Sitting of 10 November 1943

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

  FOREIGN SERVICE (OVERSEAS PERSONNEL, EMOLUMENTS)
  Mr. Caryasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any cases have been brought to his notice regarding serving members of the Foreign Service whose salary and emoluments are now quite inadequate to meet the high cost of living which has been reached in some countries oversea; and whether any special contingency account exists to assist British representatives serving abroad to meet additional expenditure or pay off liabilities which were not foreseen when they accepted their appointments?
  The Minister of State (Mr. Richard Law): There have been a number of cases when the emoluments of members of the Foreign Service abroad have proved insufficient to meet their reasonable necessary expenditure. In all such cases steps have been taken to remedy the position. No special contingency account exists. Increased expenditure of this nature is paid out of voted money.
  Mr. Cary: In view of the fact that the high cost of living is likely to remain for some time, may I ask my right hon. Friend to keep this matter under continuous review in his Department, in relation to the expenses of Missions abroad? I am sure that it would not be the wish of Parliament or the nation that any of our Foreign Service representatives should get into personal debt.
  Mr. Law: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Certainly we shall keep the matter under review.

  ITALY

    Generals Ambrosio and Roatta
    Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can
    1118
    now make a statement about the position of Generals Ambrosio and Roatta?
    Mr. Law: Our own preliminary investigations into the cases of Generals Ambrosio and Roatta have been completed. The Italian Government have been asked to remove General Roatta from his post. The case of General Ambrosio is still under consideration by the Commander-in-Chief.
    Mr. Mander: In view of the principles of the Moscow Conference, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these persons will be sent to Yugoslavia and tried there?
    Mr. Law: This is a matter for the United Nations Commission.

    Armistice Terms
    Mr. Ivor Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now prepared to make a statement on the political, economic and financial terms of the Armistice with Italy?
    Mr. Law: It has not yet been decided between the various Governments that the time has come to publish the terms.
    Commander Locker-Lampson: Will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that none of the ill-governed portions of the Italian Empire are ever returned to Italy?
    Dr. Russell Thomas: Will it not be much to the advantage of Italy not to make too rapid a settlement, in view of the political and other confusion which there exists?

  ROAD ACCIDENTS (UNITED STATES SERVICE VEHICLES)
  Mr. Oliverasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the position of civilians injured in road accidents by the negligent driving of United States service vehicles and the refusal of the commanding general of the American Forces in this country to submit the cases to the jurisdiction of the civil courts; and whether any steps are being taken to obtain a satisfactory settlement of this matter with the Government of the United States?
  Mr. Law: These matters are at present under active discussion with the Government of the United States and the United States authorities.
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this great general principle applies to accidents caused by Dominion troops in this country, and will he see that a proper investigation is carried out into the whole question?
  Mr. Law: As the matter is at present under discussion with the United States Government, I do not think it would be wise to enter into it now.
  Mr. Nicholson: Is it not an extremely unsatisfactory state of affairs when one's constituents are getting killed or injured and there is no recourse open to them in law?
  Mr. Keeling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the American Army issue a document which purports to be an award by a tribunal, and that they thus act both as defendant and as judge?

  ARAB STATES
  Mr. Priceasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement about the decisions of the conference of delegates from the Arab States of the Middle East which met recently in Cairo?
  Mr. Law: If my hon. Friend will kindly inform me what conference he has in mind, I will be glad to give him any information possible.

  FRENCH COMMITTEE OF NATIONAL LIBERATION
  Mr. Martinasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make efforts to procure the inclusion of representatives of the French Committee of National Liberation on all international committees dealing with European reconstruction in which French interests may either immediately or ultimately be affected?
  Mr. Ivor Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the French Committee of National Liberation do not propose to recognise any policy for the post-war treatment of Germany in the formation of which they have not participated; and whether he has any plan whereby France may be associated with the discussions of such matters by the other Allies?
  Mr. Law: I have noted the statement issued by the French Committee of National Liberation. It is the desire of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom that representatives of the French Committee of National Liberation, as of the Allied Governments, shall be associated with all discussions relating to European reconstruction when this is appropriate.
  Mr. Ralph Etherton: Will my right hon. Friend similarly consult representatives of Yugoslavia and Poland, when their interests are specifically under consideration?
  Mr. Law: Certainly, Sir. The interests of all our Allies will be borne in mind.
  Mr. Thomas: Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that France has a very special interest in the treatment of Germany?

