced that Scotland, and now they come along and say, "Let us see that we get business men on this Board." It is a very important.Board. I say that business men should not be chosen. Business men should be kept off the Board. One can imagine after listening to the hon. Member for Stockport what a boon and a blessing he would be to the people of Scotland if he were on the Board. He would wither up any of the green stuff that is left. As well have a flock of locusts going into Scotland. One has only to listen to him to realise where his mind is, what he is concerned with, what is his morality.
Have hon. Members any idea of how the people of Scotland were living before the war—the horrible housing conditions, the lack of food, the lack of clothing, the lack of anything in the nature of amenities? The hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. Francis Beattie) may shake his head, but it is true. It is the business men, who were concerned with profits, who have robbed and looted and brought Scotland to the condition in which she is at the present time. Do not try to put the blame on the Scottish people. I ask the Secretary of State for Scotland once again to hand round copies of that famous book
1800
"Our Noble Families," in order that they may see how it started—the robbery, the wholesale, open robbery, the corruption of the courts. These are the men—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The hon. Member is going very wide of the Bill.
Mr Gallacher: I am very sorry. I have been concentrating on this question of the composition of the Board. There are many points in the Bill which I feel are of the greatest importance, and I was pointing out that now that we have possibilities of development we get these sweet and courteous suggestions that the Board must be composed of good business men. There is not such a thing as a good business man, except in the relative sense, in the sense of being able to get profits. In relation to the welfare of the people there is not such a thing as a good business man.
Mr. Kirkwood: In Scotland.
Mr. GallaPher: Of course, I do not expect hon. Members on the other side to understand or appreciate that, but it is the actual fact that the business man is the enemy of the people. He lives on the robbery of the people. The great problem is how to utilise this Bill not for the purpose of exploiting the Highlands but to help the Highlands and bring back at least some of their population. Is that something for a business man to do? Not at all. That is something for politicians. If we get Tory politicians or Tory business men or Liberal business men on the Board we shall get no real progress. If we get on the Board Labour or Communist politicians—the united front—who understand how the crisis in Scotland has developed, who understand the economic basis of the crisis, who understand the politics of the situation, we shall get the very best results from this Bill. Therefore, I want to impress upon the Secretary of State for Scotland and upon the Minister of Fuel and Power—because the two of them have responsibility for the Board, the Board is appointed by two Ministers instead of one—the very great importance of making a correct and effective selection of members of the Board. If it is a Board that is progressive, it will come into the closest association with and give the greatest encouragement to the Co-operative movement in the development of the industries in the Highlands, and that will have the

1801
greatest value. If it is a progressive Board, it will gradually work towards taking over the independent undertakings. Of course, the hon. Member for Stockport will not like that, but the people of Scotland will, and it will not. matter very much what his reactions will be. We want a Board of that kind, a progressive Board that sees here the opportunity for bringing all the best forces in Scotland into association with the life of the Highlands for the purpose of developing and expanding the life of the Highlands.
The Secretary of State for Scotland has put in much work, time, energy, and patience in connection with this Bill. I must say—I have said it before maybe—that I do not know when there was a Secretary of State for Scotland who had so many well-wishers, and so much ready support in this House. I am glad that he has brought in this Bill. I am glad he has carried it to the present stage but regret that he did not accepts our assistance. It would have been to his advantage to have done so I hope above everything else that the selection of this Board will be of a character to launch the Act in such a way that there will be special benefit for the people of the Highlands and advantage to the people throughout the whole of Scotland.
Major McCallum: May I add my tribute to the congratulations already expressed in this Debate so far to the work of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and of the Lord Advocate, in pressing this Bill through to its present stage? Like one or two other hon. Members who have just spoken, I also put down one or two Amendments which were also not accepted. Nevertheless I know that those I represent realise that nobody could have been more painstaking and more sincere in his desire to meet the wishes and points of view of the Highlanders in particular than was the Secretary of State outside this Chamber. I know something of the meetings he has had, and the local authorities he has met, the individual associations and groups, industries, etc., he has met and discussed this matter with, and thrashed it out. Nobody could have taken more pains or, I am quite convinced, produced a more satisfactory Measure under the present circumstances than has the Secretary of State in this Bill. I would therefore like
1802
to say that we in that part of the Highlands from which I come welcome most gratefully what we hope will very soon be the changing of this Bill into an Act.
The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) and the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) both seemed concerned about the membership of the new Board, and there seemed to be some desire that the Board should be composed entirely of politicians. I would like to speak for my part of the Highlands to say that I hope that no politics will be allowed to enter into this Board in any way. What its members' particular political views may be will, I hope, be kept in the background, and not be subject to debate in this House or debate at their various meetings. I am quite convinced that the Secretary of State, whether my right hon. Friend who holds that office now or his successors, and advisers will be certain to adopt and nominate sound, experienced men. I was one of those who advocated in the Committee stage that one of the members of the Board should have some Highland qualifications. I did not advocate, as the hon. Member for East Fife said, that he should live in the Highlands. My hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) insisted that rather than that he should be a Highlander the particular member should be a good experienced man in the electrical industry. I quite agree. I hope that all the Board will be men who will be business men, technical men, that whatever their status may be, they will be experienced men, and we hope also will know something of the Highlands. In view of the assurances given by, I think, the Lord Advocate and the Secretary of State I feel quite convinced we can safely leave the choice of that Board to the Secretary of State and his near advisers.
There has, I think, been rather a misconception about the whole fundamental basis of this Bill. I have heard it said, both in this House and outside, that here is a sum of £30,000,000 to be spent on the Highlands, so why go and spend it all on electricity? It is rather as though this was a tip given by a beneficent Treasury to us poor Highlanders. Surely that is entirely a complete misunderstanding of the position. I think from what I have heard my right hon. Friend say that it may quite possibly be that the Board may never have to go to the Treasury to

1803
draw any of the £30,000,000, that this is merely a Treasury guarantee towards the success of this Measure. In spite of the criticisms, technical criticisms, I have heard to-day and in the Committee stage, we believe that in the course of time this will prove to be a most beneficial Measure. We do not believe it will cure all our evils; we do not believe it will bring back thousands, hundreds of thousands, of population to live in the Highlands, but we do believe and are quite convinced that this is a fundamental issue which must first of all be set right before any other development. The improvement of other matters which we are not allowed to refer to can only take place on the basis of the development of this scheme.
We look forward, not in five years' time nor in ten years' time, but that in decades to come when those of us here have passed away great benefits will have accrued to the Highlands, and that we shall see the Highlands redeveloped and with an increased population. It is quite impossible, I am convinced, that any Measure passed through this House is going to have immediate effect on the position in the Highlands. We know the difficulties there are to be overcome, but we feel that my right hon. Friend who at present holds the reins in the Scottish Office has our interests at heart and that this is only the first, we hope, of Measures he is going to bring forward to help set the Highlands going again, so that our children and our children's children will not be able constantly to fling the criticism in our faces that the Highlands are one of the depressed areas of the country Therefore, in conclusion I congratulate my right hon. Friend and wecome the passage of this Bill most heartily.
Mr. Buchanan: The question of the development of electricity in the Highlands has had a rather chequered career in this House. Many are the private Measures that have been brought in; and many were the fights and the Debates we had over them. We had splits in all parties. I differed from many of my colleagues on the issue. I always voted for those private Bills, and I was annoyed because always at the end of the day there stood the Highlands, in all its gauntness, and nothing was done. Then we had that Board in Edinburgh, on which I sat. I wondered whether the same thing was not going to happen again;
1804
whether another Measure would be promoted to get power to the Highlands, whether it would again be defeated, and again nothing done. I always felt that no matter what scheme you brought forward, there were always overwhelming arguments in favour of it, but at the end the argument for doing nothing succeeded. This Measure at least sets out to accomplish something by Act of Parliament for the Highlands, and all of us should seize this opportunity and prevent any attempt to defeat the Bill. If that happened, all hope of obtaining an electricity supply in the Highlands would be gone for some considerable time.
This Measure should be welcomed because it is an effort to harness the water power of the Highlands for the development of electricity, although I am not going to throw up my arms and say that this is a great Measure. I want to say one thing to the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), who is not now in his place—he has developed a political technique now; he delivers a speech, and then can barely wait any longer. Judged by his standards, this Bill is bad. He is bound to be on the side of the Jeremiahs, who say that the Bill must fail. He said that it would not succeed because business men would be put on the Board. I know that the Secretary of State will put business men on it, and I know that it will not fail because he does so. But I deprecate this growing tendency in this House to say that politicians should not do this or do that. It is wrong. One of the greatest things that Scotland possesses is its judicial system. It is a clean system and a capable system; I do not think anybody would say that it is corrupt. In the main the great judges to-day have been drawn from the ranks of the politicians. Why should we be ashamed of the fact tha we have served our country in this House of Commons?
Major Lloyd: The great judges are appointed to their office not because they are politicians, but because they are good lawyers.
Mr. Buchanan: But the suggestion is that you should go further, and make the fact that a man has been a politician a bar. All the great judges I have known have been no worse for having been here: in fact, they have become greater through their apprenticeship in the House of Commons. When I sat on that Board in

1805
Edinburgh, who but a Member of Parliament was the mainspring behind the Bill which the hon. and gallant Member supported? The late Mr. George Balfour was the driving force. I say that this idea that the fact that a man has been in the House of Commons is something to be ashamed of, is wrong; it is something to be proud of. I hope that the Secretary of State will not make it a bar. A man should be judged on his merits, but the fact that he has been in the House of Commons should be an additional qualification. When people come to me and say that they have no politics, I know what they mean—they mean that they are going to vote against me. I admit that a great deal depends on the terms of appointment of the Board. But I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not apply any test other than he would apply were he running a business of his own and wanting it to succeed for the welfare of the people. I want capable people, who are fit to sit on the Board, but I trust that in the selection human qualities will not be left out of consideration. Human problems and the development of the Highlands have to be considered if this scheme is to be a success.
I have a rooted aversion to this idea of congratulating the Secretary of State. I have noticed that everybody congratulates the man who is in office, and then when he goes out of office nobody takes any more notice of him. I never congratulate people for doing what they are paid to do. I think the Secretary of State has done the job he is paid for doing, and that is the end of it as far as I am concerned. I hope that the Bill will be a success, for the sake of the people of Scotland, and particularly of the Highlands. The Highlands is a difficult country for anybody to undertake anything in. This scheme is an experiment. It may be a great success, and it may well fail. If it fails, I shall not blame the Secretary of State.
I would sooner he made an experiment and failed than that he should never have tried at all. That experiment may bring about the conditions that opponents have to say about it, and, if it does, the right hon. Gentleman will not be to blame. He is accepting the situation and deciding that in future the thing must be done, and to that extent he has done his job and done it decently. I hope that the Bill will succeed. There is no certainty. There are
1806
many things in the Bill in respect of which one cannot foresee the future. It depends on future development as to whether the experiment is to become an absolute certainty. But at least the right hon. Gentleman has done what I hope Secretaries of State for Scotland will do in the future and what they have not done in the past. He has experimented. Some of us are too afraid of failure to experiment. As far as this is an experiment to try and develop the Highlands, I welcome it, and I trust that it will be successful in its operation.
Mr. McLean Watson: The Secretary of State for Scotland has done a number of big things in his life, but I think this is the biggest thing he has ever done. It is something of which he has every reason to be proud, to have secured, for a part of the Highlands at least, control over water power, but evidently his task is not finished. He has still to appoint his Board. If he has been listening—and I daresay he has—to the advice which he has been given from various sides of the House, he will realise that his biggest task still lies in front of him. When he has examined all the business men who are not business men, according to the information we have, and who are incapable of being trusted, and he is reduced to examining the Communist Party for the membership of the Board, he will have the biggest and toughest job he has ever had in his life. I do not envy him the task when he is reduced to selecting his Board from the Communist Party. At the same time, I agree with my hon. Friend, the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) that, if a man has the necessary qualifications, the mere fact that he is a politician should not debar him from membership of the Board. I do not think that in any of the previous discussions on this matter when previous Bills were introduced that anyone questioned the capabilities of knowledge of the late Mr. Balfour, formerly Member for Hampstead. He knew his business, and no one questioned his business capacity. The mere fact that he was a politician should not have prevented him from being a member of any electricity board, because he knew his subject, even if he was a business man.
I have witnessed all the battles that have raged over the question of electrical development in the Highlands of Scotland, and the Secretary of State has by some means or other had a pleasanter task and a

1807
quieter time than on previous occasions. I remember the previous occasions to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals has already referred when, particularly on Second Reading Debates, we had the whole House and parties divided. I also remember an occasion when I even voted for one of these private enterprise Bills, not because it was a private enterprise Bill, but because I wanted to see something done to develop the Highlands of Scotland. I believed that it was a means of bringing new life to the Highlands, and I was prepared to sacrifice principles that I held very dear in order to give a better opportunity to the Highlands of Scotland. I hope the result of the passing of this Bill will be that we shall have new life in the Highlands and see new industries suitable to the Highlands of Scotland springing up which will not disfigure the Highlands. We have heard a good deal from the other side of the House and on previous occasions when the Bill has been before the House about what private enterprise has done. It has nothing upon which to congratulate itself so far as development in the Highlands is concerned or upon what it has done for the Highlands. It has disfigured the Highlands to a considerable extent.
Sir Granville Gibson: How could it do anything when the House turned down both schemes?
Mr. Watson: I am referring to private enterprise works already established there. I am dealing with the amenity question. We have had objections to this Measure on the ground that it was going to spoil the beautiful scenery of the Highlands of Scotland. You only require to come and see what private enterprise has already done in the Highlands of Scotland to see what it can do in destroying amenities. I am certain that under this Measure the Amenity Committee to be appointed by the Secretary of State will see that due consideration is given to preserving as much of the amenities of the areas that will be affected as possible. No Scotsman can look upon a matter of this kind with indifference, and ever since the first Measure was introduced after I came to this House I have taken the very greatest interest in these particular Measures. What happened before that time? Government after Government—Liberal Government and Tory Govern-
1808
ment, because we had no Labour Governments at that time—came to this House year after year with a Budget with provision for a few thousand pounds ear-marked for the Highlands of Scotland, and this House considered that it was doing its duty if it passed these few thousand pounds for doing something to help the Highlands or the Islands of Scotland. No big Measure was introduced that went to the root of the matter.
I am prepared to admit the development which has already taken place in parts of the Highlands of Scotland; the Grampian scheme and the other schemes developed so far have all been to the advantage of part of the Highlands. This Bill is the last part which has been preserved from private enterprise. We have complaints from the hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) that this little part has been kept from private enterprise, although private enterprise, unfortunately, will have its opportunity even under this scheme. Private enterprise will come along after the juice is available. All private manufacturers and those who think that they can develop little schemes in the Highlands of Scotland will come along with their proposals, and private enterprise will get the juice which is necessary in order to go on with their works. First of all this scheme itself will have to be undertaken, but in the meantime I hope manufacturers will be looking around for pos bbitities in the Highlands of Scotland. In these modern days there need be no difficulties with regard to distance and transport, as there have been in the past. This war has opened our eyes to great possibilities, and manufacturers who establish factories in Scotland should have no difficulty in getting to markets.
I hope that as a result of this Bill there will be big developments in the Highlands of Scotland. If there are, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can congratulate himself on the work he has already done in connection with this Measure. The Bill was described by the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) as being tied up, bound and over-burdened with bureaucracy and regulations. All I would say to him is this: I have supported this Measure, even with all the imperfections he has described, much more heartily than any other Measure which has come before this House for electrical development in the

1809
Highlands. This, at any rate, is something to be going on with, and even if these regulations should prove burdensome to the Board, so that they cannot carry on, there is nothing to prevent the Secretary of State from coming back to the House and asking that they should be dispensed with or modified so that the Board can have more freedom than is already permitted. I am prepared to accept the Bill as a landmark in the history of the Highlands of Scotland and as something which will provide a great opportunity for development in that area.
Mr. Stephen: I did not have an opportunity of taking part in the discussion on the Second Reading of this Bill, owing to the number of Scottish Members who wished to take part, and I welcome the opportunity of saying a few words now, on the Third Reading. I am very much in agreement with what was said by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Leslie) and the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). This Bill, which has aroused a good deal of expectation in Scotland, has been subjected to a good deal of criticism. There has been the fear that we would lose the beauties of Scotland, and an attempt has been made in the Bill to deal with any possibilities of destroying the amenities of our Scottish Highlands. I have met people who have said that it would be a great pity to do anything that would interfere with the wonderful grandeur and beauty of our Scottish Highlands. It is so nice to have them for Englishmen to visit; it gives Englishmen an opportunity of wearing the kilt in the seclusion of the Highlands.
But I think the Scottish Highlands are most notable, not for their beauty, but for the men and women they have produced in the centuries that have gone by. The Highlands have produced a vigorous people, but the population there has been steadily on the decline for many years. I welcome this Bill, therefore, because there are potentialities in it for the development of the resources of the Highlands, and with that development I think there will be opportunities for the people who have left the Highlands to go back from industrial centres and enjoy their Highland homes. The Bill is an attempt to utilise the water resources of Scotland, and I hope that it will have great success in contributing to the development of our
1810
country. At the same time I am not unduly optimistic; the fruits of this Measure will depend upon many factors. One factor which aroused my willing support was the fact that the Treasury have guaranteed an expenditure of £30,000,000. I want to see that money expended in Scotland, because Scotland needs large sums of money in order that it should have its appropriate development.
In connection with the speech made by the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd), I see no reason why there should not be agricultural and industrial development in the Highlands of our country. The time is long overdue, and I hope the Board will use their powers to see that there will be available power supplies in all parts of the Highlands at a cheap rate which will enable people to develop the resources of that area and also provide for the growth of the population and the bringing back of the vigour of that part of Scotland.
There has been a certain amount of criticism and advice given to Ministers as to who shall constitute the Electricity Board. I am not going to give the right hon. Gentleman advice, because I do not think he would take it, and I do not think that he will take the advice that has been offered to him. That is very much a foregone conclusion. I have a great deal of sympathy with what was said by the hon. Member for Gorbals with regard to the ruling out of the Members of the Commons House of Parliament. Think of it. The business of the country is being run in large measure by Members of the Commons House of Parliament. A man is in the Government one week and out of it the next, and ever so many big businesses are waiting on his doorstep pleading with him to join their board. I remember one Member of the House who could get on to any board in the country. The idea that this will prevent corruption is preposterous nonsense. I think however that the success of the Bill will depend not only upon the Board but upon Scottish opinion and activity in looking after its interests. One of the great defects of the Measure, to my mind, is that while all these powers are being handed to the Board, there are not along with them powers which would enable the Scottish people to have more control over it and over the resources of their country. I believe the only way of making this

1811
Measure a real success is through the transfer of power from London to Scotland through the institution of a real Scottish Government to develop the resources of our country and give our people the real opportunity that they should have.
Commander Galbraith: We are now getting very near the end of the road as far as this Bill is concerned, and as one who has taken a fairly lively interest in it I should like to say one word. I have been warned by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) that in his opinion it is not right to congratulate the Secretary of State for doing what he is paid to do. I am not going to do that, but our thanks are due from all of us to him, the Lord Advocate and those who have been associated with them for the very courteous way in which they have met us on all occasions and for the very open-minded manner in which they have listened to what we have put before them, and I should like to place that on record.
Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I do not rise to make a detailed analysis of the provisions of the Bill, but before we finally pass it I think it is only proper and fitting that two words should be said from this Bench with regard to it. The first will be one of blessing. We believe that it is necessary and that in many respects it is in accordance with what a Bill dealing with this vast subject ought to be. We have had in years gone by several Bills brought before the House which have been thrown out for many reasons. One is that the House did not consider it proper that on a large-scale public utility of this kind private enterprise, with all the dangers that lurk in it, should be the means of exploiting it. This Bill gives controlling power to a public body appointed by the Secretary of State and in many of its largest decisions responsible to this House. We believe that when it comes to fruition it will bring a ray of hope to the Highlands population. Those who listened to the lugubrious speech of the hon. Member for the Welsh University (Professor Gruffydd), if they had not been aware of the facts in the Highlands, might have supposed that that area was one of extreme prosperity which the nefarious designs of the Secretary of
1812
State were going to injure and bring to nothing. We all know that the exact reverse is the case. On the other hand we must not put our expectations too high. Neither for better nor for worse, for good nor for ill is this Bill going to bring a humming hive of industrial activity to the Highlands. The most that can be said may be that it will bring some more contacts with the outside world and prevent the isolation of this area which has existed up to the present, and some ray of hope to the Highlanders. In addition to that, we believe that it will do something for other areas of Scotland at the same time. We hope it will provide them with electricity for power and light at a price which is not too extravagant to make it of real, practical value.
The other word that I want to say is a word of caution and warning. It would be absurd to place extravagant hopes on the results of the Bill. At the most it is only a substructure upon which future prosperity may or may not afterwards be built. I do not think any of us, even the Secretary of State himself, can put his hand on his heart and say he knows exactly what the Bill is going to do and how it is going to work out. It is possible that it may not work out as well as some of us anticipate. For instance, if it were to mean that the beauties of the Highlands were substantially and materially disfigured, if it were to mean that those who toil in the Highlands were not to get the advantages which the scheme proposes to develop, if it were to mean that something like black industrialism were to spread over areas that ought to be sacred from such development, if it were to mean that no benefits came to Scotland by the creation and use of this water power but that all the benefits were going to some Central Electricity Board, as the hon. Member for East Fife {Mr. Henderson Stewart) seems to think, most of us would be disappointed. I am sure that no one would be more disappointed than the Secretary of State himself. It is because neither I nor my friends take that pessimistic view of the prospects of this Bill that we hope the House will give it a unanimous Third Reading and we wish the Bill and the Secretary of State in promoting it "God speed."
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T.Johnston): We have had a fairly exhaustive and very agreeable discussion upon the Third Reading of this Measure. With

1813
what has fallen from several hon. Members, the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last being one of them, to the effect that we need not exaggerate or paint too rosy a vision of what may eventuate from this Bill, I whole-heartedly agree. This is only an instalment. This is only one step in what may be called the planning and utilisation of the energies and resources of the Highlands for a better day. There are other Measures we can think of, some of which indeed ought to have had priority. For my part, I am pretty certain that before we can have security and decent conditions of life in the Highlands we shall require to see something in the nature of the Post Office principle of equalised rates in transport.
This Bill is the Government's Measure for the utilisation and the selling of a great asset, a great commercial asset if you like to put it that way, which the Highlands have hitherto allowed to go to waste. Parliament in times past has quarrelled about how that asset should be marketed. Previous Measures have said that it should be marketed by private enterprise, and Parliament, the Highlands, the Scottish Press and everybody quarrelled violently over that solution. Some hon. Members said that we were getting nowhere, every year these resources were going waste, the population was leaving the Highlands and there was nothing but despair and apathy. The Cooper Committee sat to consider the problem. It gave us a unanimous recommendation. That recommendation was to the effect that all future hydro-electric development in the Highlands should be run by a non-profit making corporation, a public services corporation. That is the essential feature of this Bill. The Government adopted it with alacrity and speed. As hon. Members will have seen, on the back of this Measure are the names of some seven or eight Cabinet Ministers, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to show that there is no partisanship here. Liberal, Conservative and Labour Members of the Cabinet decided to back this idea and put it forward in the hope that we should get good will and a general concurrence and at long last get rid of this struggle and strife in which everybody, and particularly everybody in the Highlands, was the loser. Nobody is more conscious of the fact that the Bill is not perfect than I am. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate and myself have had to compromise time and time again in
1814
this matter because we wanted a Bill that would work. Nobody gets everything he wants in this world, and when my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) recited a catalogue of what he called defects in the Bill, I could have added some more to his list. That is not the point. The point is, Will this Bill work? It may work with some creaking, hut it will he capable of amendment, and if it works, I am sure that the House of Commons will have contributed something of real value to our Highland populations—by this day's work.
I will not go over the dozens of points that were made in the Debate to-day. I will refer to only two of them. Most hon. Members, even when they spent most of their time cursing the Bill, ended by blessing it. The hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) began by saying it was a bad Bill and ended by giving it his blessing. The only hon. Member whose speech was one long, lugubrious monologue of despair was a gentleman from Wales. I rather gathered from his speech that he did not like the Bill. Against his view may I say that there were no Amendments to the Measure from the local authorities? That is a remarkable fact. There were no Amendments on the Order Paper which were taken to a Division by the amenity interests. They were withdrawn. There was no opposition from the Highland Press. There was no opposition from the Co-operative organisations in Scotland to the extent for which they can speak for the Highland populations. There was no opposition from the Trades Union Congress in Scotland. They backed the Bill. There has been no opposition whatever from any Highland Member of Parliament. They have all backed the Bill. I am entitled to say that there bps rarely been an occasion in this House, in my memory at any rate, in which there were such cordial unanimity and good will bestowed upon a major Measure of this kind.
Major Lloyd: Largely thanks to the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Johnston: I beg my hon. Friends not to say that. The good will and the cordiality lie in the essence of this Bill. Since we are talking about good will, it would ill-become me to allow this Measure to go from this House without my asserting in public the great tribute which I ought to pay to my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate.