  CHINA

    Coasting Trade
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the text of the agreement between the Chinese and British Governments affecting the shipping trade on the China coast; and whether it has been agreed that China shall have the exclusive right to this trade?
    Mr. Law: My hon. Friend is referring, I understand, to the Treaty for the Relinquishment of Extra-Territorial Rights in China of 11th January, 1943, printed as Command Paper 6417. Under Article 1 (g) of the Annex to the Treaty, His Majesty's Government relinquished the special rights which they had previously enjoyed as regards the coasting trade. The question of any future arrangements to be made in this respect is one for consideration when the two Governments negotiate the comprehensive treaty referred to in Article 8 of the Treaty of the 11th January.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these shipping rates were of great advantage to the shipping industry in this country and that if they are to be relinquished, as is suggested in the text of the agreement, a very severe burden will be imposed on our Mercantile Marine? Is it not desirable that this matter should be reviewed and that hon. Members

    1121
    should have an opportunity of discussing the matter in order to correct what is undoubtedly a serious mistake?
    Mr. Law: By the Treaty to which I have referred we have relinquished in China all extra-territorial rights. I suggest to my hon. Friend that we cannot have it both ways; we cannot relinquish extra-territorial rights in China and still retain them. As I have said in the original reply, there will probably in the future be some comprehensive commercial treaty, and when that comes up this matter will be considered.
    Mr. Shinwell: Yes, but entirely apart from the relinquishment of extra-territorial rights—I do not disapprove of that at all—is my right hon. Friend aware that our own navigation laws provide that foreign coasters can trade on our coasts? Why should we abrogate a privilege that has been in operation for many years and thus strike a very deadly blow at our Mercantile Marine?
    Mr. Law: We shall certainly bear that in mind when the time comes for the comprehensive arrangement.
    Mr. De la Bère: The Mercantile Marine must have full consideration.
    Commander Agnew: Will the ports of China be free for the ships of all nations to use?
    Mr. Law: We must await events. I do not think I can pronounce on a hypothetical question.
    Mr. Shinwell: Does not the agreement also provide for the complete abandonment of Hong Kong?
    Mr. Law: No, Sir.
    Mr. Hannah: Would it not be extremely unsatisfactory that anybody should have a monopoly in the China coast trade?
    Mr. Kirkwood: Have not the Chinese a right to a monopoly of it?

    Mission to United Kingdom
    Mr. Wedderburnasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any prospect of an official Chinese Mission visiting this country?
    Mr. Law: In view of the success which attended the good will Mission consisting of four British Members of Parliament, which visited China at the end of last
    1122
    year, His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom were anxious for an opportunity to receive a corresponding Mission to this country from China. They were confident that such a Mission would furnish an invaluable contribution to a better understanding between Great Britain and China, and would deepen still further the friendly relations which so happily exist between the two peoples. It would also provide His Majesty's Government with an opportunity for attempting to repay the hospitality so generously accorded to the British Mission last year. His Majesty's Ambassador was therefore recently instructed to convey to the Chinese Government a most cordial invitation for the despatch of a Mission to the United Kingdom. I am very happy to be able to announce that this invitation has now been accepted, and that a Chinese Mission, consisting of five members, has been appointed by the Chinese Government. The Mission hopes to arrive here in the near future and to stay about one month, during which period it will, of course, be the guests of His Majesty's Government. I take this opportunity to extend to the Mission, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, a most warm and hearty welcome.
    Sir Herbert Williams: Can my right hon. Friend say whether a Chinese lady will be included in the Mission?
    Mr. Law: I have no details.
    Sir H. Williams: Having regard to the fact that a British woman Member of Parliament is now on a Mission to China, I wondered whether a Chinese lady could be included?

  EGYPT (FOREIGN JURISDICTION ORDER)
  Sir H. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the Foreign Jurisdiction Order (Egypt), made by His Majesty on 24th September and which came into operation on that date, was not available in the Library until 2nd November?
  Mr. Law: A copy of the Foreign Jurisdiction Order (Egypt) was forwarded to the Librarian of the House on 26th October on which date the Order appeared in the London Gazette. It is impracticable to issue in this country Orders-in-Council which operate in other countries

  1123
  until it is known that copies have reached and are available in the country concerned, and copies of this Order did not reach Egypt till the middle of October.
  Sir H. Williams: Is it not important that when an Order is made which is subject to challenge in this House it should be made available to the Members of this House at the earliest possible moment?
  Mr. Law: I think it is desirable that Orders of this kind should be available in this House at the earliest practicable moment, but the earliest practicable moment is the moment immediately after it has been received in the country concerned.
  Sir H. Williams: Having regard to the fact that it is our own Government that made that decision, and since we might want to challenge that decision, ought it not to be open to us immediately to do so, instead of there being a delay of six weeks?
  Mr. Law: I am informed that Orders of this kind under the Foreign Orders Jurisdiction Act have in fact never been laid in this House before they have been issued.

  SPAIN (MESSAGE TO PHILIPPINE ISLANDS)
  Mr. John Dugdaleasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Ambassador to Spain has protested against the acton of the Spanish Government in sending a message of congratulation to the Japanese puppet government in the Philippine Islands?
  Mr. Law: No, Sir. I understand that the United States Government, who are principally concerned, are giving this matter serious consideration. His Majesty's Government are of course in close consultation with them.
  Mr. Dugdale: Would it not be an act of courtesy to associate ourselves with any protest which the United States may in fact make?
  Mr. Law: As I have stated, we are in close consultation with the United States Government on this matter, and we shall do our best to fall in with their wishes.
  Mr. Gallacher: Would the right hon. Gentleman not consider relieving notorious
  1124
  supporters of Franco from any positions they hold in the Government?

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (CONTRIBUTIONS)
  Major Petherickasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state the names of the six States which paid their full contributions to the League of Nations out of the 45 States which are members; and how long a defaulting State may be considered to remain a member?
  Mr. Law: Yes, Sir. The following six countries paid their full contribution in 1942: United Kingdom, India, Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand. As regards the second part of the Question, I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Basingstoke (Squadron-Leader Donner) on 27th October.
  Major Petherick: As the League of Nations has now become almost entirely supported by the British Empire, would not a permanent Imperial Conference serve a more useful purpose?
  Mr. Law: I would not like to leave the impression with my hon. and gallant Friend that it is only these countries who have made their contribution. In addition to the countries I mentioned four countries not called upon to contribute have made token payments, and various other countries have paid up their arrears of contributions. In general I think it would be a great mistake to do anything to weaken an institution to which it is obvious His Majesty's Governments in all the Dominions attach so much importance.
  Mr. Mander: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could publish a list of Members of this House who failed to give their contribution in support of the League in accordance with the promise made at the last General Election?
  Mr. Lawson: Are these Questions an indication of the Conservative attitude towards international arrangements?
  Sir Joseph Nall: How much longer is it proposed to continue the silly farce of Geneva?
  Mr. Gallacher: You fellows liked Munich much better than Geneva.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Air Training Corps
    Captain Gammansasked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in the plans of the post-war work of the A.T.C., consideration is being given for visits to the Empire by A.T.C. cadets as part of their training?
    The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): I will certainly bear this point in mind.

    Rosita Forbes (Lecture)
    Mr. Burkeasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has now received a report on the lecture given at Blackpool on 6th October by Rosita Forbes; and what action has been taken in the matter?
    Sir A. Sinclair: No transcript of the lecture is available, but my information is that the lecture was well received by the audience and was not interpreted by them as being critical of our Russian Allies. The lecturer submitted to questions, none of which raised any point of criticism of the lecture. I know that my hon. Friend's purpose in asking this Question is to ensure that the opportunity of lecturing to airmen and airwomen is not abused. I share his feelings and I have taken steps to impress on lecturers and all concerned the importance of promoting mutual confidence in any reference made to our Allies.
    Mr. Burke: Can the Secretary of State say from how many different sources he had complaints about this lecture?
    Sir A. Sinclair: Yes, Sir, from one source, and that was from a gentleman who signed a name and gave an address, but when inquiries were made at the address it was found to have nothing whatever to do with him.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have received a communication signed by 15 men who were present at the lecture?
    Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sir, I was not aware of that.