1815
His services have been most invaluable on a hundred difficult points. There is only one thing I want to say in conclusion. It is about the composition of the Board. Having gone so far, would we not be fools if we appointed a Board—somebody suggested members of the Communist Party, somebody suggested party men and somebody suggested that only Highlanders should be members—but would we not be fools if we did not give this Board the greatest possible start with good will? We must see to it that that good will is maintained, and, as my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power and I can be shot at in this House if we appoint second-raters or men who cannot carry the confidence of the people of Scotland, we would be great fools if we did so.
I think the House may take it that, having gone so far and having put in so much hard labour in trying to get concurrence and agreement on this matter, the members of the Government responsible for the composition of the Board will take the utmost care to ensure that the Board will be such as will carry the confidence of the people of Scotland. I do hope, trust and believe that we have done a good day's work for the Highlands of Scotland, and however much this Bill may require amendment, it is something to be said for the co-operative spirit presently abroad that we can unite on agreeing that a great national asset of our country should henceforth be developed on a nonprofit making basis for the benefit of the people.
Mr. McKie: The Secretary of State has, I think, left us in no doubt that he is as keen as any Member in any part of the House that this Bill should become a workable proposition, and he has left us in no doubt at all that he is as fully alive as any other bon. Member to the fact that the passage of this Bill will not place any magician's wand in the hands of himself or of any successive Secretary of State. I am sorry I was unable to be here at the earlier part of the Debate, but I am sure many Members who have spoken have stressed the point that the Secretary of State and all associated with him should take the utmost possible care in operating the vast powers which the Bill will place in their hands and see to it that the amenities question,
1816
which is a very vital matter as far as the Highlands of Scotland are concerned, shall be given the due consideration which it so richly deserves.
In talking about the post-war world and the conditions we hope to bring in, the point has again and again been raised of this great national asset. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) has frequently called attention to the great natural asset we have for attracting tourists to this small Island of Great Britain. In the post-war world we hope to see, particularly from the United States of America, increasingly large numbers of tourists visiting this Island and going to see the beauties of the Highlands of Scotland, there to enjoy relaxation amidst beautiful scenic surroundings, and I may add that in the past none have been louder in praise of the scenic beauties of the Highlands than those who speak the same language 3,000 miles away across the wastes of the Atlantic Ocean.
In the past there has been another great asset, not a very popular one with hon. Members above the Gangway who have sought to represent that those of us who speak on behalf of the scenic beauties of the Highlands are merely using this as a camouflage or smokescreen for what they call a sportman's paradise. I do not speak on behalf of that at all, but do not let us forget what in the past sportsmen have done for Scotland, the amount of employment they have given in the autumn months—indeed, I might say it has been a veritable harvest for those who have lived in the depressed areas in the Highlands—the amount of work forthcoming in that direction. Do not let us minimise it, do let us be very careful. I know the present Secretary of State for Scotland, and hope his successors, will see to it that the scenic beauties of the Highlands are safeguarded and preserved in every possible way, that the least interference with these wonderful scenic surroundings shall be made as a result of the passage of this Bill.
I stand here in a sense as a repentent sinner, because on previous occasions—I must make a clean breast of it—I opposed every one of these Measures, even the last one. Notably I opposed the Bill which was sponsored by the present Lord Chief Justice when he was Minister for the Coordination of Defence. I am sure many of us, if he had been able to stand at that Box and say he was fully armed with all

1817
the blessings and power that the then Government could give him and that this was a vital necessity, it might have gone without a Division or the majority against the Measure would have been very much smaller than on that occasion.
Mr. Maxton: The hon. Member was responsible for killing the Bill.
Mr, McKie: I do not want to enter into any contentions on this Measure, because the Secretary of State in winding up said that after all the strife and stormy seas that Measures of this kind have encountered here at long last we have almost complete unanimity.
As representing a constituency which has had a hydro-electric scheme, the Galloway water power scheme, operating for some 12 or 14 years, I am bound to say that if the 70 schemes this Bill envisages or any one of them are carried through with as little disturbance to the scenic beauties of the Highlands as was the case in the Southern Highlands of Galloway, then I do not think anyone in this House or outside has much cause to fear that our priceless treasure is likely to be bartered away. I know that the Secretary of State mentioned the Clatteringsliaws dam in his speech on Second Reading, and so did the present Lord Chief Justice. That dam and the loch which is now behind it are on ground which formerly belonged to me and which I parted with to the promoters of the Galloway water power scheme. I only wish it had come a little later, because I could have obtained a very much better price. The House is in a congratulatory mood, and the Secretary of State has said that he has secured practically a unanimous Measure. He has said also that he is alive to the defects in the Bill, and the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) called attention to the fact that we must not run away with the idea that it will cure overnight the ills of the Highlands. On Second Reading the Secretary of State talked about similar schemes in Norway and in Fire. Of course, the Norwegian scheme did not cure the ills of Norway. There are something like 3,000,000 people in Norway, and there are—
Mr. Speaker: The Norwegian position may be interesting, but it does not arise on the Third Reading of this Bill.
Mr. McKie: With very great respect, Sir, I was only speaking of Norway by way of illustration. I was pointing out that Hydro-electric power schemes there had not improved the emigration problem of Norway, and I do not think that the Irish schemes have abolished the ills of Southern Ireland. In the old days I knew the counties of Galway arid Mayo very well indeed, long before the present egime in Southern Ireland, but it would be quite out of Order for me to say anything about conditions there. Certainly the Shannon scheme, fine though it was, has not cured the congested land question in those counties or in any of the other Southern counties of Ireland, so far as I am aware. I merely mention those cases to bring out in a concrete way the point that was made by the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh. We are delighted that the Secretary of State has secured this practical unanimity to-day, and we wish him God speed with the Bill, and at the same time I am sure that he will be alive to the slight apprehensions which have been expressed from some quarters.
Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.
Bill read the Third time, and passed.

NURSES (SCOTLAND) BILL

  Order for Second Reading read.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): I beg to move "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  A week or two ago this House unanimously approved of a Nurses Bill for England and Wales. The main object of that Bill was to protect the public and the nursing profession from unauthorised and semi-qualified and unqualified persons who were using the title of "nurse." The Act of 1919, sometimes called "The Nurses' Charter," provided for the State regulation of duly-qualified nurses, but made no provision for the regulation or the use of the designation "nurse" by unqualified persons. More than 20 years have elapsed since the passage of the Act of 1919. By the efforts of a previous Administration two Committees of Inquiry were set up, one the Athlone Committee, so-called because its chairman was the Earl of Athlone, and the other the Alness Committee, so-called because the chairman was Lord Alness. These Committees were set the task of seeing how far they could protect the pub-

  1819
  lic and the nursing profession from the unauthorised use of the word "nurse" by persons who were not qualified to use it.
  The Athlone Committee took evidence that there was a large body of women, varying greatly in age, skill and experience, who were neither trained as nurses nor were in training as student-nurses, but who were engaged in nursing. The Athlone Committee took the view that so long as these assistant nurses worked under supervision in hospitals their employment was of advantage to the community though sometimes their uncontrolled employment outside constituted a definite danger to the public and tended to lower the status of the whole nursing profession. The Athlone Committee were satisfied that far from imperilling the status or the economic position of the State-registered nurse, her position would be more assured if the assistant nurse status were defined and recognised and if at the same time steps were taken to protect nurses in both categories.
  On the other hand, the Alness Committee took an entirely opposite view. They were informed that the number of these assistant nurses in Scotland—at the time when they took evidence, which was in about the year 1938—was negligible, and they were advised and came to the conclusion that the recognition of assistant nurses would tend to lower the status of the profession and would not be in the public interest. They felt that the creation and the recognition of a sub-standard grade of nurse at the lower salary would in the end tend to deteriorate the position achieved under the Act of 1919 by the State-registered nurse. It is an argument based on the old Gresham law that the lower tends to drive the higher out of business. They were unanimous in that vi w
  The Government were then faced with this difficulty, that the English Committee had recommended the recognition of this assistant nurse grade and the Scottish Committee were unanimously against it. The Bill recently passed in this House for England and Wales was on the basis of the recommendations of the Athlone Committee, and immediately that Bill was passed I had to make representations to the powers-that-be in the nursing profession in Scotland that a new situation had
  1820
  arisen. When the Bill for England and Wales was passed, when the use of the word "nurse" was forbidden to certain low-standard categories there, if nothing were done in Scotland, obviously we should be flooded from the South of the Border by these low-standard and unrecognised nurses. I asked Lord Alness to get his Committee together and I met them and ascertained from them that they still stood by the terms of their report, and the evidence they had received that the recognition of these sub-standard nurses would be detrimental, in the long run, to the State registered nurse. Finally, I persuaded them with reluctance—the Alness Committee and others interested in the nursing profession in Scotland—to agree to a compromise, that if we would recognise in a Scottish Bill a grade of assistant nurses, we would only recognise it for a period of five years. That would give the situation which was blowing up as the result of the extra training of nurses due to the war time to settle down, and it would prevent the irruption into Scotland of unqualified nurses to the detriment of the nursing profession there.
  Therefore the first point that I should like to make to the House to-day is that in Clause 2, Sub-section (3), they will find a variation from the terms that the House approved of in the English Bill. The English Bill agreed to the recognition in perpetuity of these, what I call for short, sub-standard or assistant nurses, whereas in this Bill:
  "Unless Parliament shall hereafter otherwise determine, nothing in rules made under this Section shall enable a course of training begun after the expiry of five years from the commencement of this Act to qualify any person for admission to the roll."
  There is the distinction and the difference between the two Measures. That is the first divergence from the English Bill.
  There is another divergency, however, to which I ought to invite the attention of the House. It is in Clause 14, and may I say that there has been some controversy on Clause 14 as to whether, as the Clause is phrased and framed, it is not too wide? On the other hand, there have been strong representations made to us that it is not wide enough. I propose very briefly to state the reasons which actuated us in giving power to the General Nursing Council to frame rules under which they may, in appropriate cases, give a remission in the period of

  1821
  training—[Interruption]—it is the period of training only. I am glad my hon. Friend put that. I will come to it in a moment. They may give a remission in the period of training only in appropriate cases, as they may think fit, to nurses who are studying or propose to study for the full certificate under the 1919 Act. Why should we ask for this at all?
  The Royal College of Nursing, I must say, so far as I know are very largely opposed to the Clause as we have drafted A, but the Royal College of Nursing themselves took a sample of what they called 1,031 of the nurses who are, or will be, in this assistant nurse grade in Scotland, to find out what their experience was and to find out what the facts were about them. Of these 1,031 they discovered that 860 of them had already begun their period of State training to become fully qualified nurses, that 681 of them had had more than a year's training for the position of a State registered nurse, and that as a matter of fact 47 of them had actually passed their preliminary examination, gone through the lectures and all the rest of it. We are urging as many of them as possible to get out of this assistant nurse grade. We say, "Do try to qualify yourselves for the full State registration, for the full salary, the better status and standard." These girls say to us, some of them at all events, "Very well, but here is our position. Some of us have sat for the preliminary examination once and have failed. We have gone through the hoops of the training for it, we have attended the lectures, we have worked as student nurses at the low salary. Does this mean that you are going to ask us now to begin at the beginning, de novo, and go through the-preliminary stage again before we can sit again for our examination?"
  I think there is substance in the case put by those girls. Why should they go back to the lower standard of salary? We are urging them on to qualify for the higher standard. We are not disturbing the conditions of the examination. It is the same examination for everybody, but we say that it is right and reasonable that if a girl has gone through one year, or a year and a half or two years' preliminary training, and has attended her lectures, she should have some remission in the period of training if she intends to sit for her examination again. Not only have some girls sat for these examinations and failed.
  1822
  Some of them have not sat for the examination at all. Some of them got married and are now back in nursing. Is it reasonable, is it just, that they should be asked to start de novo, go to the bottom of the class, so to speak, and start again? Of the 1,031 sample taken by the Royal College of Nursing, 634 had more than one year's student training, and had in addition sometimes three years' experience in a State hospital. We cannot ask those girls to go away back and begin again at the lower standard of salary and go through their lectures and so on again, that is, if we want nurses, and nurses are vital to us at this moment. [Interruption.] Yes, as a matter of fact I think there will be double these figures. We have over 2,000 of them. But the Royal College of Nursing itself—it was not our test but theirs—discovered that there were those figures of girls who had gone through the preliminary training to the extent of a year or more.
  Mr. Lipson: Was this matter considered when the English Bill was framed, or was it considered as a result of objections to that Bill?
  Mr. Johnston: I would not like to answer for the English situation. I have enough troubles of my own.
  Mr. Maxton: What are the girls doing now? Are they in hospitals?
  Mr. Johnston: Yes, many of them are in emergency hospitals now. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson), I would point out that conditions are different in Scotland from what they are in England. They have been different since 1938. The evidence that was tendered to the Athlone Committee showed that a large number were qualified as assistant nurses in England, whereas in Scotland there were only 250. It is only since the war that this problem has arisen with us.
  Mr. Lipson: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that he is not setting a lower standard for Scotland than that for England?
  Mr. Johnston: That is what I am trying to make clear. Please let me continue. We are not interfering one whit with the standards of examination. They have precisely the same standards of examination as those for student nurses. The only

  1823
  concession offered in Clause 14 is a remission of the period of training. It is absolutely vital that the General Nursing Council should have power to fix a remission in the period of training, for good cause shown.
  Commander Sir Archibald Southby: With regard to assistant nurses who are recognised in England but who will not be recognised in Scotland if they go there, will it be possible for them to go to Scotland and take the full training which will qualify them for work in Scotland, and then get employment in a hospital there? If not, what will become of them?
  Mr. Johnston: Certainly; there is complete reciprocity between the two sets of assistant nurses. I hope that if there are any who come to Scotland to get a post in a hospital as assistant nurses, the same terms and conditions will be applicable to them if they will be good enough to struggle and strive to qualify.
  Mr. McNeil: Why did the Alness Committee's Report find only 250 nurses of a sub-standard who had initially started training for a State registration course, while the Royal College of Nursing discovered 950 in what they describe as only a sample? From where have the sudden additional figures come?
  Mr. Johnston: The answer is that the Alness Committee took its evidence in 1938, and that since 1938 there has been such an addition to the nursing profession that, obviously, the numbers of nurses known to the Royal College of Nursing have been greatly increased, The profession has been very badly organised, and it has been very difficult to get precise figures of any kind. I am only saying that the Royal College of Nursing figures themselves disclose these numbers to us. We are urging the nurses who can sit for these examinations to go on and do it. I trust that every effort will be made to encourage these girls. I think it is wrong for girls to be condemned to a sub-standard grade in the profession all their days and given no encouragement—in fact, given great discouragement, because if they have to start de novo they come down to the student nurses' grade in salary. It is preposterous that we should do anything, in these days especially, to discourage girls who are willing to train themselves for the higher grades of the
  1824
  profession. All we ask is that the General Nursing Council shall have power to make these rules. There is no deterioration whatever in the standards of examination. Once this rule is passed by the General Nursing Council, it has to be approved by the Secretary of State for Scotland, and it has to be laid on the Table of this House. More than that, under the principal Act these regulations of the General Nursing Council in Scotland have to be discussed with the General Nursing Council in England. Every possible attempt is being made to secure reciprocity. I am not wedded to the precise words in Clause 14. I propose, on the Committee stage, to suggest that the words:
  "or have undergone training in order to such enrolment"
  might with convenience be deleted—although there are disadvantages in that also. I can appreciate the views of the assistant nurses who have already gone through the hoops of training, and who think that they alone should get the benefit of the proposed regulations. I can understand apprehension being excited by the words in the Clause empowering the General Nursing Council to make some remission in the training period of a nurse who has undergone no period of training as a State registered nurse. It may be possible to secure the object we have in view by making it clear that the Clause will apply to women who have been admitted to the role of assistant nurse and who have at some time undergone training for the State register.
  There are other steps which will be required to make sure that we have adequate nursing facilities in Scotland. We have adequate beds, we have first-class hospitals now, but we are short of nurses. We are short of nurses for tuberculosis, for example.
  Mr. Maxton: You are short of hospitals for tuberculosis, also.
  Mr. Johnston: No, we have plenty of beds.
  Mr. Maxton: Beds in general hospitals?
  Mr. Johnston: We can make arrangements in some of our emergency hospitals if we get an adequate supply of nurses.
  Mr. Maxton: Does the right hon. Gentleman do anything with the local authorities to destroy the practice of mixing tuberculosis patients with the ordinary patients in the general hospitals?
  Mr. Johnston: Will the hon. Member let me get on with this point first? I know that there are a number of difficulties. I say only that we have, by and large, a sufficient number of beds, that we can treat tuberculosis patients in them, and that we have made arrangements to provide beds in our emergency hospitals without interfering in any way with the right of local authorities to run their own hospitals. We are discussing with certain voluntary hospitals how we can affiliate for training purposes some of our splendid emergency hospitals and rotate through two or more of these hospitals student nurses in the course of training. I would like to see more hostel accommodation, girls living out more than they do and less of the barrack room system. I would lake to see, if possible, encouragement given by bursaries, educational training and otherwise. I am not sure we shall not have to do something about the age at which a student must start.
  The question of salaries and the differences between Scotland and England is a long and elaborate calculation, but I can say that not all the advantages are in favour of England. The staff nurse, for example, starts in Scotland at £100 per annum and in England at £100, but in Scotland she goes up £10 per annum to 1£120 after two years, whereas in England she goes up only £5 per annum to £140 in eight years, so that the Scottish nurse is £20 up by the time the fifth year is reached. Then the advantage declines, but it takes eight years before there is equality between the two nurses. There is time after eight years for us in Scotland to make certain that the two maxima are equated. In the meantime it is of the utmost importance that the lower stages should be such as to attract Scottish girls into the profession.
  These, in the main, are the two points of difference between our Bill and the English Bill. The English Bill is bound to be on different lines from ours. The conditions are different, and I hope that after the explanation I have given on the two Clauses that we have had to vary from the English Bill, the House will see its way to give a general concurrence to the idea in this Bill and leave us to the Committee stage to see how far we can get agreement on these two vital points.
  Mr. Mathers: I rise for a few minutes in order to welcome this Bill
  1826
  and to thank the Secretary of State for introducing it. The very full explanation he has given of the differences between this Bill and its English counterpart has been, I am sure, very much welcomed by the House. We wanted to have clearly put before us the reason for these differences. The limitation that is placed upon the period of qualification for this lower standard is a wise one It will be within the competence of the House when the end of the five years is reached, to extend the period it our expectations in that regard are not fully realised. It was, because of these differences, inevitable that there should be a separate Bill for Scotland and we are glad to have the opportunity of dealing with it. As the right hon. Gentleman says, the principal reason for the Bill is to give a proper standing to the assistant nurse position and to provide for the regulation of the arrangements in that connection. The Bill and what flows from it will place further considerable responsibility upon the General Nursing Council for Scotland and I am sure that that influential body will be glad to work the arrangements and set up the necessary standard in a way which will redound to the benefit of the nursing profession. As the Secretary of State has said, nurses are very important people indeed, especially in these days when we are becoming more and more conscious of the importance that health plays in the life of our country, and the establishment of proper arrangements in respect of the training of nurses certainly should take a very prominent part in our consideration of the matter.
  Not only is the question of the status of these nurses important. The question of their remuneration is also important. The Secretary of State has made passing reference to the question of remuneration and we have had our attention drawn to this in very recent times by the publication of the two very valuable Reports from the influential Committee presided over by Professor Taylor. We have a set of standards set up for nurses right through the whole realm of that important profession up to the highest rank, which clearly indicates a great advance in recognition of what nurses are worth. We are, generally speaking, putting nurses on a comparative level with members of the teaching profession. That is all to the good and should enable us to improve the condi-

  1827
  tions of nurses and encourage those who go in for the profession of nursing to make themselves efficient as quickly as possible in order that they may earn the greater rewards available for them in connection with this new improved rate of remuneration that has been brought forward.
  I have had, Like other hon. Members, expressions of concern on the part of those who are interested in Clause 14, which the right hon. Gentleman has indicated he will be willing to modify when we come to the Committee Stage. All the apprehensions that I have had expressed to me in this regard are apprehensions that we might more profitably deal with on the Committee Stage and I propose to leave them until that time. The Secretary of State has given us an indication of what is in his mind on this matter and I am sure that we shall go into it more fully when we come to deal with the Clause on the Committee Stage.
  This Bill represents another incursion by the right hon. Gentleman into the realm of health in Scotland. He has made other incursions into that realm without requiring the aid of legislation to enable him to do so. In many ways health services and facilities in Scotland have been transformed during the period of his occupancy of the position of Secretary of State for Scotland. I think my right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on that and on the developments that we see him obviously determined upon. My hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) rather declaimed against the idea of uttering congratulations to the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Kirkwood: He expressed satisfaction, too.
  Mr. Mathers: Yes, he expressed his gratification at what my right hon. Friend had done but I felt that while he was doing so he was uttering his disgust that there Should be congratulations to anyone simply for doing his job. My reflection on that is this: If my right hon. Friend, instead of recently breaking his arm, had broken his neck there is not one of us who would have hesitated to congratulate him—
  Mr. Kirkwood: On breaking his neck?
  Mr. Mathers: —posthumously on the great work he did while he was Secretary of State for Scotland. I think it is right
  1828
  that we should take the opportunity while he is here, with a broken arm, and not a broken neck, to say how pleased we are at the way he is looking after our affairs in Scotland. This Bill is an indication of the way in which he looks after our affairs. I welcome it, congratulate my right hon. Friend on it and also offer him my congratulations on the work he is doing in the realm of health.
  Mr. Francis Watt: When the Bill connected with English nurses was passing through this House, I was approached by the senior members of the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh and also the Glasgow and Edinburgh branches of the Royal College of Nursing to see what was being done by the Minister with regard to the position of nurses in Scotland. I am glad to say that I found the Tight hon. Gentleman had the situation well in hand but his difficulties, which have not been confined to one sphere of legislation alone, were increased by the fact that a Committee which had investigated the matter had come to a decision somewhat different from that which he has just announced. Nevertheless, I think the Minister has produced a Bill which, from the general point of view, is admirable. There is no doubt whatever about the present shortage of nurses in Scotland; equally there is no doubt that that being the case, it is in the public interest that immediate steps should be taken to remedy matters. The Minister, as head of the Health Department for Scotland, has that responsibility and with his usual thoroughness he has taken the matter in hand.
  Another question, however, which has to be faced is this: How is that shortage of nurses to be made up? It is inevitable that the ordinary course of nursing apprenticeship, if I may so put it, must receive some modification and that whatever happens, the standard of nursing must not be reduced. It is no good bringing into the profession nurses who are not up to the existing standards. What the Bill proposes to do is, first, to create a body of assistant nurses. I understand such nurses must pass a proper examination set by the General Nursing Council, and while I find difficulty in seeing how people who have not done the full course of nursing can pass this examination, _I feel that if that is to be the test, and the matter is left in the hands of the General

  1829
  Council, there need be no apprehension. At any rate, I do not think the Minister can deal with the matter in any other way. But there is another proposal in this Bill which is creating difficulty. It is proposed that the number of State-registered nurses should be increased and in order to give effect to that increase, Clause 14 has been put into the Bill. As I said at the beginning of my speech I was consulted by the Glasgow and Edinburgh branches of the Royal College of Nursing particularly with regard to this Clause and I told them that they would be able to interview the Minister in Edinburgh. They did so and I hoped, knowing the Minister's fairness and tact, that he would be able to find some way out of the difficulty so that this Clause would not trouble us any longer. Since then I and other Members have received letters mentioning that this consultation had taken place, but pointing out that apprehension was still felt about the effect of this Clause.
  One does not wish, on Second Reading, to go into unnecessary details but at the same time this Clause will require to be looked at very carefully and it will probably require considerable revision when we get to the Committee Stage. Personally, I cannot agree that the Clause is a good one; it is badly framed and I do not think it is clear in its results. I am not at all sure whether a better way out of the difficulty, having in mind the fact that we must maintain the standard of nursing, would not be to put the whole matter, without qualification, into the hands of the General Council and leave it to them to say who will be given facilities for coming into the profession as fully registered nurses, after a shorter period of training instead of trying to limit it to people who happen to be assistant nurses. As I say, I am not at all sure whether a better result would not be achieved by treating the matter broadly and leaving the question of how the reduction of the period of training is to be made, in the hands of the proper authorities. As the Clause stands it is imperative that there must be such a reduction. There is no option for the Council but to make a reduction. I have no doubt that the Minister will, as usual, give consideration to the views of the people who feel that they are affected and I hope he will see what can be done to overcome the difficulty. I leave the matter there having indicated that I still
  1830
  think that the College of Nursing has definite grounds for apprehension. I certainly think the matter must be considered more fully.
  There seem to be diverse views on whether one is to congratulate the Secretary of State or not. I think there is no doubt that he deserves the congratulations and thanks of Scotland, and of the nursing profession in particular. There are various ways of dealing with complaints. In the last war, when I joined a Scottish regiment and received a shilling a day for my services there was one occasion when we were not satisfied with the quantity of meat supplied. It seemed to contain rather an undue amount of bone. The sergeant major looked a kindly, genial man, not unlike the Secretary of State, so we took our grievance before him. The only consolation we got was, "When you have been longer in the Army you will realise that the meat that we get comes from a special kind of cow which has twice as much bone as any other." We did not go to him with any more complaints. The Secretary of State deals with complaints on a slightly different and improved basis, because he considers them and is always willing to meet anyone who has any point to raise and tries to get things straightened out. He has just had one real triumph and this is, relatively, a smaller matter, but we all know that he will deal with it in the same way. Accordingly, subject to what I have said, and in the hope and belief that those difficulties which I feel to exist with regard to Clause 14, will be cleared up in Committee, I commend the Bill to the House, and I offer my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mrs. Hardie: The Secretary of State has been having so many bouquets thrown at him that perhaps a little cold douche will not do him any harm. For a very long time I have been interested in the conditions and wages not only of nurses but of women in industry generally. I do not think the nurses have anyone to thank for improving their conditions. It is only the fact that w are not able to gct enough of them that has resulted in this House or anyone else doing much to improve their condition. As late as 1937, in the good old days when private Members had their chance on Fridays, a Bill was brought forward to limit the hours of nurses to 48. It was then stated that the scarcity of nurses

  1831
  was such that we should not get them if we did not improve their conditions, in fact, that we did not deserve to get them. That modest Bill was defeated.
  Mr. Kirkwood: By the Tories.
  Mrs. Hardie: Yes, of course—by something like II votes. There were a few on our side who did not bother to turn up. The Bill was voted down and nothing was done for the nurses. It is only since the shortage of nurses has become acute that the House has taken any interest in their wages and conditions. I am not going to congratulate my right hon. Friend or pat anyone on the back for doing anything for the nurses. It is the law of supply and demand which has resulted in nurses getting some measure of justice. I have heard to-day that at the time to which I refer there were only some 250 women in the nursing profession who had not qualified as State registered nurses. I do not know why the number should have gone up so much since then. I am beginning to wonder whether the standard of education is deteriorating, because we now find that a large proportion of the girls who go in for their examinations do not pass. I suggest that the Secretary of State should look to that point instead of lowering the standard for the nurses. It seems to me that it has been a very sudden conversion on his part which has led him to bring in this Bill. An article in the "Glasgow Herald," which I am sure was based on information given either by the Secretary of State or at any rate by the Scottish Office, said:
  "It is the aim of the Secretary of State to safeguard the standards of the profession in Scotland and as also emphasised in the report by Lord Alness. There will be no creation of a sub-standard class of nurses for Scotland."
  I take it that we are not to have this particular type of assistant nurse introduced into the nursing profession. I believed that the new wages and the much better conditions and opportunities which are to be given to nurses under our new scheme would have attracted a sufficient number of women to carry on the profession. The report to which the article refers was only issued in April and, before we have had any opportunity of testing whether we might get a sufficient number of young women to come into the profession, we immediately bring forward a Bill which is going to dilute the industry. In the De-
  1832
  bate on the English Bill I listened with amazement to speaker after speaker on all sides of the House, calmly arranging to dilute the industry without the consent of the people within it. I heard doctors speak on that occasion. There is a scarcity of doctors. I wonder how they would feel if we suggested assistant doctors who did not qualify in the same way as they had done. We know that we have doctors in training as well as nurses in training but, before they can qualify, surely they have to reach a particular standard of education?
  Therefore, I say frankly to the Secretary of State that, although it may have been necessary, I am very disappointed that this Bill should have been brought in so quickly before we have decided whether we can get a larger number of nurses as a result of the improved conditions and wages that are being offered. I do not like to see the Scottish Secretary so slavishly following the English Minister of Health in bringing forward legislation. I thought, in view of his statement which was reported in the "Glasgow Herald," that he would not have brought in a Bill on these lines at the present time. It was rather misleading to suggest—and it was suggested by the sponsors of the English Bill—that this was a Bill to regulate and to prevent unqualified women from acting as nurses. It will not protect the public at all from the unqualified nurse for it regulates the assistant nurse and gives her the standing of a nurse. It may be true that some parts of nursing do not require such a high standard of training and qualifications as other parts, such as, for instance, the treatment of chronic cases. It is difficult to get people to go into hospitals for chronic cases, because that type of work is not so interesting as the care of cases where there may be a cure. I can understand the joy that a nurse or doctor has in looking after somebody who may be cured and seeing them walk out of the hospital better than when they came in. There is a hopefulness in that kind of work. In hospitals for chronic cases, however, the work is uninteresting, and although it may be very altruistic it becomes very tiresome. I can, therefore, understand the feeling of a nurse who does not want to go into a chronic hospital. The nurse for that type of work is the woman with a high standard of altruism which was characteristic of the nursing profession in the

  1833
  older days and the difficulty will not be remedied by this attempt to bring in a sub-standard nurse.
  We may be forced into having this Measure because we do not know how many nurses we may need during the war. If Europe becomes a shambles we shall want all the nurses we can get, whether trained or not. There seems to be a tendency to think that in future we are going to have hospitals all over the country with armies of nurses and doctors. That kind of prospect fills me with despair because I regard the appalling amount of ill-health that exists in the world as quite unnecessary. Any doctor will tell us that about 90 per cent. of the children who are born are born healthy and, given fair conditions of housing, food and so on, there is no need for this tremendous amount of ill-health. One thing that makes me almost despair is the way in which people accept this standard of ill-health as normal. It is not normal. I am in my sixties and have never been seriously ill, and I have not had an easy life. We want to teach people how to keep well, and that is not so very difficult. Some people accept a sub-standard of health and think that that is just as it should be. I do not think that, in future, we need have all these hospitals and nurses. I do not think we shall need such a tremendous number of nurses when the war is over as we improve housing and working conditions and teach people how to keep healthy. Much of the bad health now is due to bad conditions and the fact that people do not know how to keep themselves well.
  I have spoken, so far, from the point of view of the nurse who is rather afraid of this dilution of her industry. She feels that at a time when she is secure with fairly decent wages and conditions we are going to bring in nurses of a lower standard which will lower the standard of the profession. There is a necessity for well-trained and intelligent women in the nursing profession because there have been great developments in treatment. The nurse to-day has to be a much more skilled person than she was in the old days, better treatment and all kinds of new treatment having been introduced in which the nurse has to be experienced. To lower the standard at such a time is a mistaken policy. I was really disappointed when I saw the Secretary of State so slavishly following the English Bill in this respect, in view
  1834
  of the fact that a Scottish Committee has reported on the subject. This is the same Bill as the English Bill plus Clause 2, Sub-section (3) and Clause 14, which is contentious. I do not think anyone will object to Clause 2 (3), which says:
  "Unless Parliament shall hereafter otherwise determine, nothing in rules made under this Section shall enable a course of training begun after the expiry of five years from the commencement of this Act to qualify any person for admission to the roll."
  I take it that that means that after five years this type of assistant nurse will cease 'to exist without the permission of Parliament. There is fear in the nursing profession about Clause 14. I do not take any exception to the spirit of it. I think that it is one of the most hopeful things with regard to the assistant nurse that she is to be provided with a ladder from which she can climb from the lower to the higher grade if she has ability and desires to do so. I am glad that the Secretary of State has decided to look into this Clause and see whether he can make it more acceptable to the nursing profession. I like the idea that if a student nurse is not successful in her examination or has not had the educational advantages that some of the other girls have had, she is not to be barred for ever from stepping up into the higher grade. I agree with the Secretary of State that after a girl has done a certain amount of training she should not be expected to start from scratch and that she should have some advantage because of her training. It would be for the Council to decide what that advanage should be, and that is where some different wording of the Clause is needed. It would be absurd to say to the girl who has had two years' hospital training that she must start from the beginning and work up. Therefore I do not object to the Clause as it stands. I do not object to the spirit of the Clause but I am glad that the Secretary of State is going to do something for that is the one Clause about which I have received representations from nurses in Scotland. Therefore, I do not suppose that I can oppose the Bill, but I hope they will be successful in providing a sufficiency of nurses and not lower the standard of the nursing profession.
  Mr. McNeil: It gives me a rather uncomfortable feeling to have to differ so sharply from my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn (Mrs. Hardie). I feel she does a disservice to this profession,

  1835
  for whom she has already done so much work and for whom we all know she has a very high regard, when she talks of this Bill introducing an element of dilution. Indeed—I am sure I will not be misunderstood—I feel that the Secretary of State himself did not help matters when he chose this word "sub-standard" to describe this type of nurse. I know there are great difficulties here and that much thought has been spent by the Council to find the right description, but I think from the point of view of the profession and the confidence of the public we should stick rather closely to the word "assistant nurse" and leave it at that. They are not half-trained nurses; they are certainly not dilutees. I think the Member for Springburn does herself less than justice when she talks about this dilution, which inevitably means the introduction of a new element into the profession, whereas the problem the Secretary of State has to solve is how to protect his patients and organise his industry from an unorganised element which arithmetic has driven him to accept, and therefore, unlike my hon. Friend, I am not at all disappointed at the conversion of the Secretary of State to which she referred. It is not a position any of us accepted with any great glee, but if we were to be realistic about the situation, then we had to have a Bill more or less of this character.
  I am concerned because I seem to see a conflict in the two substantial departures which my right hon. Friend has made in the Bill. When you have suffered so many Scottish Members to-day, Sir, it might be quite fitting for me to say in consolation eat I do not necessarily think that to follow an English example is necessarily bad. We should not immediately conclude that because it is an English Bill it is not a good Bill. I, like others, am glad of Clause 14. This Clause, I feel fairly certain, will give a stimulus to the assistant nurse and also will give some kind of professional dignity to this grade. At any rate I am certain that my hon. Friend who has just spoken is quite right when she says that it is good business and just and encouraging that women in the profession who have already given some service should have that service recognised and be left a device by which they can raise themselves, and that in itself, I should think, would be an enticement to any who may come into the pro-
  1836
  fession as a war-time job and are not at all certain whether they are going to make it a life career or not.
  But, unlike any other speaker in the Debate, I think this clashes sharply with the other difference between the Scottish and English Bills; that is, Clause 2. I dislike Clause 2 exceedingly and urge on the right hon. Gentleman that he is in a not negligible measure jeopardising the success of his efforts. This Sub-section provides that, unless Parliament decides otherwise, this grade of assistant nurse ceases to have new entrants in five years' time. Several speakers seem to have assumed that it meant the end of the assistant nurse. I cannot see how that can be. Having created your assistant nurse, you must allow her to retain her status, and therefore you must retain your roll, and you must also retain your grades, but I take it that the Secretary of State is saying to the girls of Scotland as he said in the conclusion of his speech, "Here is a difficult war-time situation. We have patients, we have hospitals, beds, we have equipment, we have not got nurses. Come in on this professional status of assistant nurse," and then, under the Sub-section he says, "But don't forget this is a rump profession, a profession I hope to see disappear." It is a profession that by this qualification we admit is a second best and a very poor second best. My hon. Friend quite properly sees the opportunity and says, "It is a very close second best." On the assumption that this is necessary, it will continue to be necessary. I say that although the hon. Member thinks it is undesirable, I think it is essential, and I think the Secretary of State thinks it is essential. I think the hon. Member is in a sense jeopardising the success of this regrading attempt.
  Previous Members in this Debate, and in the Debate on the English Measure, pointed to the high standard of education needed to get a satisfactory entrance to the top grade of the profession just now. One of the necessities for accepting this assistant grade lies in the fact that there are, once you have deducted your teaching quota, insufficient girls coming from our Scottish secondary schools to-day to meet even recruitment needs.
  The last speaker said that she hoped to see the great need for hospitals disappear. So do we all, and not one of us would disagree with her sentiments when

  1837
  she says that we ought to transfer our energies to the positive aspect of health and teach the people how to live. I hope we are going to do that, and that it will have an effect upon those who are still at school, but we still have with us other generations of those who have not had that instruction, and so I say, in spite of the developments of medical science which some of us anticipate and many of us hope for, that within the next 30 or 40 years we can expect no diminution in the number of beds needed and the necessary professional attendance. That, I most seriously argue, rather disposes of the need for this Sub-section. I am going to make a concession to the "diehards" of the Alness Committee. I know privately that the Secretary of State does not accept the opinions held by the Committee, but I am afraid, despite the tributes already paid to them, it is to be feared that they made no very keen research into the arithmetic of even the 1938 situation.
  Shortly, if there is to be this continued need the Secretary of State should not jeopardise his scheme by stigmatising this new grade of nurses as a war-time, rump profession. Let me call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to Clause 5, in which he provides machinery for an appeal to the Court of Session. I can hardly expect the law officers within the Ministry to agree with me, but I think it might be cheaper, and it certainly would be quicker, if one could provide some court of arbitration within the Nursing Council to which these appellants might go. With these three qualifications I, like all other hon. Members who have spoken to-day, very gladly support the Bill, and if I do not throw any bouquets it is not because they are not undeserved but because I think the Secretary of State, like you yourself, Sir, must by this time be rather tired of Scottish voices to-day.
  Sir Henry Fildes: I rise first to thank the Secretary of State for the concession he has made in regard to Clause 14 in saying that before we reach the Committee stage he will look into the matter very carefully and see if the way is clear to meet some of the representations which have been made to him. This Bill must indeed be welcome to Scotland by bringing about better regulations for the nursing profession than obtain at present. I am glad to know, also, that the Secretary of State is well aware that
  1838
  in providing nurses for the ills that visit the human race he is at the same time taking steps to reduce as far as possible the causes of the various diseases which have such disastrous effects industrially and socially. I do indeed welcome the broad-minded and energetic way in which the Secretary of State, and if I may say so his assistant, have tackled this matter, and, speaking for my constituency, I welcome indeed the efforts he is putting forward.
  Commander Galbraith: I would like to allude in the first place to certain remarks made by the hon. Lady the Member for Springburn (Mrs. Hardie), and I would like to agree with her very whole-heartedly in the matter of the pay and conditions of the nurses, which for far too long have been far less than they deserve, and I do not know that even now they are sufficiently high for the amount of work, the amount of training and the amount of responsibility which nurses take on their shoulders. But when the hon. Lady came to speak of the Bill as not regulating the nursing profession, then I parted company with her, because it seems to me that that is one thing that this Bill does do. As I understand the situation at this time, it is that we have a considerable number of people, some 2,000 of them my right hon. Friend tells me, who are called nurses and yet may have no experience whatever. So far as I understand it, the purpose of this Bill is to take these in and make them assistant nurses if they have the necessary qualifications to have that title applied to them. I think, along with all those hon. Members who have spoken, that this Bill should most certainly receive its Second Reading, because after all its purposes are that these assistant nurses should, if they are worthy of it, be given a recognised status, and, secondly, it is designed to protect the nursing profession and the public from persons with little or no training.
  The only representation I have had made to me in connection with this Bill is in regard to Clause 14. We have had a very definite assurance from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in his opening speech, to the effect that this would in no way lower the qualifications which were required in connection with one becoming a State registered nurse, and that, I think, should go far to calm

  1839
  or relieve the anxiety of those who feel on this matter. I think there is a certain amount of misapprehension likely to crop up here. The Clause refers to a reduction in the period of training, but where we are at a misunderstanding, I think, is that surely the period of training which is referred to in the Clause is that prescribed in a hospital to enable one to qualify as a State registered nurse. Today particularly there are very many people who are nursing, who are getting experience, who are getting training under State registered nurses, but who would not qualify as having entered on this prescribed course of training which is laid down. These people should have an opportunity after qualifying as State registered nurses. The Bill does not mean that their whole period of service is being reduced; it does not mean that they are really getting off any lighter. It means that experience that they have gained outside the prescribed course is, under certain conditions, to be allowed to count. There are women who, perhaps being a little young, instead of starting straight off in one of our big training hospitals, have gone into some of the big training homes, in Glasgow and elsewhere. They have spent perhaps two, three or four years there; they are acknowledged by the medical officers who attend those homes to be first-class nurses; but they cannot get their State registration unless they go back to the beginning and work up afresh. In so far as Clause 14 allows people like that to get a remission of time, it is all to the good.
  I personally welcome this Bill. I think that, following on the assurance we have had from the Secretary of State, the fears which have been expressed as to the prestige of the nursing profession being lowered are unfounded. But I would like to put one point to my right hon. Friend. Clause 14 gives no indication that the standard of the examination is to be maintained. He has given us his assurance, but it is not in the Bill. I think that, with very little difficulty, words could be added to the Clause which would make the position absolutely watertight. I would ask him to consider that before the next stage, and to see what can be done.
  Mr. McLean Watson: It seems to me that if the Secretary of State
  1840
  had slavishly followed the English Bill, he would have had the Second Reading before now. The only objections are to the innovation which he has made. Clause 2, Sub-section (3), which he has introduced into the Bill, has resulted in a good deal of discussion. I am inclined to disagree with the Secretary of State on that Sub-section. In this matter we are legislating in the dark. We do not know where we are in regard to this profession. There must be a considerable army of nurses who are being retained for special duties in connection with military operations. We do not know when the war will end, and I do not disagree with the five years' limit in the Clause. Surely, before five years are over we shall be out of our present difficulties, although we may be in other difficulties. We shall be through the war, I hope and expect; and we may have a very large army of fully-trained nurses to staff all the hospitals that we require. Of course, if what my hon. Friend the Member for Spring-burn (Mrs. Hardie) envisages takes place, and we are going to have a shambles in Europe—
  Mrs. Hardie: We might.
  Mr. Watson: Yes, we might. Then we might have thousands, or tens of thousands, of mutilated men on our hands for years, and there is no saying what nursing assistants we may require. But I think the Secretary of State is wise in laying down this limit of five years for this class of assistant nurses to come along and qualify. The nursing profession is a very important one, both in peace and in war. I very largely agree with many of the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn that if we could get our people educated to lead healthier lives, we would not require so many hospitals and nurses, but we do require them. This is a most important service, which occasionally arouses the admiration of everybody in the country. Recently we had an outbreak of smallpox in Scotland, and we had nurses who volunteered to undertake nursing duties in those circumstances. The girls who go into smallpox hospitals and undertake that disagreeable work are heroines. There is also the question of tuberculosis, and there are nurses in our sanatoria doing most valuable work. Women who are engaged on work of that kind are really entitled not only to decent