    Officers (Right of Interview)
    Mr. Hutchinsonasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will amend King's Regulations for the R.A.F. so as to afford to officers of the R.A.F. a right of interview on personal questions relat-
    1126
    ing to appointments, promotions, etc., similar to the right to interview the Military Secretary enjoyed by Army officers under Regulation 534 of the King's Regulations for the Army?
    Sir A. Sinclair: With the permission of their Air or other Officers Commanding, which may not be unreasonably with-held, officers of the Royal Air Force stationed at home already enjoy such a right. If, however, my hon. and learned Friend has a case in mind where difficulties have occurred, I will certainly look into it.
    Mr. Hutchinson: Does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate that this limited right of interview, with the permission of the Air Officer Commanding, is something which is essentially different from the right enjoyed by Army officers to interview the Military Secretary? Will he not consider the case with a view to affording the officers of the Royal Air Force the same rights as are enjoyed by officers of the Army?
    Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sir, I think that in practice the rights are the same. In practice the officer gets his interview whenever it is reasonable that he should have one, but, as I say, if my hon. and learned Friend can give me particulars of any case he has in mind, I will look into it.
    Mr. Hutchinson: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I intend to raise this matter at some convenient time on the Adjournment.

    Auxiliary Air Force
    Sir Lindsay Everardasked the Secretary of State for Air (1) whether he has considered the representations from the Leicestershire and Rutland Territorial Association with a view to the formation of an auxiliary air squadron for those counties as soon as possible after the war;
    (2) whether he is able to make a statement on the future of the Auxiliary Air Force after the war?
    Sir A. Sinclair: I am not able at the present time to make any statement about the post-war organisation and composition of the reserve and auxiliary forces, but the offer of the Leicestershire and Rutland Territorial Association to form an auxiliary air force squadron has been gratefully

    1127
    noted, and will be considered in due course.

    Women's Auxiliary Air Force, Northern Ireland
    Mr. Dermot Campbellasked the Secretary of State for Air why recruiting for the W.A.A.F. has closed in Northern Ireland?
    Sir A. Sinclair: Except for a small number of women with high scientific or linguistic qualifications, recruitment throughout the United Kingdom for the W.A.A.F. has temporarily ceased with the completion of the current recruiting programme.
    Mr. Campbell: Has the right hon. Gentleman borne in mind that in a country which is precluded from conscription if these girls are not allowed to join the Force they had selected they are rather inclined to join no Force at all, and their services are lost to the country?
    Sir A. Sinclair: We should welcome these women from Northern Ireland in the W.A.A.F., but at the present time they are more urgently required for other war work.

    Vatican City (Bombing)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can make any statement on the enemy propaganda allegation concerning the bombing of the Vatican City on Friday last?
    Mr. I. Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will make it clear that no Allied aircraft have dropped bombs on the Vatican City?
    Wing-Commander Hulbertasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can make any statement with regard to the enemy propaganda allegation that Allied air forces bombed the Vatican City on 5th November?
    Sir A. Sinclair: Hon. Members will no doubt have seen the communiqué issued by Allied Headquarters in Algiers on 7th November which was in the following terms:
    "While it is manifestly impossible to establish beyond doubt the fall of bombs of aircraft participating in night operations, thorough investigation of missions carried out during the night of November 5–6 indicates that crews adhered to their definite instructions and did not bomb Vatican City."
    I have nothing to add to this statement.
    Mr. Driberg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the B.B.C. and others gave considerable prominence to this Nazi canard early on Saturday morning but that an official denial was not issued until late on Sunday night? Is it not rather unfortunate that Goebbels had the whole week-end to play up this story in the neutral countries, where our friends were handicapped by not having an official denial to quote?
    Sir A. Sinclair: It is perfectly easy to push out an official denial promptly if one does not mind how strongly and firmly it is based on facts, but we are particularly careful to examine the facts before issuing a denial. Before this denial was issued the Commanding Officer out there exhaustively examined the facts.
    Mr. Thomas: As the right hon. Gentleman's answer suggested that Allied aircraft are allowed to fly over the Vatican City, will he not issue instructions to stop it?
    Hon. Members: Why?
    Sir A. Sinclair: I cannot understand my hon. Friend's question, in view of the fact that I said that the crews adhered to their definite instructions and did not bomb the Vatican City.
    Commander Locker-Lampson: Is it clear that the enemy have bombed the Vatican City?
    Sir A. Sinclair: I do not think I can add further to the facts of the case given out by Allied Air Force Headquarters.