  1841
  conditions, but to adequate remuneration as well. While it may be true that the remuneration of nurses in Scotland will be improved as compared with that in England, I am not going to say that their remuneration is greater than the services they render.
  I am not inclined to quarrel with the two changes the Secretary of State has made with regard to the Bill. I think that there should be a limit to the period in question, and I think he has fixed a reasonable one in making it five years. I agree again with him in the line be has taken in being prepared to look at Clause 14 to see that the standard of training is not reduced to such a point as to be a danger to the profession. If these two points are met, there is no reason why this Bill should not speedily go on to the Statute Book and help to improve the conditions for nurses in Scotland.
  Mr. McKie: I do not intend to take up more than a few moments of the time of the House, as I have already inflicted myself on the House on the previous Measure. I only want to reinforce what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Fildes) and indeed the sentiments which have been echoed by every Member who has spoken, including the Secretary of State, with regard to the importance of Clause 14. The hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson) said that if the Secretary of State had slavishly followed the English Bill, we might have had this Measure through the House in a very few minutes. We Scottish Members have had a great number of postal communications in the last few days in regard to this Clause, in dealing with which the Secretary of State, in opening the Debate, devoted so much time. His speech, as previous speakers have made clear, has gone a very long way towards removing doubts and misgivings which were in the minds of many of us owing to the communications we have received in the past few days from many in the nursing profession who thought that in some way or other they were likely to suffer by this Clause as at present drafted. Of course, we know that the Scottish Office in promoting this Bill, just like the Ministry of Health in promoting the Measure which this House disposed of a few weeks ago, in no way wishes to jeopardise, interfere or hinder those who are engaged in this great profession of nursing. This
  1842
  Measure is designed to place the nursing profession in a position of even greater efficiency than obtains at the present time. The Minister has indicated that he is willing to meet in every way possible between now and the Report stage the fears which have been expressed by so many in the nursing profession with regard to Clause 14.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline alluded to the position of nurses in the present war and said we do not know the day or hour when their services, owing to. military operations, may not be utilised in a way in which they have not been utilised during the last three and a half years. It was right that he should draw attention to that in order that in no way whatever, so far as is reasonably possible, should anybody in the profession suffer, as they think they may suffer under Clause 14 as it at present stands. Personally, I feel that the Minister and those associated with him in the Scottish Office realise to the full the importance of not hindering or obstructing this noble and sacred profession, but of helping forward in every way possible this work of love and mercy.
  Mr. Francis Beattie: This Bill has had a certain amount of criticism directed against it and in some quarters has been received with anxiety. I have shown the Minister petitions which I have had from nurses serving in infirmaries in the City of Glasgow, to which there were a large number of signatures. These nurses are vitally interested in reciprocity and in Clause 14 and while I do not propose to elaborate the provisions of this Clause, I want to emphasise to the Minister the keen interest that these nurses are taking in it. They fear that the status of nurses will be lowered. Anything the Minister does to raise the status of the nursing profession will, I am sure, have the support of the House; anything he does to lower it will meet with definite criticism. I do not think, however, that there is any reason to fear that the general status of the profession will be lowered by this Bill.
  The Minister said that there were 2,000 assistant nurses and that a sample of them had been taken by the General Nursing Council. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what arrangements are being made for training centres. From the Alness period until now there

  1843
  has been a very considerable increase in the number of available nurses. It is evident that many training centres must be created. If they have been created, I should be glad to know where they are. I want to congratulate the Minister on bringing in this Bill, which I am sure will be for the general welfare of the nursing profession.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): I think the Debate has really proved that there is an earnest desire on the part of the House, and particularly of Scottish Members, to see this Bill speedily on the Statute Book. I can assure hon. Members that there is no intention in any way to reduce the standard or the qualifications of those who are engaged, or to be engaged, in the nursing profession. The Bill in no respect seeks to dilute the profession. Its primary purpose is not to increase the numbers of those in the profession but to see that only those who have been trained and have the qualification can in future use the term "nurse" and that those who are not so trained and qualified cannot mislead sick persons who require competent attention. There is no intention to reduce the status, training or qualifications of the nursing profession. I think the Debate has also conclusively proved that we have not slavishly followed the provisions of the English Bill. The main Debate has been on Clauses 2 and 14, and I think that, of itself, refutes the suggestion. Some Members have indicated that they dislike Clause 2. Whether the need is with us five years hence, because of the shortage of nurses, to continue assistant nurses, or rather to continue recruiting them, will be for Parliament to decide, because Clause 2 makes it perfectly clear that the roll of assistant nurses can be added to only during the five years and that it will cease to be further made up at the end of five years, unless Parliament otherwise determines.
  Mr. McNeil: Did the Parliamentary Secretary say that the roll would cease?
  Mr. Westwood: No, I did not. I said it ceased to be made up. The roll will continue.
  Mr. McNeil: And no additions will take place?
  Mr. Westwood: No. Additions will not take place. Whether the need exists at the
  1844
  end of five years will be considered by whoever may then be responsible for dealing with these problems. The aim and object of the Bill is to keep up the standard of the nursing profession. We are not anxious to have assistant nurses as such, but we want to give them an opportunity. There are five years in which they can get their training and qualify. We are very hopeful that the improved conditions in the nursing profession will attract the nurses that we require to meet the problems that are arising, because the need for nurses will be greater in future if we are to have a comprehensive health service and a comprehensive medical service. If we are to work on one of the basic assumptions of the Beveridge Report, which incidentally was accepted by the Government—that of a comprehensive health service—we shall require more and more nurses. We have taken the right step to attract an increased number by the improvement in salaries which were recommended by the Taylor Committee. Some of those recommendations will be found on page 23 of the Committee's second report. The recommendations on conditions of hours and employment will be found on page 19. These recommendations, so far as salaries are concerned, bring the nursing profession in some respects almost alongside the teaching profession. If we want to attract larger numbers of the type of individual we want in the nursing profession, we must improve the conditions of employment and the scale of salaries. We have been trying to do so. We have advised the local authorities that we will meet 50 per cent. of the increased costs that will fall on them, to enable them to pay the increased salaries recommended by the Taylor Committee. I have made it clear that Clause 2 can be reconsidered by Parliament, but we limit its operation just now for five years.
  Mr. McNeil: Sub-section (3) of Clause 2 provides that no one undertaking training after the five years shall be added to the roll, but elsewhere the Bill provides for reciprocity with the English and Northern Ireland roll, if it is created. Are we to exclude English or Northern Ireland assistant nurses, who commence training after that date? If you are not going to exclude them you will have to add to the roll.
  Mr. Westwood: Some of these intricate points are better debated on the Committee stage. All the points raised on Second reading will be considered between now and the Committee stage with a view to a proper reply being given to them.
  Clause 14 is the only other really contentious Clause, but the Secretary of State has already made it clear that he is prepared lu reconsider the drafting. Let me again emphasise the fact that the main purpose of this Bill is to protect the general public against the unqualified nurse. The purpose of setting up a register is to see that the person who calls for a nurse will be sure, if the term "nurse" is used, that they have a properly qualified person to look after them. I think it will be admitted that the general public are frequently unaware of the distinction between the registered nurse and someone who merely calls herself a nurse. This will be obviated if this Bill is placed on the Statute Book and the register is set up as suggested by the Bill. Then Clause 6 provides that no other than a registered nurse or enrolled assistant nurse will be accepted with certain exceptions. This will definitely improve the status of the profession.
  So far as the point made by the Member for Cathcart (Mr. F. Beattie) is concerned, it is perfectly true that the demands for nurses will increase when war ends, if we are to have a comprehensive health service. Nursing personnel will be required for the extended medical hospital and public health services we are now planning. Casualties now being treated oversea will have to be brought home and nurses will also be needed for work in the liberated countries. The women doing temporary war nursing will have to be replaced. Some important steps have already been taken to increase the number of women available for nursing. In the first place, I have already indicated that, in order to make the profession more attractive, we have accepted the recommendations of the Taylor Committee, so far as the conditions of employment in the service of nursing are concerned. I want to express appreciation of the work done by the Committee and to thank Professor Taylor and his associates for their services. We have commended these reforms to the employing authorities and undertaken to pay 50 per cent. towards the cost of the salary increases.
  Commander Galbraith: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether that also applies to voluntary hospitals, as well as local authorities?
  Mr.Westwood: I think it does, but I will make sure and tell my hon. and gallant Friend exactly what the position is. I understand that we are prepared to make them apply to the voluntary hospitals.
  The quickest way of obtaining nurses for immediate needs is to draw on the available trained women who are not at present in the profession and, with this in view, all persons between the ages of 18 and 60 years of age who are at present engaged in nursing or have at any time been so engaged for a period of six months, were registered in April this year. The National Advisory Council for the recruitment and distribution of nurses and midwives, recently appointed by the Minister of Labour and National Service, are to advise on how women selected for nursing after interview, can best be used in the present emergency. Then we propose to draw the attention of education authorities to the increased shortage of nurses and ask them afresh, to interest suitable girls in secondary schools in undertaking pre-nursing courses. We also propose to urge local authorities, if this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, to provide and, by every means stimulate, interest in pre-nursing courses and continuation classes, and also to ask for further pre-nursing courses at central institutions. We are now carrying through negotiations with the hospital authorities for the purpose of providing the necessary training facilities to enable us to give the proper training to those who are recommended.
  Mr. Francis Beattie: With the voluntary hospitals as well?
  Mr. Westwood: We have had negotiations with the voluntary hospitals. We are conducting negotiations with a view to getting a scheme, which will be satisfactory to all, to improve the training facilities which can be made available. Having pointed out these things, I am sure that I am voicing the views of the Secretary of State when I say that he is deeply indebted to the House for the manner in which it has received this Bill and for the helpful Debate that we have just had. We shall go to the Committee Stage

  1847
  with the full knowledge that every one of us will be working for one common purpose—to improve the status of the profession, to provide only the best of nursing facilities for our people in Scotland, and to do what is best in the interests of the health of the people.
  Commander Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman has referred to my right hon. Friend's undertaking to examine Clause 14 to see whether it can be modified in any way. Will he also consider the point which I put as to including words which will remove all anxiety as to the qualifications required to become a State-registered nurse being maintained?
  Mr. Westwood: I cannot add anything to the pledge which was given by the Secretary of State. That pledge was that there would be a reconsideration of Clause 14 with a view to its re-drafting, if we were so advised, for the purpose of making the Bill a still better Bill. I trust now that we shall get a unanimous Second Reading.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for the next Sitting Day.—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]

  SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS.
  Resolved,
  "That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section for of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Wellingborough, a copy of which was presented to this House on 25th May, be approved."—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]

  POST-WAR GERMANS (EDUCATION)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]
  Captain Cunningham-Reid: The time of the House has been taken up all day with matters concerning Scotland, and I should like now to transport the House to Germany, for we have reached that period in the war when the representatives of the people in this
  1848
  House should begin to make up their minds on what they consider the major victorious Powers should do with Germany after the war. There are already so many schools of thought in this country that unless there is a fair measure of agreement before this war ends, Bedlam will break out when the time actually comes to deal with this immense problem. How much less likely are the major victorious Powers to agree on a policy if we in this country have not agreed among ourselves.
  It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir J. Edmondson.]
  Captain Cunningham-Reid: If we ourselves have neglected to debate and sort out our ideas in good time before the peace, the net result could be disagreement between the Allies when Germany could emerge the main beneficiary. Germany is the cauldron of world trouble. In less than a century she has been responsible for five major wars. Again and again when the world was settling down to happier times, everything has been upset by the inbred aggressiveness of the Teutons. In her inglorious history Germany has demonstrated that the reason for her existence is war. The German Empire always has been, and always will be, thoroughly bad and a menace to civilisation.
  There is a growing school of thought in this country, a particular school of thought led by Lord Vansittart, whose realisation of this is as practical as their solution is impracticable.
  Mr. Driberg: And will guarantee another war in 20 years.
  Captain Cunningham-Reid: I am coming to that in a minute. Their policy of preventing the Germans from starting yet another war is to educate them so that they will be good boys in the future. I appreciate the fact that the Minister of Education is here to-day, and I am hoping that he is at this stage thinking about who is going to educate a matter of 80,000,000 embittered people. What a fantastic job, to attempt to educate a whole race to be peaceful, a race that for centuries has had the instinct for war

  1849
  deep down in its nature. That instinct was even further ingrained by the humiliation and desire for revenge after the last war. How much more will it be ingrained after their defeat in this war. I believe it would be much easier to educate 80,000,000 baboons to give up baboon instincts.
  If the tables were turned, do these Vansittart wishful thinkers imagine that the Nazis would be able to eradicate British instincts from Britishers? The Nazis were not going to be such fools as to try anything so impossible. They have the simpler plan of making the British Empire a part of the German Empire, when Germans would rule us and be constantly on the spot to see that no major trouble was caused. There is yet another school of thought to which I desire to draw the attention of the House, which concerns itself with post-war Germany. It has recently come into the limelight. It is made up of a group of Members of both Houses of Parliament, and, although Lord Vansittart is supposed to be connected with the group, I have not noticed that his name appears in their manifesto, with that of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) and other responsible sponsors. I also notice that this group avoided stressing the policy of "educating" the Germans. One is further heartened by hearing from them in that manifesto that
  "a condition of peace must be the certainty that Germany shall not be in a position again to launch aggressive wars on the world."
  The group's main plan for ensuring that comes, so far as I can see, under the following heading:
  "Germany shall be allowed no Army, Navy or Air Force until the Allied Nations decide otherwise."
  That looks very fine in print; but what happens if in, say, 20 years' time we get a Government in this country which, oblivious to the lessons of the past, weakly decides that the poor Germans shall no longer be suppressed; and if at that time, or even earlier, America gets bored by her European commitments, or it the Russians happen during that long intervening period to be at variance with the English-speaking nations? It is no good for an hon. Member to say that that is absurd, because it is exactly what happened after the last war, and if it could happen then, there is no reason why it should not happen again.
  1850
  Therefore, I feel justified in saying that there is only one reasonably certain way of preventing Germany from starting another war, and I am very relieved to see that the group to which I have just referred has already take a big step in the right direction. They are already prepared—again according to their manifesto—to take away from Germany East Prussia—for they say it never should have been a part of Germany—and a large part of Western Germany—understandable because that territory is made up of all those strategic Rhine Provinces. I wonder whether there are many Members of this House who noticed that only the other day Mr. J. E. Davies, a former United States Ambassador to Moscow, who I believe is there now, who is considered by a great number of people to be one of the greatest authorities on Russia, and who is esteemed by many Russians, said:
  "After the war the Russians would naturally want back the territory that had been taken away from them by force after the last War."
  I would ask the House to notice those words, "after the last war," for I find that there is considerable ignorance as to the extent of the Russian territory which was lost to them after the last war. Alhough I am aware that the majority of Members of this House would know about it, it might interest quite a number of people outside to learn that territory Russia lost after the last war comprised practically the whole of Poland. Therefore, I think one is entitled to say, "If the Russians insist on that, what then is going to happen to Poland?" The Russians have already hinted in no uncertain way that after this war there is nothing to prevent Poland from being resurrected —that is to say, the major part of Poland —on former German territory. Actually the term used was, "The Poles could go West." But as that expression has a rather different meaning in this country very likely from what it has in Russia, I choose to put it in another way.
  Anyhow, we have to face up to this situation, that it may come to this, that unless at the end of hostilities we intend to fight the Russians, we may have to take their advice about Polish frontiers. Assuming that something like that which I have envisaged comes about—
  Mr. Kirkwood: The hon. and gallant Member said that most of Poland was taken over by the

  1851
  Russians. I thought that Poland was allotted practically equally between Russia and the dual Government of Austro-Hungary and Germany.
  Captain Cunningham-Reid: I think that the hon. Member very likely misunderstood what I said. What I was attempting to convey to the House was the fact that it has been suggested that Russia would desire to have back those territories that -she possessed before the last war, and I was pointing out to the House that if all the United Nations agreed to that after the war, it would mean that practically all that territory which between the last war and this had been Poland's would go back to Russia.
  If that occurs, such a slice out of Germany which would have to take place if the Poles were compensated in the manner suggested, together with the cutting off of East Prussia and a large portion of West Germany, as suggested by this influential group of British politicians, would not leave very much of Germany. I believe it has been demonstrated by the hacking up after the last war that if one takes away the limbs of a country, it is more humane, and it is certainly safer in the case of Germany, to obliterate the trunk as well.
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—and I seem to feel that there were not many Members of the House who noticed it, otherwise there would have been some question in the House—said, recently, according to the Press:
  "Whatever else was the result of this war, let us make sure there will be no more German nation."
  I say quite deliberately that, in my opinion, he is right. Why not this time make a thorough job of it? Let us stop playing about with these theoretical and complicated palliatives which have been put forward by these various well-meaning groups of idealists. I personally am concerned about my two young sons, and I know there is only one sure way of preventing Germans of the future killing our children, and that is, by adopting the simple and straightforward policy of "No more Germany, no more war."
  I am filled with apprehension, for I see these idealists in our midst getting dangerously busy again. May I remind this House that it was a mixture of idealism
  1852
  and complacency that encouraged us after the last war to get slack with Germany? Our weak tolerance at that time has been rewarded by an exhibition of ruthless barbarism unprecedented in the history of the world. There have been mass murder from the air, the organised starvation of whole communities, bestiality towards little children and wholesale massacres. Germany—and I stress as a country—must no longer exist. This war is the culminating, grandiose atrocity by which she has not only forfeited her right to nationhood but has forfeited any right to a place in civilisation. This time we cannot afford any weakness; this time stark realism must guide us.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: It is a curious kink in our Constitution which enables any hon. Member to occupy the time of the House and keep the whole machinery of House of Commons business in train for half-an-hour after-it might normally cease in order to give other hon. Members the benefit of such inane and inadequate views as have been presented to-day by the hon. and gallant Member for St. Marylebone (Captain Cunningham-Reid).
  Captain Cunningham-Reid: Has anybody asked the hon. Member to make the kind of speech which he obviously intends to make?
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The hon. and gallant Member has made his speech in his own way, and I propose to make my speech in my own way.
  Captain Cunningham-Reid: That is no answer to my question.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The hon. and gallant Gentleman comes here and makes a speech which cannot have anything but the worst possible import. What he says in this House goes out to the world. Every phrase he uses about postwar problems is sent by various means of publicity, through the ether maybe or the Press, to the Poles in this country and to the Russians in Russia—to many peoples occupied with their various problems and who may be distraught beyond measure at the progress of the war in this or that direction. Yet the hon. and gallant Member thinks he can come here and give the House a dissertation in armchair strategy and by doing so seek to ameliorate present or future conditions. I would

  1853
  like to ask him, How dare he come here and make the type of speech he has just made?
  Mr. Kirkwood: Because he is a Member of Parliament and has the right to make the kind of speech he likes.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Certainly he has the right to make the kind of speech he likes, but at any rate he is most unwise and wholly wrong in coming down to this House to get the tremendous publicity with which is associated any speech made in this Chamber and making the kind of speech he has just made and giving vent to the sort of views he has given vent to.
  Captain Cunningham-Reid: The hon. Member has asked me how dare I make such a speech and I retort, How dare he make an undiluted personal attack?
  Mr. Kirkwood: Is it because the hon. Member is a Lord?
  Captain Cunningham-Reid: Just because the Noble Lord is bare of any constructive ideas of his own, is that any reason why he should resent the constitutional rights of other Members or try to prevent them from putting forward what they sincerely believe to be the best for the country? That is my answer. I have as much right to speak in the House as he has to get up and criticise me. I notice that he did not deny just now that he was asked to get up on this occasion by someone else in order to criticise me.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I repeat that it is sheer waste of time for a Member of the House, in the totally insignificant position that he holds—
  Captain Cunningham-Reid: I would rather be that than a party stooge.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: —having taken a course of action in the war which is universally condemned, having left the country at a critical time and gone off to gallivant in. Honolulu—
  Captain Cunningham-Reid: May I ask you,Sir—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I would ask the Noble Lord not to proceed along that line of argument.
  Viseount Hinchingbrooke: In my submission, the hon. and gallant Gentleman has by his inane action shown himself
  1854
  entirely unworthy to address the Chamber on a subject of such grave import to many gallant fighting peoples. It may be that he has sought to give us another quarter of an hour of speech-making at a time when the House might well have adjourned, in order to provide material for a forthcoming pamphlet, It is to be noticed that every two or three months a new pamphlet is to be seen by the hon. and gallant Gentleman for sale on the bookstalls.
  Captain Cunningham-Reid: So the Noble Lord is jealous now?
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I must confess that I have not yet invested in any copy, but one cannot help observing them in their flaming colours at various times for all to see and, no doubt, for a few misguided folk to buy,
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hope the Noble Lord will adhere to the subject matter under discussion.
  Captain Cunningham-Reid: Just now the Noble Lord had something to say about my war record. I should like him to tell the House something about his war record, and I ask him, as he takes exception to my war record, whether he knows anything about it at all and whether he would not have been wiser to have first looked into the matter. In the meantime let him tell the House about his record.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I will take a suitable opportunity with the indulgence of the House. This is not the moment. I do not desire to stand any further between the hon. and gallant Gentleman and the President of the Board. Obviously he wants to have some sort of reply, and we shall all await with great attention what my right hon. Friend has to say.
  Mr. Driberg: I do not want to say anything about personalities. I merely want to urge the right hon. Gentleman to repudiate most vigorously these attempts, which I regard as mischievous and ignorant attempts, by apparently influential groups in his own party, and other people, to prejudge what must surely be a matter for the whole of the United Nations to decide, and I want him to endorse the very wise attitude towards Germany, the German State and the German people which has been expressed on a number of occasions by Mr. Stalin.
  The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): The hon. and gallant Gentleman who raised this matter gave notice of his intention to do so to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who is unfortunately not able to be present, and, in view of the fact that one of the matters to which he wished to draw attention related to the question of education on the international plane, my right hon. Friend asked me if I would say a few words on the subject in reply to what the hon. and gallant Gentleman had to put forward. In regard to the exchanges that have taken place and some of the wider observations on world events and strategy which have been brought up, I had better adhere to my own subject and leave those questions either to personal conflict afterwards when we rise or to the wiser deliberations of the statesmen who are responsible for those particular subjects. I should not regret reverting for a moment to those happy pursuits which used to engage me when I was at the Foreign Office, but I had better adhere now to the studies in which I am engaged. My own particular responsibility in this matter has been to take the chair at a conference which I called of the Allied Ministers of Education to examine the question how far education can help us in the immense tasks which lay before us at the conclusion of the war. The four meetings we have held so far have shown that there is a great opportunity for education to enlarge its sphere and to lay some of that basis of understanding without which any superstructure, either political or economic, cannot in future be properly erected. I think that some of our misfortunes and difficulties before were due to the fact that we were not based on proper foundations. That is why this subject of international understanding and the possibility of cultural conventions or treaties of understanding between nations being precedent to political understanding, which I am exploring with my colleagues the Ministers of Education, is one which I think may have fruitful results. If as a result of the hon. and gallant Member's initiative I can acquaint the House with these attempts, I shall have done something useful. We shall continue in our work, but we cannot do so in a hurry.
  1856
  When we come to the question of the re-education of Germany, we come to a subject on which I have time to say a few short and sharp words. In my opinion and in the general opinion of my colleagues, the best way to start the reeducation of Germany is to show the enemy what things she cannot do. That can best be done by the imposition of an overwhelming military defeat upon Germany so that she may learn once and for all that those evil doctrines which have inspired her philosophy and her leaders for so many years and have had such terrible results shall not be able to occur again. Therefore, I would say without hesitation that as a preliminary to the question of how to re-educate an enemy country, and in particular Germany, there is no hesitation in this country or among the United Nations in saying that a complete and unconditional surrender must precede any such attempt. While we should teach first of all that war does not pay, we should also be wise to realise that the re-education of the people comes better from inside that people themselves. When I examine such excellent documents as the First Report of the Joint Commission of the London International Assembly and the Council for Education in World Citizenship, I would only draw that document to the attention of the House and ask it to study it. But I would warn the House that it would be advisable, in considering the question of imposing an external educational régime upon a defeated country, rather to approach the question from the angle in which I have approached it, namely, that we have to teach that nation that the philosophy of war, the philosophy of the Herrenvolk, does not and never will pay. We have then to attempt to eliminate within that country the evil forces, evil doctrines and evil influences that have brought about that philosophy. We may then hope eventually to start such a leaven within the country that a real self-education and re-education arises. I believe that is the only way, starting with an overwhelming defeat, to ensure the re-education of an enemy country.
  Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

FOOD SUPPLIES
  Milk (Rationalisation Schemes)
  Milk (Rationalisation Schemes)
  Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes
  Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes
  Meat Ration, Northern Ireland
  Meat Ration, Northern Ireland
PUBLIC HEALTH
  Tuberculosis
  Tuberculosis
  Diphtheria (Immunisation)
  Diphtheria (Immunisation)
  IDENTITY CARDS
  IDENTITY CARDS
BRITISH ARMY
  Billeting Rates
  Billeting Rates
  Officers (Hospital Charges)
  Officers (Hospital Charges)
  WEEKLY NEWSPAPER STAFFS (CALLING-UP)
  WEEKLY NEWSPAPER STAFFS (CALLING-UP)
  NORTH-WEST FRONTIER PROVINCE (ARRESTS AND SENTENCES)
  NORTH-WEST FRONTIER PROVINCE (ARRESTS AND SENTENCES)
  PAINT SUPPLIES, SCOTLAND
  PAINT SUPPLIES, SCOTLAND
  CIVILIAN STEEL HELMETS (CHIN-STRAPS)
  CIVILIAN STEEL HELMETS (CHIN-STRAPS)
  NEWSPAPER ARTICLE (OFFICIAL AUTHORISATION)
  NEWSPAPER ARTICLE (OFFICIAL AUTHORISATION)
  SEADROMES
  SEADROMES
AGRICULTURE
  Harvest Workers (Advertisements)
  Harvest Workers (Advertisements)
  Pest Control
  Pest Control
  OPEN-CAST COAL (NORTH MIDLAND REGION)
  OPEN-CAST COAL (NORTH MIDLAND REGION)
  "AEROPLANE SPOTTER" (PAPER SUPPLY)
  "AEROPLANE SPOTTER" (PAPER SUPPLY)
  HOUSE OF COMMONS CHAMBER (LIGHTING)
  HOUSE OF COMMONS CHAMBER (LIGHTING)
  AIR SERVICES APPROPRIATION ACCOUNT (REPORT)
  AIR SERVICES APPROPRIATION ACCOUNT (REPORT)
  INTERNATIONAL WHEAT COUNCIL
  INTERNATIONAL WHEAT COUNCIL
  NORTH-EASTERN TRADING ESTATE, GATESHEAD
  NORTH-EASTERN TRADING ESTATE, GATESHEAD
  BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR, ITALY
  BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR, ITALY
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Preamble
The House met, The EARL OF ONSLOW on the Woolsack.
SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL
Read 3, and passed.
HOUSING (AGRICULTURAL POPULATION) (SCOTLAND) BILL
Read 3 (according to Order), and passed.

AGRICULTURE
LORD PERRY LORD PERRY had the following Notice on the Paper: To call attention to the economic and social necessities arising out of the decision by His Majesty's Government that a. healthy and well-balanced agriculture should be a permanent feature of national policy; and to move to resolve, That the Government should now state its plans for giving effect to this pledge. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Resolution which I am submitting for consideration o this afternoon deals with a subject which I think your Lordships will agree is urgent and replete with every justification for immediate action. I feel it rather Gilbertian, having regard to the terms of the Motion on the Paper, that I should, so to speak, try to tell His Majesty's Ministers what I expect them to say in reply and the steps that they are asked to take in carrying out the policy which has been advocated. Having an idea that His Majesty's Government have a policy and something to say about it, it is extremely difficult, certainly for one like myself so inexperienced in procedure, to anticipate them; but although as I say the situation is a little Gilbertian, that is what I am bound to do and what I am now going to do.
There is no intention whatever on my part of criticizing His Majesty's Ministers or embarrassing them in any way. I believe everyone interested in this particular subject understands how extremely difficult the position of Ministers is at the
674
present time when they are asked to declare any long-term policy and attempt to give effect to it adequately in war conditions. It is a matter for congratulation, therefore, that not only your Lordships' House but the other House, the Government themselves and, I venture to think, the whole country are of one mind in desiring that there should be a statement of policy and that so far as possible the policy should be a long-term one and should be carried out. I would remind your Lordships that as a form of property and as an industry agriculture occupies a very peculiar position. We have in this country only so much land. It is a form of wealth that we cannot increase by increasing the quantity of it. All that we can do is to improve its quality. A great authority has said that in agriculture if you do one thing late you are late in all things. Every true agriculturist knows the very great difficulties that he has to meet which are peculiar to his own endeavours. He cannot be an opportunist. He must have a policy, not for to-day or to-morrow merely, not for this year or next year only, but for a long series of years if he is to render good stewardship of the property he is occupying and get the best out of his land.
Agriculture in this country, certainly during the last hundred years, has had a most unfortunate history. With the rise and growth of the industrial revolution, as industrial pursuits became paramount in this country, and the population grew rapidly, in order to keep pace with the prosperity of our exports during the nineteenth century we had, almost as an economic necessity, to import foodstuffs. This afforded the most ready means by which our debtors could pay for our exports. Probably, if our ancestors had had more prevision they would not have taken that payment—at least not so liberally as they did, and to the detriment of our home industry—but in fact that is what happened. It was, if you like, economic common sense, but it has landed this generation in a most unfortunate position. For some time agriculture has been the Cinderella of our industries. Because of its very attractiveness it has become almost a drudge, or, at any rate, it has been treated like one.
Some of us of my generation, after the last war, believed in and hoped for the advent of a Fairy Prince; not that we

675
wanted the special treatment that Fairy Princes are supposed to give but we were anxious that agriculture, our Cinderella, should have equitable treatment vis-à-vis the Ugly Sisters of Industry. At the end of the last war, during the period of which very strenuous efforts had to be made to increase our home production of foodstuffs, we received from the then Prime Minister, who had recently been returned to power at the head of a great majority representing all political Parties, assurances as to the permanent future of agriculture which were very encouraging, and we were very hopeful. But within a very short period the popular clamour and demand for economies found expression which, through the "Geddes Axe" Committee, resulted in agriculture being practically thrown into the discard, and the country reverted to a policy of what was called cheap food. We know now—of course it is very easy to be wise after the event—how disastrous that penny-wise-pound-foolish policy has been to our country. I am sure your Lordships will agree that when, because of the pressure of the present war, it became necessary to stimulate the production of home foodstuffs, it was a very poor and weak sort of, story which had to be told to the farmers in asking them to step again into the breach and produce foodstuffs at home. However, the farmers have done so with quite astonishing results. A good many of us would think them almost miraculous results; and I am sure that everyone concerned is to be most heartily congratulated. As a country, we were, I think, very fortunate in that Providence gave us, as Providence does give on these occasions, a Minister of Agriculture who was resolute, enterprising and almost inspired. He has been served by a staff who have been able to apply their labour and their prescience—if that is the right word—with remarkable intelligence and adaptability. The Minister of Agriculture has been very careful, and properly so, about giving any pledges as to the post-war future of agriculture. There have been a good many announcements on the subject by various Ministers, but I would call attention only to a statement made by the Minister of Agriculture in November, 1940, which has been repeated since; It is a very careful announcement, phrased in language which
676
in the circumstances was not very encouraging, particularly having regard to what has happened in the past.
The whole subject of the future of agriculture has received attention from various organizations and bodies concerned. Pronouncements have been published by the Royal Agricultural Society of England, the
National Farmers' Union, the Conservative Party and others; in fact, there are six printed documents all purporting to advise and instruct His Majesty's Government on this subject. The general demand is for a continuation of the form of encouragement which was applied in the last war, and which has been used again in this war—that is, guaranteed prices for farm products. Sometimes the guarantee has been specifically as to price, and sometimes maximum prices have been fixed, in which case experience has proved that the maximum price has always been realized by the producer. As was probably necessary in the circumstances, any maximum price has been fixed at a figure which is not an accurate figure to provide a proper reward for the products which have been marketed. The principle which has been followed has been for the guaranteed price to be unduly high, and personally I would say extravagant in many cases. No doubt it has had to contain a reward, not perhaps for the least efficient farmer, but at any rate for the average poor farmer. When regarded from the point of view of a reward for efficiency, and certainly when regarded as something for permanent application, the calculation of guaranteed prices by the Government has not been accurate.
What is wanted now and, notwithstanding the difficulties, what is asked for now, is a guarantee by the Government of future prices, and particularly of post-war prices, or a policy which will fix post-war prices so that we may have a maximum of dependable assurance which will remove forebodings and which will liberate the energy which must be devoted to the restoration on a permanent basis of a prosperous agriculture. This demand for guaranteed prices, if looked at realistically, means nothing more than the demand for guaranteeing a living, and a good living, to everyone engaged in agriculture. That is rather a tall order, and I can quite understand the hesitation of Ministers in committing themselves in any way, or at any rate in committing themselves in a way

677
which will give grounds for hope that the policies adopted will be binding on their successors.
Since 1931, our country has played with tariffs as a pseudo-protection for our agriculture. I say "played with" because Government action has never covered the field properly and thoroughly. I do not know what your Lordships think, but I imagine that the terms of the Atlantic Charter would not permit of the re-enactment of tariff protection for our industries in this country. I cannot read Article 4 of the Charter with a simple mind and then believe that any industry can be protected by means of a Customs tariff. Nor can I believe that the present system of food subsidies can be permanent. I understand that at the present time approximately £150,000,000 a year is spent in subsidizing food or in encouraging our domestic farmers to grow more essential foodstuffs.
As I see it, the guaranteed prices which are asked for cannot be provided by the indirect methods of the imposition of tariffs or the granting of subsidies. Fortunately there is a third method open to His Majesty's Government, which will not make any claims upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and which had been in use for some years before the war and had been satisfactory to everyone concerned. I refer to the provisions of the Wheat Act, 1932, and the way in which the Wheat Commission made a deficiency payment for the growing of wheat to our British farmers. That certainly involved a guaranteed price, and it certainly restored one item of food production to a profitable basis. I think that the experience which the country has had of the operation of the Wheat Act is altogether encouraging. It has worked satisfactorily, thanks to the co-operation of the milling and baking and grain industries. It was not found necessary to have any central purchasing board, and if all branches of agriculture were in the happy position of the grain trade, I think it would be possible to apply the principles of the Wheat Act to all essential foodstuffs and work with a minimum of political interference. In fact, the Wheat Act involved very little interference or bureaucratic control. Beyond the enabling Act itself, I think political influence was negligible. But I am afraid that, with the many different forms of essential food products,
678
we would have to have a central authority, which would be a monopolistic buyer both of domestic products and of imported foodstuffs. It would be a central board or boards, worked by practical people, and in that regard the present operations of the Minister of Food at least have made quite clear that the assistance of practical business people is forthcoming to help control of this nature when it is appreciated that such control is necessary.
This matter of prices is so wrapped up with the operations of the Ministry of Food that I would like to emphasize that the Government have at their disposal a good deal of practical experience gained by the working of the Ministry of Food, and I think the experience is not only valuable but so good as to warrant a continuation of the policy. Although the application of guaranteed prices to such an industry as agriculture is a very large order, I think that society in all its forms considers it to be necessary. But it will have to impose safeguards. I think any of us would like to be guaranteed an income without responsibility, so that we might grow our products, or make our goods, and be sure of a profitable price for them, irrespective of whether we grew the right stuff or made the needed material. There are, therefore, and must be, two sides to this demand for stabilized and guaranteed prices, and in considering the matter and looking over the situation which has, as I think, warranted this demand, is it possible to say that the parlous position of British agriculture has been brought about entirely by circumstances over which the agriculturist—the estate owner and the farmer—has had no control? Is he at least partially; actively or passively, responsible for the present state of affairs? I do not think you can examine the subject exhaustively and avoid the conclusion that in general the past conduct of agriculturists is largely responsible for the present situation.
Estates have been neglected, land has not been property worked, and the method of marketing agricultural products, so far as the producers themselves are concerned—apart from the stray efforts of the Milk Marketing Board and some little endeavours of that sort—would be the high road to bankruptcy in any business. It has been the practice of the farmer to grow his product irrespective of whether it is wanted or not, without any proper co-ordination of supply or consideration of market conditions. To grow your crop

679
and send it to market, and submit to a state of affairs in which it is marketed through perfectly irresponsible channels by a pack of gentlemen working for commission only, who have nothing at stake in the particular product they are handling—because that state of affairs has prevailed now for many years in the marketing of our main food products—is in itself evidence of stupidity, negligence and self-interest on the part of farmers themselves.
At any rate, at the present time the demand for guaranteed prices that is put forward is very much in the nature of seeking public relief, and if I may use the phrase which is so well known in other connexions, there is necessarily attached to public relief something in the nature of a means test. There must be, it is unavoidable. If guaranteed prices are to be given to agriculture, there must be some measure equivalent to a means test. Please do not criticize that phrase too particularly, but I hope it conveys my correct meaning. Farmers have to be instructed, they have to be advised constantly, they have, I regret to say, frequently to be compelled, and it would be idle for any Minister to lend himself to a guarantee of prices unless he were sure that the goods were going to be produced as and when the Government wanted them, particularly as agricultural products are secured from a wasting asset such as land. So that we shall have to have a continuance of control and the advice of the Ministry of Agriculture through the county war agricultural committees. If we ask for guaranteed prices we must at the same time say that we will work for those prices in such a manner as is laid down for us by an authority which takes into account all considerations, wherever prevailing throughout our island. I therefore suggest that the county war agricultural committees should be continued into the peace years, and that they should be given powers, of course under the central authority of the Ministry of Agriculture and properly settled by Parliament, which would be plenary powers within the rule of law.
I do not suggest that there should be any delegation by Parliament of what I call creative authority. With the growth of professional politics in recent years there has been a tendency in another place to—"down tools" shall I say? At any
680
rate, not to complete the job; and it has taken the form of passing clauses in various Acts of Parliament which enable Ministers to make orders and delegate their authority. Your Lordships had a very interesting debate on that subject yesterday at which I was not fortunate enough to be present. That cannot be allowed, and I am not suggesting that in any shape or form. I am not suggesting that there should be any delegation of creative authority, but that Parliament should, as it ought to do, properly discuss the powers to be granted from every angle and in all their applications, embody them in a Statute, and then entrust the appropriate Minister with the administration of them.
I can myself envisage the setting up of an extension of the Great Unpaid—agricultural magistrates—who would be served by a professional staff and who would be entrusted by Parliament to secure, first of all, that agricultural land, when once properly selected as good land upon which to grow our foodstuffs, should remain agricultural land and never be exploited for any other purpose. That would be one of the first duties. Having done that, they must then see that the land owners and the farmers use the land and perform their duties with intelligence and continual industry. The country, in my opinion, can never become self-sufficient in essential foodstuffs so long as we have a population of 47,000,000. We have therefore to import a good deal of our necessary foodstuffs. We are in this rather unfortunate position that our near neighbour, Holland, enjoys natural advantages which make competition with her in certain foodstuffs, in a Free Trade world, impossible or, at any rate, place us at a very great disadvantage. It will be more obvious, perhaps, that we cannot compete in a Free Trade world market with the virgin lands of Canada and the Argentine or with tropical countries with cheap labour such as exists in India, Japan and China, in such necessary articles as rice. That we cannot do. It therefore becomes more incumbent on the Minister and his executive to see that we get everything possible out of the land we have at our disposal. In this connexion I would like to quote the case of Denmark. It is within my lifetime that Denmark has become a leading exporter of bacon, eggs, butter, and cheese. There is no reason at all—no economic, Indus

681
trial, or climatic condition or any other reason I can possibly adduce—why this country should not produce butter, eggs, and bacon as cheaply as they are produced in Denmark, if only the job is tackled with the same industry, the same prescience and application, as the Danes put into that particular form of endeavour.
I have tried to show your Lordships how, if the guaranteed prices are conceded, they can be financed and how the industry can be supervised by using means we have at hand. We have experience of the Wheat Act in respect of prices, we have the experience of the Ministry of Food in respect of centralized monopolistic purchase, and we have the experience of the Ministry of Agriculture in respect of the supervision and proper treatment of our own land in this country. May I read a note about the duties of the war agricultural committees?
"They will keep all agricultural land under constant inspection, and where there is any sign of its. deterioration or that its productivity demands additional expenditure or drainage, fertilizers, buildings, housing accommodation, etc., will make a detailed survey and require the owner to carry out the necessary improvements or maintenance."
These duties are a national concern and involve the preservation and utilization of national assets which cannot be neglected or destroyed merely to the loss or detriment of the private user or owner, but involve the interests of the whole country. There are some idealists, recognizing the essential responsibilities of land ownership, who would like to nationalize land. We all know by experience that a change of ownership is not necessarily an improvement. Speaking from personal observation of changes of ownership, where public authority has taken the place of private enterprise, the change has rarely been for the better. The path to the preservation of land as a national asset does not lie in the direction of public ownership.
To carry out improvements and maintenance will involve the expenditure of a great deal of money, and there is no justification for expenditure unless the results are going to be economically profitable. It will be the duty of the county committees to satisfy themselves on this point before making the demand. Broadly speaking, the necessary expense may come under two headings, one of them being the provision of public services and the other investment for the improvement
682
of private property and the purchase of new assets. Under the heading of public services I would like to draw your Lordships' attention to the mixed problem of land drainage. That is really a major problem. There is perhaps no other particular item that you can put your finger on which is of such crucial importance in its call for immediate attention if our agriculture is to be prosperous. The public authorities are concerned with land drainage because, however well a farmer may drain his own land, the storm water has to be carried away by public authority and the present catchment boards and internal drainage boards are very unsatisfactory. I leave it at that. Their powers should be extended and coordinated and they should be impelled and inspired by a national motive rather than a parochial one, which is the manner in which they at present operate.
Then there is provision of fresh clean water on the farms. This is a crying necessity. It is not always possible for private ownership to undertake this duty. I personally think that it is a great necessity and requirement of a public authority, be it municipal or public utility, to provide clean water for the use of farms, particularly dairy farms, and for the comfort of rural dwellers. It is just as necessary for them as it is in urban districts and it should be so provided. That is a matter for State control, as is also the provision of electricity. In these days mechanical power is an absolute necessity on farms as well as in other walks of life. It is really little short of scandalous to observe that electrical power is carried over the land of farmers from one urban district to another, very often past the very door of the farm,, yet the power is not made accessible to the farmer. That is a state of affairs, again, which it is the national duty to remedy if agricultural prosperity is to be achieved. There is also the question of roads and transport which again fall to the State to provide and maintain rather than private enterprise. But if I can put sufficient emphasis on these necessities which the State must provide then I think I can be satisfied to leave all the other financial requirements to be provided by private enterprise, and in that I include rural housing.
Speaking for myself I am particularly averse from the way in which the Ministry

683
Agriculture has in past years—I do not mean during the present war—spoon-fed agriculture by small "doles" for liming, for draining, for basic slag and so forth, all calculated to improve private property. It is a system which is wrong in principle. Your Lordships will appreciate that I place against it what is known as the ploughing up of lands by the Ministry of Agriculture. That is not wrong in principle because, in theory at least, the ploughing up of land is to the detriment of the land; it was held to be so by statutory authority up to comparatively recent years. I know that in the Food Production Department in the last war we were frequently up against the legal impossibility of the conversion of pasture land into arable, so that when a grant is given for ploughing up land that is not calculated to be an enhancement of the value of private property. Therefore I personally do not object to it, but I do object to the payment of public funds to anybody for any purpose where the end will be the subsidizing of private personal property.
I said I thought that rural housing could be provided by private enterprise. I know that the need is a crying one. We recently had a debate on that in this House. I think the Government are committed to 3,000 houses. A noble Lord here wanted 30,000 and he referred to a noble Marquess who demanded 75,000. Even then he had not stated the number of rural cottages that are really necessary if we are to have a prosperous agriculture. The capital investment in houses is a very large one, but I do not believe it is necessary for the public purse to contribute to the cost. We are fortunate perhaps in agriculture in having established a minimum wage of £3 per week for a 50-hour week for the agricultural labourer. The agricultural labourer therefore is quite able to pay 10s. a week rent from that sum. The urban labourer docs it now and the agricultural labourer is to-day fully as well compensated as the urban labourer. I can speak from my limited but actual personal experience immediately before the war, when I say that ignoring the value of the land really good cottages of proper size with modern amenities can be built to let after payment of rates at an economic rent of 10s. per week. That the position has changed because of war circumstances and that we
684
shall never perhaps get back to that position is quite likely, but then in principle neither will agricultural wages stand still.
I would here call your Lordships' attention to a point in the argument for prices. If prices are guaranteed to the farmer, obviously included in those prices is the payment of a proper wage so that, vis-à-vis agriculture, it will also be a matter for national concern that adequate wages are paid. If I may strike a personal note, during the whole of my life I have advocated, and certainly for the last thirty years practised, the principle of paying a minimum wage in any event. Society to-day admits its obligations to our population as a whole. That is, it admits that people may not starve or be in suffering or want. Shylock, in the Merchant of Venice, when he was trying to explain that a human being was a human being and there should be no differentiation between human beings, said that all of us are
"fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer."
That is true of all of us in this country. It is true of all wage-earners and that is why they should not be subject to any differential wage rate. When I said that I had practised for thirty years the payment of a minimum wage, I meant this, that before a man works at all in terms of quality he has to live. The most highly-skilled man and the least skilled man demands the things which I have just enumerated to your Lordships. They suffer or enjoy them alike. I should like to see it made a penal offence for any labourer to sell his labour—and 95 per cent of the population have nothing to sell but labour in order to get their daily bread—below a prescribed minimum which will provide necessities, and equally it should be a penal offence for anyone to purchase labour below that price.
That is a little interjection, but I make it because I would like to see the land carry its own housing problem. That involves the question of wages, because it involves the payment of an economic rent which could be paid, not in the form of a "dole," but out of actual earned money as has to be done in urban industries. Capital improvements, I believe, can be provided or should be provided by private enterprise. The demands are going to be