  CIVIL AIRPORTS
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Mooreasked the Secretary of State for Air whether his plans have yet matured for establishing permanent terminals in this country for civil air traffic; and, if so, where they are likely to be located?
  Sir A. Sinclair: Airport specifications to meet the post-war needs of civil air transport are now being prepared, but the location of the airports required cannot be finally decided at the present time.

  GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL'S DISMISSAL
  Mr. Craik Hendersonasked the Minister of Aircraft Production whether he can make a statement about the dis-

  1129
  missal of Mr. Venner; whether he has inquired whether the dismissal was due to Mr. Venner having made certain complaints to the hon. Member for North-east Leeds with regard to the misuse of manpower; whether these complaints were true; and, if so, what action is being taken?
  The Minister of Aircraft Production (Sir Stafford Cripps): Notice of discharge was sent to Mr. Venner on 21st October, 1943, on the ground of redundancy. It had no connection with Mr. Venner's complaints to my hon. Friend, of which I and my Department did not become aware until four days later. I am not able to comment on the complaints in question pending completion of an investigation for which I have arranged.

  MOTORWAYS
  Mr. Keelingasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he is preparing detailed plans for motorways?
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): No, Sir, I am not at present able to make the detailed plans which would be required for the construction of motorways. I can, however, assure my hon. Friend that all aspects of future road policy, including the desirability of making motorways, are under active consideration.
  Mr. Keeling: Has the mind of the Government changed since the hon. Member made his speech at Bournemouth, stating that plans for motorways were far advanced, or has the mind of the Government merely become more vague?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: No, Sir. "Plans" is an ambiguous term. I meant merely plans for the design and lay-out of roads, not the plans based on siting and so on, which are required for construction.
  Mr. Keeling: What is the difference between active consideration and any other kind of consideration?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Active consideration means that we are getting on.
  Sir J. Nall: Is it appreciated that the scheme for motorways published in 1937 is of major importance, and that until a decision is given planning in many
  1130
  areas is held up and nothing is being done?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: If the hon. Member is referring to Sir Charles Bressey's Report, I am answering a Question upon that in a moment.
  Sir J. Nall: I am not.

  TREFOREST TRADING ESTATE (CIVIL DEFENCE OFFICER'S UNIFORM)
  Sir H. Williamsasked the Minister of Aircraft Production who authorised the uniform of the Civil Defence officer for the Treforest trading estate?
  Sir S. Cripps: I am informed that the uniform, which is similar to that provided by many firms for their officers, was authorised by the Committee of Factory Occupiers set up to supervise the operation of the joint fire guard scheme on the trading estate.
  Sir H. Williams: Was this forced upon the occupier by the officer of the Ministry of Aircraft Production who causes fire-watching to be so expensive wherever he appears?
  Sir S. Cripps: On the contrary, when we asked whether we could give any assistance a negative was returned.

  TAXICAB SHARING
  Mrs. Beatrice Wrightasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether greater publicity will be given to the necessity of sharing taxi-cabs, particularly at railway stations?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I am considering, with the railway companies, whether anything can be done at railway stations, by the display of notices or otherwise, to encourage the sharing of taxicabs.
  Mrs. Wright: While appreciating my hon. Friend's reply, might I ask whether he is aware that more has to be done to publicise this matter? The co-operation of the public should be sought, and the taxi companies should be made to realise the necessity.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: We are going to take all the measures in our power to achieve that.
  Miss Rathbone: Should not the delicate question as to who pays the double fare be made clear, as well as the question of how far the taxi proprietors are to profit?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I believe that the Home Office have that under consideration.
  Commander King-Hall: Is it not essential that, as in the United States, a proper schedule of fares should be made compulsory?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: That is under consideration.
  Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Would my hon. Friend take into consideration the practice of the police at London railway stations of stopping Service men from sharing taxis? The taxi men are very concerned about it.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I have never heard of that being done by the police. Service men are in the habit of sharing taxis, and I have been in consultation with the Home Secretary on that very point.