685
extraordinarily large. Personally I would rather have nothing done than that I should be offered anything in the nature of an agricultural mortgage corporation, so thoroughly insignificant and, to use an Americanism, so picayune in its possibilities. I think private enterprise will put up all the money that is necessary for improvements such as the re-erection of buildings. Where such improvements are the improvement of personal assets, such as putting land into good heart, for example, draining one's own farm, looking after one's own hedges and ditches, or getting one's own buildings in proper repair, that is an expenditure for personal gain and an enhancement of personal values which should never fall upon the State. Private enterprise will find the necessary funds providing the State recognizes the necessity of the provision of such funds. The State was induced to recognize the necessity of export trade and accordingly we nave a department called the Export Credits Department. I would like to see the necessary capital for the improvement of agricultural land advanced by joint stock banks or private enterprise under a guarantee similar to that offered by the State in respect of export credits. If Parliament and our Treasury officials will only recognize that we are living in 1943 and not in the eighteenth or nineteenth century, they will readily see that such facilities must be afforded.
I have taken a much longer time than I ever intended this afternoon. I have struck, I know, some rather novel practical suggestions out of a difficulty which is a very pressing one. If I may I will now make a summary of them trusting to my memory instead of my notes. I have suggested, first of all, that prices should be guaranteed, and that the administration of that guarantee should be along the lines of the Wheat Act and in the hands of an altruistic body of expert administrators appointed for that purpose under, of course, the central authority of the Ministry of Agriculture. I recommend that the county war agricultural executive committees should be continued as a permanent institution with properly defined statutory powers after the war. I believe that public authorities such as the Ministry of Transport, the Board of Trade, the Home Office and the Ministry of Health must exercise pressure to see that public utilities are made available to agriculture
686
and to rural labour. I believe that private enterprise will take care of the obligations of agriculture in respect of land improvements and housing, subject to being encouraged to do so from the national point of view by being guaranteed against, what I call as a business man, bad debts. We have existing authorities which can carry out these suggestions and we have existing precedents which give experience along the line of these suggestions. It only remains to extend what we are doing so as to make it comprehensive. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That His Majesty's Government should now state their plans for giving effect to their pledge that a healthy and well-balanced agriculture should be a permanent feature of national policy.—(Lord Perry.)
House adjourned, during pleasure, and resumed by the Lord Chancellor.
THE MINISTER OF ECONOMIC WARFARE (THE EARL OF SELBORNE): My Lords, it may perhaps be for the convenience of your Lordships if I say a few words at this juncture. I am sure all your Lordships will have listened to the very interesting and thought-provoking speech of my noble friend with the greatest pleasure. That speech is not only the inauguration of a new debate but the continuation of debates that have taken place in your Lordships' House in recent weeks on this subject. I, personally, agreed with a very great deal that fell from the lips of my noble friend, but there are one or two points on which I should like, on another occasion possibly, to press him a little further. But, generally speaking, we are all agreed with his demand for some measure of price stability, and with his diagnosis of the evils from which agriculture has suffered in the past. I agree, too, with an immense amount of what was said by other noble Lords, who spoke in previous debates, with regard to the absolute necessity of evolving an agricultural policy in the future which shall be very different from the policy that prevailed in the period between the two wars.
I do not think there has ever been a greater tragedy enacted, or a greater blunder made, than the way in which agriculture was let down by all political Parties in that period. In considering this problem, we must remember that the farmer having been once bitten—as he

687
has been—will be twice shy. If, after the war, farmers have reason to believe that this country is once more going to become the dumping heap of the world's surplus and that they are going to be exposed to the same sort of economic blizzard as that from which they suffered in the twenty years between the two wars, I think the great majority of them, in this country, will go down to ranch farming. That, of course, would at once mean the unemployment of many thousands of agricultural labourers; and we should, in fact, be starting our post-war period with an agricultural slump of unparalleled magnitude, and, probably, greater unemployment in agriculture than we have ever known before. I think that the realization of that helps to bring it home to us that we cannot hope to solve our unemployment problems, we cannot hope to get our trade going again, we cannot hope to recover the strength of this country after the war, and we cannot hope to build a new and better world, unless we are going to give agriculture a square deal. I am, therefore, alive to the considerations which my noble friend has stressed so eloquently to-day and to what other noble Lords have said on previous occasions.
The Government are also alive to these considerations. As my noble friend mentioned, in November, 1940, the Minister of Agriculture gave this pledge:
"The Government, representative as it is of all major political Parties, recognizes the importance of maintaining after the war a healthy and well-balanced agriculture as an essential and permanent feature of national policy. The guarantee now given is meant to secure that stability shall be maintained not only during hostilities but during a length of time thereafter sufficient to put into action a permanent post-war policy for home agriculture."
I repeat that on behalf of His Majesty's Government to-day. We adhere to every word of that pledge. There has been no change in the weight which the Government attach to the importance of the maintenance of a healthy and well-balanced agriculture after the war as a permanent feature of national policy. I want to make that quite clear from the start.
Since my right honourable friend the Minister gave that pledge the industry has produced its programme, as my noble
688
friend mentioned to-day. We have had considered programmes put forward by the National Farmers' Union, the Royal Agricultural Society, the Central Landowners' Association, the Council of Agriculture, and also by a group of members of your Lordships' House who have made a most important contribution to this problem. Now these contributions, these reports, reveal a marked unanimity. This, in itself, is a fact which must necessarily carry great weight with any Government who are considering the problem of agriculture, and I am sure that it will also carry great weight with the nation. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture had hoped to enter into consultation with the industry this spring—the Minister without Portfolio announced that, in another place, some time ago. But we find that we are not yet in a position to do this, and the reason for that, in a nutshell, is that you cannot draft the policy of one great department of our national economy without reference to issues of basic importance in other great departments of national economy. I think that anyone who listened to the speech of my noble friend just now will have realized that.
In other words, these great problems of the post-war world cannot be considered in watertight compartments. You cannot design a pillar for your new edifice without knowing how many other pillars there are going to be, and what positions they will occupy. Nor can you design that pillar without knowing the weight of the rafters, the joists, and the roof that it will have to bear. It is also desirable to know whether you have the building materials with which to build the edifice. Therefore, the problem before the Government is not merely the problem of agriculture to be considered in isolation, because that cannot be done. The problem therefore becomes a very big one indeed, and the blunt fact is that Cabinet Ministers, when the whole of their energies are devoted to winning the war—and, my Lords, we are winning it now—simply have not got the time to go into these numerous and immensely complicated questions with the thoroughness and care with which they will have to be gone into one day. The Civil Service and experts can, of course, do preparatory work. An immense amount of preparatory work is going on at the present moment, and has been

689
going on for some time; but there are matters which must come before leading members of the Government in any such consideration of policy, and it is physically impossible for them to give the requisite amount of time to these problems at this juncture. Moreover, Cabinet Ministers do not yet know enough of what the conditions of the post-war world are going to be to be able to form a correct judgment on some of the questions which will have to be answered.
To illustrate my meaning, let me remind your Lordships of some of the points which were raised in the Parliamentary discussions on the Beveridge Report. Your Lordships will remember that, when that Report was discussed in another place and here, the Government were criticized by members of the Socialist Party, and also by members of other Parties, for refusing to declare their policy fully. The reasons why the Government had to adopt this attitude were very fully and frankly explained by Ministers at the time. The Lord President of the Council, Sir John Anderson, pointed out that:
"Apart from social insurance, which must take a high priority, there are education, agriculture, housing, roads, forestry, civil aviation, Colonial development, all matters referred to by various honourable Members in this debate. Work is proceeding on all these matters, but it must be months yet before the Government can be ready."
And he added later:
"In the meantime there can be no commitment."
The Chancellor of the Exchequer put it in this way:
"… you cannot measure our finance and what we are able to undertake in the future simply in terms of a social security scheme in isolation; so, when we come to say what we shall be able to undertake, we must not overlook the strong and urgent claims which are pressed upon the House by all sorts of proper and legitimate interests in the country would like to refer to two or three very briefly …"
He then went on to mention housing, civil aviation, education, our present high rate of taxation, agriculture and, above all, international security, that is to say, national defence. He ended up by saying:
"When all these matters are before the Government, and when we have a much closer idea of what the cost will be, we wait before finally committing ourselves to any or all of these proposals and again consider the financial situation and the cost."
My right honourable friend asked the members of another place:
690
"Does anyone say that this is an unfair or an unreasonable thing to do? Is not it, in fact, what everyone would do in connexion with his personal affairs?"
The Home Secretary, in picturesque language, clinched the matter when he said:
"… I always refused, when I sat on that Opposition Front Bench in this House, to be any more loose—even when I was in Opposition—about the finances of the country than I was prepared to be loose about the finances of the London County Council. I will not do it. There has been too much of Parties in Opposition or semi-detached Opposition giving reckless undertakings and making rather wild promises and then not carrying them out when they are in power. I will not be a party to any such political jiggery-pokery."
He ended by saying:
"I believe that, when the time comes along and things happen, we shall be thanked and respected as a Government and not vilified for being cautious and for refusing to make reckless promises. We have refused to make any reckless promises to the House to-day, and I reaffirm that refusal. We will not do it. We are not going to have any repetition of what some people thought happened in the last war, of soldiers coming back with a promise of a paradise which they did not get. We will work for that paradise. I will tell the House something else. By the way the Government are moving there will be infinitely more preparation for after this war than there was for after the last war. We have learnt a good deal from that experience and from that time."
In this House, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor made the same point. He said:
"This proposal and the class of proposal involved in it, is only a portion of the problems in the post-war period; it is only a portion of what must be written down as post-war requirements, not merely post-war desiderata but post-war claims which cannot be denied."
Then he gave the same list.
I have made those quotations at some length to show that the considerations which forced the Government to adopt that attitude with regard to the Beveridge Report apply equally to agriculture, and indeed to all these very great questions which are awaiting solution after the war and which cannot be considered in isolation and which have to be considered as part of one picture. All that we are saying is that that consideration must necessarily take a considerable amount of time. In addition to points of the nature made during the Beveridge debate, in the debate in your Lordships' House on February 16 noble Lords pointed out, and the National Farmers' Union in its published policy insists upon, the fact that our agriculture

691
is not merely a national problem but is partly also an international problem. My noble friend Lord De La Warr, in his speech on February 16, said:
"I … place before your Lordships reasons why on grounds of the widest national interest and also—I am not exaggerating—of international security, it is essential that this country should take the lead in planning a world food policy. The case is strong on the merits of agriculture itself. It is strong on national grounds, in the interests of industry and the towns. I believe it is quite overwhelming from the point of view of world economic reconstruction."
My noble friend Lord Addison said that he agreed that our efforts and undertakings would have to be international. My noble friend Lord Phillimore made exactly the same point; he asked for an All-Party agreed policy, and said that it must be a policy "not confined to these islands, but one which will take the world into its purview." The National Farmers Union in their programme say:
"Action is required on an international scale to regulate the production and marketing of food supplies in the manner visualized by the Empire Producers' Conference."
That shows that the scope of the subject which we are now considering is a great deal wider than even the issues raised by the Beveridge Report.
I think that during the last few hours we have had a good instance of the truth of those quotations in the proceedings of the Food Conference now going on in the United States. I have no doubt that when the reports of that Conference are complete and your Lordships have been able to considér them you will desire to debate that matter in this House. I do not think it would be really quite appropriate to debate what has been in the newspapers in that connexion at the present moment for two reasons: first, because it is a very big subject, which would require, I venture to suggest, a debate of its own, and secondly, because the information available to members of this House and to the country is not yet complete. But I think it would be useful if I pointed out how it illustrates the truth of the statements that noble Lords have already made that this is not merely a national but an international problem. Your Lordships will realize that this Conference is of a purely exploratory character. No Government is bound by its proceedings. The object of the Conference is that every
692
nation should find out how other nations, our Allies, are thinking on these world problems, and it will not be until we have the views of the other nations that the work of that Conference will have been completed. When those views have been all put before the Conference then we shall all know what our friends and Allies are thinking on these subjects. That is the sole purpose of the Conference. It does not bind anybody.
But the declaration by the United Kingdom delegation, copies of which I believe have been made available to your Lordships, approaches this international problem very much on the lines on which your Lordships approached it when you were discussing agriculture here a few weeks ago. I do not think that any of the noble Lords whom I have just quoted will disagree substantially with anything in that statement. For instance, the statement asks the members of the Conference
"to pledge ourselves to make the better nutrition of all our peoples the primary objective of our policy."
I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Addison, will heartily support that, and I think agriculturists throughout England will. The declaration suggests an international production programme and machinery for the co-ordinated purchase, allocation, and transportation of commodities. It also contains the suggestion of "buffer stocks" which should be held in the interests of the producer as well as of the consumer, the object of which would be to shield both the producer and the consumer from violent short-term fluctuations in price. The statement says:
"This form of orderly management seems to us preferable to one based on export or production quotas."
It goes on to say there should be no regulation by quotas of any agricultural commodity except under the control of some authority fully representative of both producers and consumers. I would ask your Lordships to compare that statement with the resolution of the Sydney Conference, which is quoted by the National Farmers Union and was referred to by my noble friend Lord Phillimore on the last occasion, because I think this idea is an idea that has been borrowed from the Sydney Conference.
The declaration also advocates a comprehensive organization "to study problems continuously and to collect scientific

693
and statistical data" on food and agriculture, and it concludes by saying:
"Food and agricultural policy are, therefore, closely inter-related with international economic policy—that is, with monetary arrangements, with commercial policy and with the future of international investment. All these parts are parts of a single whole, and we cannot tackle one of them satisfactorily without paying some attention to the rest."
I venture to suggest that that statement is strikingly in agreement with the views put forward by your Lordships and by the National Farmers Union. I have merely quoted it to show your Lordships that when His Majesty's Government approach and have to deal with these inter-related problems we do so with the agricultural problem in mind. All these questions are inter-related, they all have to be borne in mind, and the ship has to be so steered that it avoids the rocks that lie on this side or on that.
When we consider, therefore, the complexity of these post-war problems I am sure we must applaud the wisdom of the Prime Minister when he said in his broadcast on post-war problems the other day:
"You will see from what I have said that there is no lack of material for a Four-Years Plan for the transition period from war to peace, and for another plan after that. For the present during the war our rule should be, no promises but every preparation."
I would remind your Lordships that the Prime Minister in that broadcast put agriculture in a leading position in his Four-Year Plan. Therefore all that I am saying to your Lordships this afternoon is that our reformers, whether they be reformers in education or in agriculture or in social security or in housing or in planning, must have a measure of patience and confidence in the Government; and may I add they must have mercy on the physical capacity of Ministers? It is those reasons and those reasons alone that prevent my right honourable friend from being able to enter into the discussions with the industry which he is most anxious to inaugurate and which were foreshadowed.
The industry has put its suggestions before the Government. For the reasons that I have given the Government are not yet in a position to make their definite suggestions to the industry. It would be a mere waste of time to take busy men from their farms where they are doing work of vital national importance, and to bring them up to conferences in London, when the Minister was only in a position to talk
694
about generalities. When the conferences start, then both parties must be in a position to make concrete suggestions which have been fully worked out, and I am sure that on consideration your Lordships will agree that that really is the only reasonable and sensible attitude.
The only criticism that can be made against the Government in this matter is that possibly my right honourable friend the Minister was a little bit over-optimistic when he said he hoped to be able to start these conferences in the spring. If he said that it was merely an indication of his extreme anxiety to get down to brass tacks with the industry, I can assure your Lordships that the moment he is in a position to do so he will do so. I cannot to-day give the date when these conferences will start. My right honourable friend has already given one date, and that has proved to be wrong. Therefore I do not think any of his colleagues will venture to suggest another. It must necessarily be some months ahead. The more you look into these post-war problems, the greater does their complexity appear, the more closely inter-related they are seen to be; and therefore the Government are not likely to be in a position to work these things out, as business men with business men, for some time to come.
You may ask, in view of that reply which I have just given on behalf of the Government, "Well, what is the next step?" Possibly some of your Lordships will also ask, "Is there nothing we can do to expedite this business or assist in the agricultural problem?" I believe there is a very great deal that your Lordships can do to help the Government and the nation in this matter. I have already pointed out, as did my noble friend Lord Perry, the very remarkable unanimity that there is in all the reports published by the agricultural bodies. One of the most important and valuable contributions was the programme put forward by certain members of your Lordships' House, some of whom are here to-day. That report was very important and attracted much attention for two reasons. In the first place the noble Lords who signed that report are themselves high authorities on agriculture. In the second place each of them occupies an honoured position in one or other of the three great political Parties.
I should like to suggest this afternoon that they should make it their business to

695
commend the views of the agricultural industry to their own respective political Parties and bring them before their Party conferences for discussion, examination, and criticism. More would however be necessary than that. It is most important that the agricultural programme should be presented to the leaders of urban and industrial life—chambers of commerce, industrialists, trade unions, co-operatives. Many of their leaders already recognize the need for a new agricultural policy, but I do not think that all the rank and file do. If your Lordships who have this knowledge and who have worked in the compilation of this agricultural report, could give the time, and find the occasion, to go and explain the agricultural programme to these industrialists, I believe a very great service would be rendered. If the nation can be unanimous about the principles of agricultural reform, that will enormously facilitate the task of the Government. I would therefore like to ask my noble friends to carry their influence, their knowledge, and their eloquence beyond the walls of this Chamber, where they have already won the day, to those men and women in their great Parties and in our great cities whose concurrence and good will are necessary if agriculture is to be lifted out of the cockpit of domestic politics
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, in the first place I should like to associate myself with what the noble Earl said in paying tribute to the most remarkable speech my noble friend Lord Perry delivered to us to-day. It is, to me, a matter of great significance that an experienced industrialist like him, with first-hand experience over many years of the successful conduct of great business affairs, should have approached this subject, as he has done to-day, in a speech full of practical suggestions. I shall only refer—because there are many noble Lords who wish to speak—to two main topics indicated in his speech. While doing so, I must take account of the speech to which we have just listened from the noble Earl on the Government Bench. I would remind him, in the first place, that the Government gave a pledge which he, with wholeheartedness, has reiterated, declaring that it remains the decided policy of His Majesty's Government. That pledge is that the Government recognize the importance of maintaining, after the war, a
696
healthy and well-balanced agriculture as an essential and permanent feature of national policy. That pledge stands. I am glad to find that the noble Earl stands by every word of it. That being the case, I find it a little difficult to follow some of the rest of the noble Earl's speech. I am not prepared to admit—I do not think he is really—that you have got to settle everything before you can settle anything. That seems to be the suggestion which is made, to some extent, on behalf of the Government. I cannot accept that. I do not believe the farmers will accept it, and I do not think it is reasonable in itself. There are lots of things we can decide.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I do not want my noble friend to be under any misapprehension as to what I did say. I never said you could not settle anything until you had settled everything. All I said was that we had not yet got to the point when we could make definite suggestions to the industry.
LORD ADDISON: I hope the noble Earl will not think I am trying to put into his mouth something he did not say. I was trying to represent, in a concentrated form, the impression I obtained from the noble Earl's case. It seemed more or less to be that we are confronted by a bewildering complexity of international and national problems, each one of which contained within itself more or less a national obligation, and we have got to see where we are with the whole lot before we can agree. I am not attributing this to the noble Earl, but that was my impression. I do not accept that for a moment, and I do not believe that it is really the attitude of His Majesty's Government. It certainly is not in keeping with that pledge. I think there are many things we can settle. The noble Earl is justified in making, and indeed I welcome, his invitation that all of us should do the best we can to secure what support we can for this declaration of His Majesty's Government. For myself I have never been backward in that respect, but I think there are a good many things within the national sphere that are our own affair which we can certainly settle before all these other great matters are decided. It is to one or two of them that I would like to direct attention.
In doing so I would in the first place like to congratulate the noble Earl and

697
those who are responsible for this memorandum to the Food Conference for the wide-mindedness and the general method of approach that this memorandum of His Majesty's delegation indicates. It has been epitomized by the noble Earl and I will not repeat it, but it is a great thing in the world that Governments should be invited to approach food problems for the first time in history for the purpose of seeing that hungry people, wherever they are, get something to eat. That is what it comes to and it is a very great thing indeed. I welcome the statement which this document makes, and which was repeated by the noble Earl, that it involves the creation of an international organization which will deal with securing stability of price. which will control bulk supplies and, so far as and whenever there are surpluses, will prevent their being burnt or destroyed, will reserve them for use and secure their distribution, if need be, to necessitous nations. That is a very great thing in history and I hope with all my soul that something practical will come out of it.
I should be glad if the noble Earl, on some other day perhaps, could give us some indication as to the policy that is behind the mind of His Majesty's Government in contemplating the creation of the food control purchasing organization, because it is intimately related to the kind of thing the noble Lord has been speaking about. It is evident that, whatever we do, we shall be dependent upon a certain amount of imported supplies, and the securing of any stability of prices must necessitate in some form the kind of organization which Lord Perry indicated and which is indicated in this memorandum—a comprehensive organization which will secure supplies, and help to secure some stability of prices, for that is an essential concomitant of stability so far as our own home market is concerned.
But before I come to the home side of it I should like some information at some time on the principles that His Majesty's Government have in mind. Is it contemplated that this organization or any import board that we may set up will pursue the policy of beating down everybody else to get things at the least possible price? That is a very important question and I would like an answer to it, because if that vicious practice is pursued there is no hope for British agriculture. As it is
698
recognized in this document that the poverty of people all over the world is one of the chief causes of unemployment, we must expect our purchasing organization, in concert with the producing countries, to arrange for some price stability for the producers over there as well as here. That is essential if you are going to lift the burden of poverty. I think the day is past when we want the people of this country to be fed at the price of the starvation of somebody else in some other country. It is essential, I think, that any international organization should secure the same reliability of price in the producing countries, within reason, as we expect in our own.
I am enlarging a little on that because I was rather troubled by one particular sentence in the Prime Minister's broadcast. I draw the noble Earl's attention to it because it is very intimately related to the plan described by Lord Perry. The Prime Minister said:
"At the same time the fact remains that if the expansion and improvement of British agriculture is to be maintained, as it must be maintained, and a reasonable level of prices is to be maintained, as it must be maintained, there are likely to be substantial charges which the State must be prepared to shoulder."
I want to ask something about those last words. I rather discerned that thought in what the noble Earl said about the Beveridge plan, and this plan and the other plan. One was going to cost x millions, the other y millions, and so on; and one wanted to see what the whole sum would amount to before one could declare our ability to deal with it.
Now what are these charges? I think the plan indicated by the noble Lord who opened the debate is the only self-respecting plan that we can adopt. I cannot imagine that the taxpayer of this country will be willing to go on in perpetuity paying millions in subsidy to this commodity, millions more to that, and so on. This system of separate large-scale commodity subsidies cannot possibly endure. Is it that that Was in the Prime Minister's mind when he used those words? It is that which creates the misgiving which I am trying to express, because if we are to wait until that appalling sum is added up, I do not wonder action is postponed. That may account for the indecision. I suggest that there is a better way open and that we have not a right to expect