  COAL TRANSPORT (REORGANISATION)
  Mr. Parkerasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he is aware that a transport reorganisation scheme for the movement of coal was put into operation during the last war which brought about a saving to the railways of 700,000,000 ton-miles; whether he has put into operation any positive scheme for the reorganisation of coal transport to deal with the shortage of wagons and locomotives, which has been steadily increasing over the last three years; and what proportion of the total tonnage of goods traffic carried by the railways was represented by coal-class traffic before the war and at the present time, respectively?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: As my answer is rather long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the answer:
  I am aware that in the last war a reorganisation scheme for the distribution of coal was prepared by the Board of Trade, which it was estimated at the time would save about 700,000,000 ton-miles a year.
  1132
  According to my information, the scheme proved impracticable in certain respects, and was not fully implemented. I have no information as to the extent of the transport economies actually effected. In 1938 coal class traffic was about 65.3 per cent. of the total tonnage of merchandise traffic carried by the railways, but a great deal of it was short-haul traffic from pit to port for shipment. It is estimated that for the first half of 1943, coal class traffic was about 55 per cent. of the total merchandise traffic, but the average length of haul was substantially greater than in 1938. Moreover, the tonnage of merchandise traffic, other than coal, had increased greatly since before the war, the increase being about 30 per cent. in the case of mineral and heavy merchandise traffic and about 65 per cent. in the case of the lighter merchandise traffic.
  Mr. Parkerasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (1) whether the zoning of coal deliveries round depôts includes the assignment of a limited number of merchants to supply the requirements of a defined segment of the zone; and what precautions are taken to prevent overlapping;
  (2) the names of the 26 places at which drastic reorganisation schemes are in operation for the distribution of coal; and the general nature of the schemes in question?
  Mr. Noel Baker: Only the "more drastic" schemes eliminate overlapping between merchants or groups of merchants within the zone. They do so either by limiting individual merchants to specified districts, or by excluding them from districts where their share of the total trade is small. If my hon. Friend sees no objection, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of the 27 places where these "more drastic" schemes are now in force.
  Following are the names of the 27 places:
  Leeds, Scunthorpe, Nottingham, Romford, Ongar, Oxford, Forest of Dean, Exmouth, Plymouth, Keynsham, Axminster, Bideford, Barnstaple, Bath, Buckfastleigh, Kingsbridge, South Molton, Montgomery and Forden, Aled District, Prestatyn, Burton-on-Trent, Hereford, Coseley, Whitchurch District, Preston, Fylde Rural District, Stalybridge.

  LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT ORDER
  Mr. Wakefieldasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport why, having regard to the complexity of the Emergency Powers (Defence) London Passenger Transport Order (S.R. & O., No. 1514, 1943), no explanatory memorandum was attached?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: No covering memorandum would add to the information given in the Order itself, unless it included lengthy quotations from the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933, and other documents. As the Order does not materially affect the general public, I decided that die additional expenditure involved would not be justified.

  TRANSPORT SERVICES

    Manchester and North Staffordshire
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether consideration has or will be given to the need for a public transport authority, based upon the public ownership of transport, to cover the needs of the people within an approximate 50 miles radius of Manchester, and to the urgent need, after the termination of hostilities, for the electrification of the railways within the area, with new lines where required?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: My Noble Friend is always ready to consider any sound scheme for promoting co-ordination and increased efficiency in transport services, which local authorities and transport undertakings may lay before him. The scope for further electrification of the railways is a matter which my Noble Friend will consider in relation to plans for post-war development. It is, I understand, already under examination by the railway companies themselves.
    Mr. Smith: Has not the time arrived for the Minister to take the initiative in this kind of work? If not, is it intended that when schemes are prepared for the post-war situation the initiative shall be taken by the Minister?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: These matters are under consideration. I am not sure that it would be right for the Ministry to take the initiative in matters which are primarily of local importance, when the local authorities have not themselves done it.
    Sir J. Nall: Is my hon. Friend aware that no such plan as is mentioned in the Question has been proposed by any responsible authority in tie Manchester Division?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I believe that that is so.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that the workpeople's organisations in the vicinity have given great consideration to the urgent needs of this area for the post-war situation?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I shall be very glad to receive their proposals.
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether it is intended to improve the transport facilities in the North Staffordshire area and between the areas to Stafford by road and Manchester by rail?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: During the past year, considerable improvements have been made in the road transport services for workers in the Potteries and between the Potteries and Stafford. Further improvements will, I hope, be made where they are most urgently required and where the necessary drivers and conductors can be found. I regret that I cannot encourage my hon. Friend to hope that increases can now be made in the train services, either in the North Staffordshire area, or between that area and Manchester. I must add that the existing services compare favourably with the present restricted services elsewhere.
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport the number of new omnibuses allocated per 20,000 of the population covered by the areas covered by the Devon General, the Manchester area and the North Staffordshire area; and can he give an assurance that new vehicles are being delivered as quickly as possible and that maintenance staffs are now being given a higher priority?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I regret that the information for which my hon. Friend asks in the first part of his Question is not available, and could not easily be obtained. New omnibuses are allocated to regions according to need. In addition, considerable numbers of existing omnibuses have been transferred to those regions where