699
people to buy goods at the price of the improverishment of the people who produce them. At the same time, it is right, as we have recognized in the establishment of wages for agricultural workers and others, that people should have enough wages to enable them to buy what they need and that the prices paid should be such as to provide a decent living for the man who produces what they want. I hope His Majesty's Government will not depart from that principle by handing out millions for this, that and the other thing from the taxpayer's pocket. If the principle of the Wheat Act were adopted in the large-scale marketing of all our principal commodities the net price to the consumer would contain a sufficient profit for the producer. That is the proper way of dealing with it. I hope sincerely that some day we may have some explanation of these substantial charges which are contemplated in this statement of the Prime Minister.
The only other subject I will refer to is the cost of equipment. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Perry, is right, but I do not think he is. What is required in the way of capital expenditure in order that land may be properly farmed—not for any other purpose—is an appalling amount. When I was Minister of Agriculture I had a calculation made for me and the figure then was £2,50,000,000 as a minimum. That was thirteen years ago. With the experiences of the war before us every one of us with first-hand knowledge of the dilapidation which is widespread in the country would, I think, agree that we must have better farm roads, rural water supplies, proper drainage, adequate cottages and proper farm buildings. I do not believe that £250,000,000 would anything like touch what is required. It may be that if we had a proper agricultural system private enterprise would provide the money on the lines indicated by the noble Lord—I will not say it is impossible—but knowing what one does of the impecuniosity of vast numbers of landowners, who are quite unable to afford what is required, I cannot think that that method will be sufficient. At all events it will have to be supplemented on a very large scale by a Land Commission or some other organization which will be able to secure capital at a low rate of interest. I agree with the noble Lord that the right method
700
of dealing with it is that the county war organization should ascertain what is required and should certify the minimum that is required. When that has been done the necessary capital should be provided through the Land Commission or by some similar means. If the State is going to guarantee prices the nation is entitled in return to see that the land is properly equipped and properly farmed. These two things must go with it and there must be some organization to secure that that is done.
I feel myself—I am sorry to say so—very disappointed at these long delays. It is two-and-a-half years since this Government pledge was made. Being of a very charitable disposition, and knowing quite a lot of the inner workings of Government offices, I sympathize with the noble Earl in the task he had to perform to-day from the Front Bench, but I remain unconvinced as to the necessity for the long procrastination which seemed to me at all events to be envisaged by him. It is time that many of these matters which are completely independent of international concern should be decided. I think they can be decided. I think there is a unanimity and strength of opinion in this country to-day which makes this an exceptional opportunity, and it would be deplorable if that opportunity were wasted.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I felt sure that His Majesty's Government would not protest against the introduction of the Motion which was moved in a powerful speech to which we listened with great interest, and I also felt sure that the noble Lord who moved it would not receive a very categorical reply. I was right, I think, in both anticipations. But, like the noble Lord on the Front Opposition Bench, I feel some disappointment that the noble Earl was not able to enter into more detail in the speech which he made. I was all the more disappointed because of the fact, which he stated and which has been stated by others, of the very remarkable agreement shown by the different skilled bodies who have made reports on the present situation. Some of these have already been mentioned—the important committee composed of members of your Lordships' House, the Central Landowners' Association, the National Farmers Union and representatives of the main political Parties. Each,

701
of course, laid special emphasis on certain points obvious in the whole situation which specially appealed to them, but on a great many points they were in very remarkable agreement.
There is the further fact that extreme views on the crucial question of how farming can be made to pay have been practically obliterated by the passage of time. Now I think the most ardent advocate of Protection, with or without Imperial Preference, would hesitate to express the view that a prohibitive tariff should be placed on articles of imported food in order to enable the average farmer to make a profit. Equally, the most convinced Free Trader would not now advance the view that it ought to be possible for imported food of all kinds to be brought into the country, whatever the result might be on the most skilled and scientific farmers by making their products practically un-saleable. Therefore I hoped that it would be possible for the representative of His Majesty's Government to say more on the regulation of imported produce.
I cannot help feeling that the noble Earl opposite, in praying in aid, as he did, the discussion in the House of Commons on the Beveridge Report, somewhat overstepped the mark. Surely the reasons which were then advanced by the Government speakers—reasons, by the way, which were not universally admitted to be altogether cogent—had, at any rate, the force of pointing out that it was not reasonable to expect His Majesty's Government to make a statement of policy which might involve expenditure, perhaps amounting to thousands of millions of pounds, and affecting future generations. Surely as regards the industry of agriculture no such question arises. As the noble Lord who spoke last has pointed out, there are two entirely different aspects from which the approach to agriculture ought to be regarded. There is the international point of view which, in one of its aspects, is now being considered by the conference in the State of Virginia, and which, undoubtedly, has to be dealt with if the farming industry is to be supported in some way. Whether Lord Addison was right in supposing that at the back of the minds of His Majesty's Government was the possibility of vast agricultural subsidies of unknown dimensions, and that therefore, they had to regard that with the same degree of kindness with which they regard expenditure on
702
some of the other objects set out in the Beveridge Report, I cannot say. I confess that I had always supposed that the minds of His Majesty's Government, in bringing about stabilization of prices, ran in the direction of import boards rather than in the direction of subsidies. But so far as that is concerned perhaps one could hardly have expected the noble Earl to have made a detailed reply.
I think, however, that there are many sides of the subject which might be dealt with at an earlier date than seems to be contemplated by His Majesty's Government, although I am sure that the Minister of Agriculture has done his best to hasten matters. Surely there are various sides from the domestic, as distinct from the international, point of view on which, while it might not be possible to take action at the moment, the intentions of the Government might be fully stated. One aspect of the question, which I am sure would appeal to many of your Lordships, is the extreme variety of British agriculture. The farmer on the Cumberland Fells, the farmer in the Cambridge-shire Fens, the fruit farmer in Kent, and the dairy farmer in Devonshire are engaged in totally different businesses, and they have to learn their trades in entirely different ways. If moved about like pawns upon a chessboard, I think they would be very helpless.
That points—and in this I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Perry, said—to the continuation, which, I think, ought probably to be permanent, of the county agricultural committees which are working at present. These committees have undoubtedly varied in different parts of England in authority, and to some extent, possibly, in efficiency, but they have done, and they are doing, as I am sure most of your Lordships will agree, most excellent work. They have been able, in a great many cases, to do what was done in the more prosperous days of agriculture, and before the break-up of so many large estates, by members of the very skilful and efficient profession of land agents. It is one of the misfortunes of that change in agriculture that these men, many of them not merely of long experience but of great scientific ability also, should have tended, naturally, to some extent, to disappear. Their counsel and assistance to a tenant-farmer, as many of your Lordships know, was of

703
the utmost importance and value. To some extent, their place has been taken, particularly in the case of the new class of the smaller farmer-owners, by the county agricultural committees. So I think that one of the matters which the noble Earl might have touched on—I do not think that he did touch upon it at all—was that of such local questions as those. In conclusion, I only hope that it will not be very long before my right honourable friend, the Minister of Agriculture, is able to call together the kind of conference on the conclusions of which he wishes to base his future policy. The work which he has done so far has, I know, been appreciated by everybody concerned with or interested in agriculture; I therefore wish him and his office the very best fortune in the work which they are going to undertake.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, this Motion does not ask the Government to say what their policy will be. It does not ask the Government to say whether they are committed to a healthy and well-balanced agriculture. That has already been settled, and we are all glad to think that they are so committed. What the Motion really asks is that the Government should now state their plans for giving effect to that pledge. The noble Earl who spoke for the Government delivered what I call an unfair speech—by that I mean an unfairly good speech-which left me puzzled. He almost persuaded me that, if I cut my face when shaving, I was entitled to claim that I could not walk to the office, because every drop of blood in my veins is connected by the blood-stream with every other drop. He put forward the argument for delay to which the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, and the noble Lord, Lord Addison, have already referred with so much skill that for the moment I am almost tempted to be sorry for him.
As a matter of fact, however, everything must have a beginning—even the post-war policy of this Government—and, as again the noble Marquess opposite pointed out so clearly, the fact that there is very general agreement inside the industry makes it very much easier for the Government to take this first step. There have been very few occasions that I can recall when there has been any similar unanimity on the part of any body of
704
persons. When we talk of the industry, moreover, we are entitled to include in many instances the freely-expressed sympathy of chambers of commerce, of the Federation of British Industries, and others, who have also given their verdict in our favour. The Government are in fact on velvet so far as this matter is concerned, and I venture to say that no reasons, or at any rate no adequate reasons, have been brought forward to-day by the Government for non-compliance with the request made in this Motion.
There is one thing, before I go on with that argument, which I should like to get firmly from the noble Earl. I think that I took down accurately what he said, and I think he said that the Government were definitely in favour of some measure of price stability. I hope I am correct in thinking that he said that; and, if that is so, it marks some advance, for which we are grateful.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I was not giving any pledge on behalf of the Government, and I hope that my noble friend will not interpret what I said in that way. What I said with regard to the speech of my noble friend Lord Perry was that we were all in favour of price stability. I was speaking as an agriculturist, but I was not making a pledge on behalf of the Government, and I do not want any misunderstanding on that score.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, the noble Lord will excuse my interposing to ask the noble Earl whether he supports the words used by the Prime Minister in his broadcast, that "a reasonable level of prices is to be maintained, as it must be maintained." Does he accept that?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Of course I accept it.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, I must say that I am disappointed. I thought that we had found a diamond, but it has turned out to be a bit of coal. All I can say is that there seems to be no reason why the Government should not take further steps. Are there any reasons why they should take further steps? The answer is most emphatically Yes, and the principal reason may be summed up in one word: Confidence. It is confidence that this industry has lacked. It is confidence that the investors and the

705
potential investors in this industry have lacked. It is lack of confidence which has prevented the labouring man from allowing his boy to go into agriculture, because he sees no future for him in it. It is lack of confidence which has influenced the teacher who says: "If I encourage this boy to go into agriculture, he will do worse than the others, and so I shall encourage him to become a black-coated worker." That confidence must depend on the attitude of the Government, and the attitude of the Government requires to be defined so that confidence can be regained.
A very touching little incident in which I was concerned took place only four days ago. I was outside a petrol-filling station in Oxford when a very nice-looking woman came up to me and said that she saw by the notice on my windscreen that I had something to do with the war agricultural committee. I said that I had, and she said, "Well, I have a boy of 14½, and I want to apprentice him to some farmer." I welcomed the idea, and told her what I could. That sort of thing could not have happened three years ago; apprenticeship to the industry had been unheard of for decades, or even for generations; but, now that fresh interest is being taken in agriculture, that is the sort of thing which happens, and it is born of confidence.
From the point of view of the farmer, confidence is required most urgently. After all, all that we have been told up to the present—and we have been told it with some emphasis—is that we can rely on a full production policy until 1947. The emphasis, if anything, tends to show that we may not be sure of our ground after 1947. If we are not sure of our ground after 1947, what are we going to do about our live-stock policy? Are we going to build up herds such as we should like to Lave in a prosperous agriculture? Are we going to the expense of buying good sires in order to build up such herds? Are we going to put our pastures down for five- or six-year leys when the occasion requires? Is our landlord going to repair the barn? Is he going to be able to repair the barn? Can he borrow the money to repair the barn? No, not unless there is confidence in the industry. If you want to get the best out of any body of men, you have to get their confidence first. It is this fact, with all its
706
ramifications, which really provides the reason why the Government should take a step where I think stepping is most easy, and that is in the development of their agricultural policy. I sincerely hope that something more will be conceded before this debate is over.
LORD CORNWALLIS: My Lords, the debate to-day has travelled round the world, and quite rightly so, because, as was pointed out by the noble Earl who spoke for the Government, this future agricultural policy is a world-wide policy. I must apologize, therefore, if I become a little local. I have a considerable feeling that the noble Earl who spoke for the Government would have said a great deal more if he had been allowed to. He, like a good many other noble Lords, and a great many other agriculturists, has suffered as much as anybody from political neglect of this industry. I am rather worried when all we get in this debate is to be told that we are to keep ourselves in a state of suspended animation and hope that something is coming some day, and that the only contribution that we can make at this moment is to go round turning ourselves into human gramophones—which all of us are perfectly ready to do, and are doing day in day out, till we are almost accused, like that great Liberal statesman, of being intoxicated with our own verbosity.
I should have liked to hear something definite—not detail, but some broad principle—that we could have taken back with us to bring comfort to the agricultural industry. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Perry, for bringing this Motion before your Lordships' House, not because one can expect the Government to produce any complete cut-and-dried policy, but because it affords me an opportunity of giving a few local reasons in support of his Motion. My noble friend Lord Phillimore hit one nail straight on the head when he spoke of confidence in the industry. The confidence of the industry in the promises that have been made is rapidly waning. It is not a thing one likes to have to say, but it is true. We were told to bring the matter before our political Parties. Well, I am not very active in politics, I am afraid, but I have noticed that the topic of agriculture has been rather conspicuous by its absence from some of the political Party conferences. One would like to see some action

707
that would anyhow prove to those engaged in the industry that it is the fourth side of the square of defence now, and has some importance in the future.
This state of uncertainty and the apparent shelving of the problem does not bring encouragement to an industry—and here I defy contradiction—that has made the greatest effort of any industry in this country during the war. What is that accomplishment? It has overtopped by hundreds of thousands of acres every single target that has been set yet. How it has done it is a miracle, as Lord Perry has said. But there is one illusion that I do want to dispel, because I come across it very often, and that is that the farmers of this country are now making a fortune. They are doing nothing of the sort. I hope that that view, which is held by ignorant people—and a great many of these ignorant people are in high places, too—can be dispelled once for all. I apologize to your Lordships if I use rather strong language, but the insanity of the incidence of the present method and rate of taxation on the agricultural industry will lead us to a very severe crisis before long unless something is done. There is nothing being left in the industry for the maintenance of the proper standards of farming in anticipation of the bad years to come. They may come, we hope they will not, but the tragedy is that the bigger the farmer, the better the farmer, the more land he takes on and the more he expands, the harder he is being hit and the less is being left in the till for him to do his work with. It may lower the standards of farming and seriously affect the food position unless someone realizes it quite soon.
Let me give your Lordships four examples, and I do not wish you to think that these are just local cases that I know of, because I have taken the trouble to inquire about other areas. I have asked the chairmen of war agricultural committees to make inquiries from their farmers, and I find that the same thing obtains in other counties. I think there are probably other noble Lords in this House who could give similar instances. One farmer says he sold approximately £500,000 worth of produce last year and his accountant has written at the bottom of his accounts that he is rapidly approaching a state of insolvency, because
708
there is nothing left but his immediate working cash, after he has paid Excess Profits Tax and other taxation, with which to run five or six very large farms. About the best farmer I know told me he has taken on a tremendous amount of land in this war-time effort, and that he cannot go on farming on his present scale and pay his Excess Profits Tax at the present time, because it does not leave him enough working cash to get through the periods when nothing is coming in. I will give another instance, that of a farmer I know who paid all his taxes within a month of demand, as soon as his accounts were out. Within one month he received a demand from the E.P.T. authorities for £10,000 on account for the next year. They had no idea that he required £150 a week to pay wages before anything came in at all. I will give you another illustration. A man came to me the other day and said, "My wages bill for 1938–39 was £5,200. To-day it is £10,400. I am putting nothing away. The E.P.T. and taxation are taking it all, and if I have bad years I shall have nothing in the till to meet those bad years."
I hope that your Lordships, from whom a great deal more has come about agriculture than from anywhere else, will seriously realize the financial situation with which we are faced. We are asked by the Minister not to "let up" for four years. There will be no let up for four years. But farmers may be taxed out of operation at the end of those four years if the same drain is going on. We are told it is impossible to give any idea of what the policy is going to be. Well, is not there something? Cannot we retain some capital in the industry? Is it not possible for the Government to say, "We are seriously considering the abolition of Death Duties on agricultural land, or a very considerable remission of them"? Is not that something that can be given by way of encouragement to the farmer? It seems to me that there is something that could be done, even if a vast and detailed policy cannot be expounded.
A noble Lord to-day referred to priorities. The reason why agriculture is brought before your Lordships' House again and again is in order to keep it on the map. The agricultural community thought they really were on the map at last, but now they are not quite sure that

709
they are not being gradually smudged out. And one of the reasons is that there is a feeling that agriculture is still not treated as a priority industry. There is no real priority of labour. The Ministry of Labour diverts anybody that it does not know what to do with to agriculture. Anyone will do. The Minister of Labour apparently thinks that anyone who can wield a hammer can mend agricultural machinery. There are no skilled men being left in the agricultural machinery department. That does not sound much like a priority. Then there is the Ministry of Supply. There is always a delay in the supply of spare parts. When you get a firm that is prepared to make tracks for tractors, you cannot get any steel to make them. All these delays, all these little examples, only serve to emphasize what my noble friend Lord Phillimore spoke about—lack of confidence—and make the people engaged in the industry wonder whether they really are in a priority industry.
Your Lordships will probably say I have said this before, but what are we discussing? We are discussing the future of an industry that has risen from a state of dereliction to being the saviour of the country's food supply. That is something that wants saying. There have been no strikes by workers or farmers in this industry. That wants emphasizing very strongly. There has been no necessity for people in this industry to receive a personal letter or appeal from the Prime Minister asking them to work. That wants emphasizing. The privilege I have had—the very proud privilege—of living and working with these great folk who put their country before themselves, is something I shall never forget as long as I live. What prevents us from receiving some charter, some broad outline, as I have said, not in detail—something that will give us a definite feeling that there is a fair deal coming in the future?. I wonder what the reason really is why we cannot get at the basic policy if we get at nothing else. Is it because there is a certain amount of obstruction in the Cabinet? Are there certain members of the Government in high places who really do not worry about agriculture? Is it political prejudice? It certainly is not that in your Lordships' House. Everybody here is trying to meet one another and all are working to the same end. It cannot be a sordid return to thinking about votes.
710
What is the reason? What is stopping something being done so that we can go back with some assurance to these people who are working clay and night?
Some of your Lordships should come down to the edge of the cliffs of Dover and realize what is happening. Cannot we have something to go back to them with instead of being told, "No, I am afraid you must wait, there are so many other things to be thought of." I know there are, and so does everyone else here, but I am afraid that if you lose this confidence you will find that the food supply may not be kept up in the wonderful way it has been in the past. The Beveridge Report has been referred to. Here we are dealing with something far more important than the I3everidge Report. There have been reports on the use of land, the Scott Report and the Uthwatt Report. We are waiting for a report to tell us how this land of ours can be kept in maintenance and fertility and be the life-blood of the nation for years to came, and how it is going to remain in cultivation, not the use particularly to which it is going to be put. Security for the stomach, which is produced by the agricultural industry, is a very large part of our social security, and I hope the Government will give very earnest attention to the question of the future of this great industry.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I am sure we must all welcome the knowledge and eloquence which my noble friend Lord Cornwallis is able, in these days, to bring to bear in this House upon agricultural problems. In the enemy-afflicted county from which he comes he is a real light, enlightening and enthusing the whole of the agricultural community of his county. When he comes to speak to us in this House he speaks with knowledge and experience, and is able, moving about among farmers and farm workers, to echo accurately their feelings and aspirations. I am, of course, disappointed, as so many of your Lordships appear to be in every quarter of the House, at the reply which the noble Earl gave on behalf of the Government to the eloquent plea put forward by Lord Perry with a view to rebuilding the greatest industry of country on a sound basis after the war. One drawback to many of our agricultural debates in clays gone by has been that there was no leading industrialist to put

711
forward the claims of agriculture and to utter, to some extent, a more enlightened view on the part of industrialism regarding the country's most vital industry. Although Lord Perry is undoubtedly an enlightened practical agriculturist, he is also a great industrialist, and it seems to me somewhat significant that the debate on this occasion should have been initiated by a man of his influence and authority in industrial circles.
I do not propose to take up the time of your Lordships for more than two or three minutes, because what I wanted mainly to emphasize has been so eloquently and emphatically urged by my noble friend Lord Phillimore, and that is the problem of confidence. I should have thought that the main ingredient, or material, for that agricultural pillar to which the noble Earl referred is confidence. Whatever the Government may do under existing conditions, and in face of the amazing unanimity which prevails in regard to the solution of our agricultural problems, what is more essential than anything else is that Government pronouncements should develop and maintain confidence in every class of the agricultural community. We had from the noble Earl the metaphor or simile of a national structure supported by various pillars, some of them industrial and at least one agricultural. There is a certain part of most well-formed structures which is very essential for maintaining the stability of the arch supporting the building, and that is the keystone. I suggest that whatever may be the future reconstructive programme, or—to maintain the simile—whatever may be the structure which the Government propose to set up after the war, they should make agriculture the keystone of the arch, and in that connexion reflect on the wise words of that very enlightened man of vision, President Theodore Roosevelt. Some thirty or thirty-five years ago, when initiating a new national policy for the United States, he emphasized the fact that the welfare of every nation should be founded upon the welfare of the agricultural population, and that unless you have a confident and prosperous agricultural community you are not likely to achieve national welfare or national progress.
Surely the Government might be prepared to give us a little more confidence in their utterances with regard to their post-war agricultural policy. The outlook
712
for British agriculture is markedly brighter than it was and it would of course become definitely brighter still if we had some assurance that the agricultural industry could be put upon a permanently secure basis without being perpetually propped up by "doles" or subsidies. We do not like to be regarded as a mendicant industry. There is no earthly reason why the agriculture of this country, at least in the hands of competent practitioners, should be a mendicant industry so long as the people of this country are prepared to pay full value for the essential food that is drawn from our own land, and, of course, consequentially, are in a position to receive enough remuneration for their work to enable them to pay it.
That leads me finally to make one observation with regard to those farmers and agricultural workers who are mainly responsible for the output of food from the land of this country. Not only does the land need cultivation, but so also do those who live and work upon it. This culture or cultivation, both mental and manual, must be scientific as well as practical. Practice must be based upon science. I want to draw attention to the fact that until the war period in this country came, and particularly since we had the experience in the last twelve months of Government agricultural demonstrations, we in this country were curiously backward in regard to demonstrations of improved agricultural practice and also in regard to the application of ascertained knowledge or science to the art of husbandry. What I want to point out is that to-day the Government expenditure upon agricultural science appears to be smaller than in any other civilized country of the world and markedly smaller than in the United States.
Curiously enough, there is no reliable information as to what the amount of Government money is that has been expended upon scientific research, not merely upon agricultural research, but research of every description in this country. I have endeavoured to obtain it and I have failed entirely. No Government Department is in a position to provide it and there are no official sources from which it can be obtained, but it is estimated by experts that the British Empire spends perhaps £10,000,000 a year on research for the

713
benefit of 500,000,000 people. This compares unfavourably with the United States whose estimated expenditure is £40,000,000 a year on 150,000,000 people. When one looks at Great Britain apart from the Empire generally, £5,000,000 is estimated to be the annual expenditure upon research of all descriptions in Great Britain with a population of something under 50,000,000. Therefore we see that we spend here in this country some 2s. per head per year upon scientific research as compared with the United States, which spends 5s. 4d. per head. All I want to suggest is that surely the time has come when we must give definite encouragement to scientific research and should take greater pains to convey the more useful results of agricaltural research to those who so very badly need it nowadays upon the farm holdings of this country.
We are told by those in authority that a large proportion of the men, farmers and workers alike, who are attending these excellent demonstrations that take place during the summer months in different parts of the country and who watch these demonstrations and listen to the lectures given upon new machinery, implements and other subjects, simply do not understand the technical jargon in which so many of the explanations are made. I feel that nothing is more required to-day, apart from sufficient expenditure upon agricultural research, than that the teachings of research so far as they are of economic value shall be conveyed in intelligible language to everyone who is prepared to improve his methods, whether he be a farmer or a farm worker.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I venture to interpose in this debate for a few moments in order to put, if I can, into their proper perspective certain features which have been stressed in the first place by Lord Perry and later by my noble friend Lord Addison. The noble Lord, Lord Perry, referred at some considerable length to the question of subsidies now being paid to agriculture, and Lord Addison later on expressed the opinion that the public at large would not tolerate the continuance of those subsidies for any long period. What is exactly the position to-day? Actually the price of food has been pegged down by the payment from the Treasury of sums which are stated to be from £100,000,000 to £150,000,000 per
714
annum, and it is very convenient to some persons to describe these payments as a subsidy to agriculture. They are nothing of the sort.
What would be the real position if today there was a free market in a world that is short of food? The very few items that are not now controlled are sufficient evidence in themselves. Vegetables until they were dealt with soared to absurd prices, not last winter but the winter before. Anybody who was so fortunate as to shoot a pheasant which he did not wish to eat, and sent it into the public market, soon discovered to his profit what it was to have a commodity that was not controlled. That is what would happen to every form of food were it not pegged by the wise action of the Government, which does so at the expense of the general taxpayer. There is no such thing as a subsidy to-day to the producer. Actually the farmer is getting a price which is a mere fraction of the price he would get if there was a free market. I am not suggesting that he should be allowed a free market, most certainly not, but I am not going to have it said that he is now subsidized, and that he is filling his pockets at the expense of the general taxpayer. That is not true.
What is the situation likely to be for a period of years after the war? We all of us must realize and visualize the practical certainty that all the exporting countries of the world will be required to place into a starving Europe the whole of their exportable surplus and probably considerably more; in fact they will be asked to go short in order that those who are even shorter shall have sufficient for a bare sufficiency. That of itself means that in Great Britain the produce of the farmer would soar to very high figures unless for a period the price of food was pegged. That is not a subsidy; that is preventing the farmer from taking advantage of the free play of the market. There will come a time when we shall get to the stage which apparently the noble Lord, Lord Perry, and the noble Lord, Lord Addison, imagine exists to-day. There will come a time when Europe is saturated and will have its own exportable surplus, which will come to Great Britain and the British farmer will be sunk. That, of court, is the fear in the minds of my noble friends Lord Phillimore, Lord Cornwallis and many others. But it will not happen for a considerable number of years after the

715
war is over, and during that period the farmer will be prevented, quite reasonably and quite properly, from securing the profit which would be his if the market were free.
I think that security in agriculture depends really upon wise finance more than anything else. Let us perhaps for the period of this debate leave out the subject of control. It is highly controversial and I do not know that we have reached a stage where we need even discuss it. But the finance of agriculture needs looking into now. It must be agreed that the price which the farmer is now receiving, coupled to the taxation imposed on him, debars him and his landlord from putting any reserve aside. There is no reserve being created. That is where our danger is going to come. That is the real danger. It is purely a financial question, if I may venture to express so emphatic an opinion. You are imposing restricted prices upon your producer and simultaneously you are making him pay Excess Profits Tax, of course on top of his ordinary tax, and you are giving him no opportunity of setting aside any reserve. The landowner who at the end of this war is going to be faced with a truly prodigious expenditure, if he is to make good the devastating arrears of the years during which it was not possible to employ labour, quite apart from finance, because the labour did not exist—the landowner is going to be faced with immense expenditure and is being given no opportunity to set aside a reserve. Those two things in combination are going to spell destruction, sheer destruction.
I think during the war it does not matter whether the farmer pays Excess Profits Tax or not. If the country wishes to have the use of his money let it have it, but for mercy's sake let it he put into a pool and let him take it out again. There is to be a remission of 20 per cent. in the case of industry. The farmer will want 100 per cent. Machinery is wearing out. It cannot be bought to-day and therefore plenty of money would not help now, but the time will come when it can be bought and then the money will not be there. My noble friend Lord Cornwall's with his great knowledge told us in categorical terms of farmers left with no cash in hand to carry on ordinary working expenses. What will be the
716
position of these farmers after the war? What will be the position of any farmer after the war? If the Government could bring their mind to bear upon making a pronouncement on the financial side, that agricultural confidence to which my noble friends Lord Phillimore and Viscount Bledisloe referred, that confidence which is more urgently required in agriculture than any other form of assistance, would be given through its financial end.
Those of us who have spent their lives in agriculture know that it is a veritable sink for money. It requires more and ever more new money. Equipment has to be kept up to date and buildings have to be rebuilt. Everything in agriculture wears out and therefore wants continuous renewal. Renewal can only come out of profits. My noble friend Lord Cornwallis referred to Death Duties. If it is agreed, as it must be, that agriculture is always wanting more and more money, surely it must be allowed to keep more of the money it has got and not have it taken away from it. Would it not be possible to give to agriculture a remission of a Duty which has drained it of all the capital it had? Let it be hedged about by all manner of conditions. Let it be laid down that any remission shall be expended exclusively upon equipment for the land. Let that be done. Let it be assured that the landowner shall derive no conceivable profit from it, but for mercy's sake let money be available for the land itself; otherwise it will be impossible after the war to revive agriculture and still less to maintain it at the high peak it has reached to-day. We cannot do it. The farmer himself must be put in the position of having a reserve.
Those of us who have had access to farm accounts know that, even to-day, very large numbers of farmers are still heavily in debt, debt which was piled up in the lean years. Interest on that debt, of course, is chargeable in the accounts before tax is paid, but not the capital sums. If the farming community during the lean years were compelled in order to carry on to borrow money which they did borrow, surely not only in common fairness but in the interests of the State the farming community ought to be given an opportunity of clearing themselves of debt when they have an opportunity, if the money is not taken from them and paid into the Treasury. Astonishing figures were given by my noble

717
friend Lord Cornwallis. I could give you equally astonishing figures, incredible figures of money paid in Excess Profits Tax, which ought in the interests of the State to be placed in a reserve, so that after this war we shall be assured of the continuance of agriculture out of its own resources and not out of the resources of the taxpayer. I do trust that it may be possible for members of the Government who understand agriculture—and there are many—to press that particular point of view.
We have got to determine before we can have an agricultural policy whether after this war we are going in for self-sufficiency or for a nutritional policy. They are wholly different. I do not blame any Government for not having deter-wined that yet, because we do not know the conditions under which this war will end, and until we know the conditions which will prevail at the end of the war we cannot tell whether we shall be compelled to adopt a policy of self-sufficiency or be free to adopt a nutritional policy. But we shall never be able to adopt either self-sufficiency or a nutritional policy unless we have the money. My noble friend Lord Addison, and many others in your Lordships' House, know the extreme difficulty there will be at the end of the war to induce the taxpayers to put their hands in their pockets in order to maintain agriculture. There will be conflicting claims from every conceivable interest, all of them pressing and urgent. Therefore the reasons which I have ventured to adduce why agriculture should be put into a position to maintain itself out of its own profits are surely sound. That, to my mind, if I might venture to close on that note, is the point of real importance. Give us the opportunity of making our reserves now and then the State will not be troubled with agricultural problems after the war.
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: My Lords, I shall detain you for a few minutes only, but I must add to what has been said by other noble Lords, that it is extremely disappointing to have had from the Government spokesman today a statement that Cabinet Ministers have no time to deal with this question, followed by the statement, in effect, that they have no knowledge of it. The noble Earl then quoted the broadcast of the Prime Minister which contained these
718
words: "No promises, but every preparation." I do hope that, if nothing else results from this debate, the last four speeches to which we have had the privilege of listening, will impress upon His Majesty's Government that it is time to get on with the preparation. As Lord Addison properly said, surely there are one or two steps on which we could have pronouncements and make a beginning.
If I venture to occupy two or three minutes of your Lordships' time it is because I wish to strike one note which has not yet been sounded in the debate to-day. It follows up the note struck by Lord Phillimore and Lord Bledisloe—that confidence is required. I would like to say that confidence is required not only by the large farmer but also by the small farmer, the small-holder. I would like to urge that in the Government plan for a well-balanced agriculture there should be found a place for the small-holder, because I feel and believe very strongly that, in spite of the fact that openings are made, under the new régime of better wages, for the advancement of the agricultural worker, there is a very large body of men who are anxious to secure independence rather than security, who are willing to put their whole effort and their whole capital into work over which they have some form of control, themselves, rather than operate for a wage at the direction of a master.
It is for this that I would specially plead to-day: that in planning for a well-balanced agriculture for the future we should remember the place which can profitably be occupied by the small-holder. When I say "profitably," I mean profitably not only to himself but profitably in connexion with the kind of food which can be produced by the small-holder. I think that that is a question which has got to be considered in relation to this main problem. Vegetables, fruit, milk, poultry, eggs, and, possibly, pigs, all will respond in an almost miraculous way to the individual effort of a man who spends his life on the land and gives his whole attention to his own small holding. I should like to quote two illustrations showing what has already been accomplished on small holdings in this country. But before doing so I would emphasize that associated with any small-holding policy there must always be co-operation in buying and selling, otherwise the small-holder is at a disadvantage.

719
Given co-operation in buying and selling he comes into the same sphere as the large farmer, and it has been found possible, on estates of the Land Settlement Association, for holders with holdings of four and a half acres devoted to market gardening and small live stock, to make, on an average, from the value of their production, something in the region of £800. That is better than the average minimum wage of £3. In addition it gives, as I say, the boon of independence. The other illustration is from actual experience, and relates to the advantages of organized marketing. This enables packing and grading to be organized and maintained at a high level of quality, and it saves the' producer all labour costs except those of producing. In actual fact, we can show that on the estates which are at present managed by the Land Settlement Association, 600 tenants have produced from their holdings food to the value of £475,000. I wish to make this contribution to the debate to ensure, if possible, that the small-holder is not squeezed out in the consideration of the national plan for the future. I believe that he can fill a place of real usefulness—usefulness not only in the production of food, but also in bringing up a strong, healthy, independent population.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, debates in your Lordships' House upon agriculture are always of a very high quality, but the one to which we have listened to-day is of such unusually high quality that I almost hesitate to intervene, for fear I should depart from the standard which has been maintained hitherto. It is a symptom of the times, and a very welcome symptom, that this debate has been initiated, not by an agriculturist but by one who is primarily a great industrialist, although with agricultural connexions. That is a very good augury for the future. At the same time, perhaps my noble friend Lord Perry will forgive me if I say that even these agricultural connexions do not, I think, in some cases permit of his seeing all the problems which unfortunately at every turn confront those of us who are directly concerned. It is really easier, I can assure him, to get a balanced crankshaft than a balanced ration, and whilst the same explosive mixture may work very well throughout all the carburettors of the whole range of
720
Ford engines, the same food may not suit the digestions of all the cows in one small byre. But we do welcome here to-day his exposition of these agricultural problems because he is certainly starting along the right line.
The first desideratum must be, of course, to afford a good wage, not just a living wage, to the workers in the industry. Next the farmer must be sure of a reasonable amount of profit or you will not bring into the industry the best men, the men with the best brains—they will prefer to go elsewhere. This brings me to the position of the landlord. Lord Addison staked, with only too much truth, that a vast amount of capital is required if the land in this country is to be put into proper order. If your Lordships will pardon a personal reference, from the time that I first assumed control of the estates of my own family, which are fairly extensive, some fifteen years ago, I have not drawn out a penny for my personal use, and the agricultural revenues have also been subsidized by sporting rents. As a result, I am perfectly prepared to let anyone see the properly without any feeling of shame, but I am by no means satisfied with the condition that it is in; there is a great deal more to be done. I have renovated a hundred cottages, but they have not all got baths yet, as I should like them to have.
At the present time, although one may put back into agriculture every penny that comes out of it, one is still not in a position to do all that one would like to do. It is not merely a question of maintaining agricultural property, whether land or buildings, in the state in which they are to-day; it is a question of bringing them up to date. It is no reflection on one's predecessors to say that the equipment is not up to date, because in their day the equipment was often entirely adequate for its purpose; but time moves on, and agricultural requirements move with it, and move very fast. One would like, as Lord Perry has said, to introduce electricity everywhere, but the fact that a high-tension cable of perhaps 132,000 volts passes just beside a farm does not mean that it is easy to get electricity on that farm. A transformer is needed to bring the voltage down, and, while the cable may pass within a few yards of a farm, if the farmer is able to get electricity it will probably come to him from

721
a transformer anything up to ten or fifteen miles away.
We must get capital into the land. I am not sure that from the housing point of view I can agree with the noble Lord, Lord Perry, because, if houses are to be provided by private enterprise in the form of a corporation, what assurance is there going to be that these houses, although meant for agricultural workers, are always going to be available for those workers? Unless the corporation is going to show a truly remarkable public spirit, I am afraid that the tendency for the week-ender to take cottages meant for agricultural workers, and pay for them rents quite beyond the capacity of the agricultural worker, will again manifest itself, and a great many of these cottages will be turned to occupation for which they were not meant. If, however, the cottages are built by, or under the control of, the State or the local authorities, the nature of the occupation of the occupants can be controlled, as is the case with the reconditioned cottages at the present time.
The noble Lord spoke of the so-called "doles" received by the agricultural industry. On that point he was answered fully, and I think very satisfyingly, by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, but I will add this one rejoinder. Is it only agriculture which has ever had "doles"? Have the extensive works controlled by the noble Lord benefited to no extent at all from derating, and, if they have, what is de-rating but another form of "dole"? At the same time, let me express complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Addison, when he says that what we want is to get away from any form of "dole," whatever it is for. Agriculture must be made self-supporting by whatever means can be found for doing so. I join with other noble Lords in regretting that we have not so far to-day had any more definite indication of the intentions of the Government.
There is one very important branch of agriculture which, surprisingly enough, has been touched on so far only by the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore. I refer to live stock. As your Lordships know, we produce incomparably the best live stock in the world, both for the purpose of the production of meat and for providing sires for herds and flocks abroad. Our live stock has been very seriously reduced, quite unavoidably, owing to the enormous
722
demand for corn and other crops. Those of us with pedigree stock have, it is true, been afforded a certain relief from demands which would otherwise have been extremely difficult to fulfil; but, after this war, not only shall we have to expand our live-stock industry in the interests of ourselves and our customers overseas for prize bulls and so on, but we are going to have a great demand for animals to replace the devastated and almost annihilated stocks of the countries occupied by the Germans. Only a short time ago, I was talking to a young Belgian who recently escaped from Belgium, who assured me that live stock in that unhappy country had almost ceased to exist; what had not be stolen by the Hun had been consumed by the semi-starving population. He fervently expressed the hope that this country would be able, after the war, to provide Belgium with at least a large proportion of the live stock she required. Belgium is only one instance; all the other occupied countries are to a greater or lesser degree in the same plight, and I think it would be well for His Majesty's Government to consider whether we should not even now begin to prepare for the replenishment of their diminished flocks and herds.
There is another point, The reduction of live stock in this country has an unfortunate, if unavoidable, effect upon fertility. Even if we were able to get all the artificial manures we could use, there are qualities which natural manures possess which cannot be obtained from any artificial. There is an intangible something which cannot be expressed by a chemical formula. There is also the fact that farmyard manure is helpful to the production of insect life, and insect life, on the whole, is beneficial to agriculture, if not indeed essential to it. There is also, apart from the chemical action, the mechanical action on the soil. The actual dung, mixed with the straw, has an aerating effect, particularly on heavy soil, which cannot be brought about by the use of any artificial. That is more or less an obiter dictum, but it should really be borne in mind, because, as has already been stated, fertility in many cases is being gravely encroached upon.
I should like to make one last thrust at the noble Lord, Lord Perry. He spoke of his abhorrence of subsidies for manures, on the ground that he did not like to give public money to private per-

723
sons. That gift, however, is not one which remains with the landlord; it is entirely to the advantage of the farm, because the manures put into the land do not remain there, but go out again sooner or later with the crop. They may remain for a few months or for several years, but in the end they go out, so that they are only a loan and not a permanent improvement.
There are only one or two other things that I wish to say, in view of the lateness of the hour. The first is that I cordially support the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, in his demand for further steps in agricultural education. I would also go a little further myself and urge the Government to do more for agricultural research into animal diseases. Once again in Scotland we are being swept by that mysterious grass disease which is striking down our horses and for which absolutely no cure has yet been found, nor is its exact nature really known. There we might spend a considerable sum of money to the very great advantage of our industry and of agriculture generally. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, is, I know, at present engaged in trying to work out the problem of hill sheep, and something should be done at an early date in that matter, as all hill farmers that I know of are even to-day working at a loss. I am in entire agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Addison, and others who have expressed their satisfaction at the way in which we are for the first time now getting a large measure of agreement among agricultural experts of all Parties as to many of the steps that should be taken in the future. Once one can get agriculture away from Party politics, once one can get all thoughtful men who know something about it to agree upon the main lines of an agricultural policy, however much they may differ about the minor matters of the administration of such a policy, we have laid the foundation stone for a prosperity for agriculture which agriculture certainly deserves but which it has not, except at rare intervals, had for a century or more.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE DUKE OF NORFOLK): My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Perry, replies, it might be convenient if I made
724
a few general observations on the somewhat full and wide debate that we have had to-day. There is little, I must admit, that I can add to the speech of my noble friend Lord Selborne, but one or two specific questions were raised with which I will endeavour to deal. I would first like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Perry, for bringing this subject before us and to tell him that, while I am disappointed not to be able to give him what he asks, nevertheless we welcome such discussions. I do so personally as an agriculturist if for no other reason than that, in the phrase of Lord Cornwallis, they keep the industry on the map. I was a little surprised at two remarks made by Lord Perry. From what I understood him to say, it would appear that drainage schemes and water-to-farm land schemes were practically non-existent. No one would assert that what we have done in regard to drainage is complete, but a tremendous amount has been done and a great deal of help is given to the farmer in that respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Addison, made reference to the Food Conference in America, but I do not propose to enter into that this afternoon. I think he will agree with what my noble friend said that, later on, that subject should be a matter for a separate debate. The noble Lord also asked what the Prime Minister meant in his broadcast when he said there are likely to be substantial charges which the State must be prepared to shoulder. I think the answer is exactly what the noble Lord and myself both had in mind, that none of these things can be carried out without financial help from somewhere, and whatever is done in any industry the money must be there before it can be done. I think Lord Addison himself mentioned the figure of £250,000,000 as not being near the mark, and said that if you multiplied it by seven or eight you would be nearer the mark.
LORD ADDISON: I do not think I was quite guilty of, that, but the idea was the same.
THE DUKE OF NORFOLK: I may have slightly exaggerated. I apologize. There was only one other point in Lord Addison's speech to which I wished to refer. Was it to my Department that he

725
referred when he used the word "procrastination"?
LORD ADDISON: No.
THE DUKE OF NORFOLK: I thank the noble Lord for that. The word "confidence" is one that has run through the debate, and my noble friend Lord Phillimore dwelt on chat at sonic length. From my experience of the country today I think it is perfectly true to say that there is tremendous confidence in the agricultural industry, both in the urban and the rural districts. Lord Phillimore mentioned the four-year plan which my right honourable friend spoke about yesterday. I know that the noble Lord was present at that meeting, but my right honourable friend did specifically state that this plan is a four-year plan because, whether the war lasted one year or four years longer, there cannot possibly be any letting up of the agricultural effort, and that the industry must produce all it can in the next four years. He did, at the same time, make a fairly long reference to the position of the live-stock industry in this country, and if my noble friend Lord Mansfield has not yet had time to read that speech I would ask him to relieve his mind by referring to what the Minister said. The noble Earl, Lord Elgin, gave me the impression that he thought nothing had been done at all. He said there was no promise, only preparation.
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: I was quoting from the Prime Minister; that was not my own statement.
THE DUKE OF NORFOLK: What I am going to do—and I make no apology to the House for doing so—is to quote once again what the Prime Minister said, and to quote it more fully than has already been done. After all, he made this statement at a moment chosen by the Government and made it as the great leader of the nation. He said:
"It is absolutely certain we shall have to grow a larger proportion of our food at home. During the war immense advances have been made by the agricultural industry. The position of the farmers has been improved, the position of the labourers immeasurably improved. The efficient agricultural landlord has an important part to play. I hope to see a vigorous revival of healthy village life on the basis of these higher wages and of improved housing and, what with the modern methods
726
of locomotion and the modern amusements of the cinema and the wireless, to which will soon be added television, life in the country and on the land ought to compete in attractiveness with life in the great cities.
But all this would cost money. When the various handicaps of war conditions are at an end, I expect that better national housekeeping will be possible and that, as the result of technical improvements in British agriculture, the strain upon the State will be relieved. At the same time the fact remains that if the expansion and improvement of British agriculture is to be maintained, as it must be maintained, and a reasonable level of prices is to be maintained, as it must be maintained, there are likely to be substantial charges which the State must he prepared to shoulder. That has to be borne in mind."
That is where I propose to end, because I am quite certain, in spite of the disappointment that has been expressed by some noble Lords this afternoon, that the clay will dawn in the not far distant future when a similar Motion will appear on your Lordships' paper, and I am equally certain that at a not far distant date there will be a long-term policy for agriculture.
LORD PERRY: My Lords, it would be very interesting to reply to certain of the debating points which the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, raised, but in anything I said to-day my aim was to substantiate the case for the practical setting up of a permanent policy. As I expressed my personal opinion on certain points, there is no need to discuss them now. I am very sorry if I stated something wrongly about drainage, as the noble Duke mentioned. I have seen what I call main drainage at work in many parts of the country. I have discussed the subject with a great many people. I did not intend to say nothing was being done. What I did intend to say was that there is no co-ordination of effort, and that the work of catchment boards should be looked upon as national work rather than parochial, as it is at present.
I am very grateful particularly for the speeches of Lord Phillimore, Lord Cornwallis, and the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, all of whom stressed this word "confidence." I have received an express letter from a noble Lord who intended to be here to-day. He says:
"From experience of what happened to the Government's pledges to the wheat producers after the last war, I cannot help regarding these pledges as mere slips of paper in spite of the fact that our present Minister of Agriculture has personally gone into farming on a big scale."

727
That is utterly representative of the condition of confidence throughout the country, and it should be a matter of considerable concern. Everything depends on confidence. The world and life rest upon it. Destroy it and we cease to exist. We must have confidence. If we talk about confidence at the present time let us put it in terms of morale. It is, I assure His Majesty's Ministers, just as necessary to preserve the morale of our workers on the land, and of our investors in the land, as it is to preserve the morale of any other people, whether in the Army or in munition works. Therefore, it is very much to be regretted that the Government cannot got a little way further.
Of course I anticipated the difficulty of the Motion. I quite understood that no cut-and-dried programme could be laid down, but it is surely time that something was said to carry out the pledge that has been given. We know the war is going on, and that it is very difficult, but in view of the continued and repeated demands of the Minister, it is a great pity the Government cannot see their way to do something better. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, even gave it away when he said that when he made a certain statement he was talking as a fellow agriculturist and not as a Minister. The noble Duke has done exactly the same thing, so we are all unanimous about it. It would not be right to say that Ministers are procrastinating, so far as I know—and I know a great deal about the operations of the Ministry of Agriculture—yet that word does creep into the minds of those of us who have not complete knowledge of all the Government's motive' and considerations. We are apt
728
to think that there is procrastination when things do not happen. I hope this debate cannot be described as inopportune. I heard that expression applied to a debate recently by a member of the Government, and I was really scared about my Motion in case it, too, should be called inopportune. In the circumstances I ask leave to withdraw it.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

HYDRO-ELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, and read 1.
BRIDGWATER GAS BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1, and referred to the Examiners.
  GOVERNOR OF QUEENSLAND.
  GOVERNOR OF QUEENSLAND.