    1135
    the need is greatest. I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that new vehicles are being delivered as rapidly as possible, and that satisfactory arrangements have been made to meet the demands of the passenger transport industry for maintenance personnel.
    Mr. Mathers: How many new omnibuses are being provided at present?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I have not got the total figure, but for the three regions which include the area mentioned in the Question the figures are: South Western Region, since July, 1940, 515 new vehicles; North Western Region, 397; Midland Region, 566.
    Mr. Mathers: Is production still continuing?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir, on a restricted scale.

    Carriage of Sugar (Lorries)
    Mr. Magnayasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport why road transport vehicles have been directed by the road haulage organisation of his Department to Bury St. Edmunds to pick up sugar for carriage to Ipswich for transference to coastwise shipping to London, the vehicles then receiving instructions to return empty to London?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: The refinery to which this raw sugar was consigned could only accept its delivery by water.
    Mr. Magnay: Does the Minister think that it is advisable, in view of the demand for economy in tyres and in motor spirit, to run these lorries from Ipswich to London—64 miles—without a load every time they come?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: We have made every effort to back-load these lorries the full distance with sugar, but, unfortunately, the refinery cannot accept it by road. We are trying to make arrangements by which this shall be done, but at present they have not been completed.
    Mr. Stokes: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether these lorries remain there, or do they run every day?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: They are going up with potential loads from London to that area,
    1136
    and on their return journey they carry this sugar from Bury St. Edmunds to Ipswich, where it is put on water.

  MERCHANT NAVY

    Second Mate's Certificate Examination
    Mr. E. P. Smithasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether, in view of the fact that a cadet in the Merchant Navy having served a period of three years at sea is expected to come home and take a promotion course of two or, if necessary, three months, and is paid for the first two months by the Merchant Navy Pool and for the third has to depend upon his unemployment insurance of 16s. per week for all expenses, he will consider extending the pay by the Merchant Navy Pool to cover the third month, and thus end the anomaly of paying such a cadet as an unemployed person when, in fact, he is fully occupied?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: As I informed my hon. Friend last week, the National Maritime Board made an agreement in July, 1942, under which leave ashore with pay is allowed for two months to cadets and deck ratings who are candidates for the second mate's certificate examination. This agreement had the full approval of the officers' and men's societies, and I should not feel justified in asking the Board to reconsider it.
    Mr. Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that 16s. a week for total living expenses ashore is the right or proper remuneration for these lads in the Merchant Navy?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: These all receive the new concession since the war, and indeed it is a concession that unemployment pay should be allowed for this purpose. I would point out to my hon. Friend that the agreement made by the industry with the National Maritime Board is based on their belief, which they all accept, that two months should be enough for the average man to get through this examination.
    Mr. Shinwell: Are not these men fully employed in the course of training and not unemployed at all, and if they are in the course of training which is so necessary in order to get personnel for the Mercantile Marine; why not pay them for the third month?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: The point really is that the period of two months ought to be enough for the average man to get through, and if you allowed three months, the maximum would tend to become the minimum, and everybody would take it, and the general interest would suffer.

    Repatriated Prisoners of War (Pensions)
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Ian Fraserasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he will retain on full pay and allowances all sick and wounded returned prisoners of war in the Merchant Service until their economic position has been assured by the settlement of their pension claims and/or the securing of employment?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Merchant seamen who return from enemy prison camps are given one month's leave with basic pay and subsistence allowance. It should normally be possible for the Ministry of Pensions to decide within that period what pension, if any, should be allowed. Special arrangements, however, are being made to ensure, as far as practicable, that there shall be no gap between the stoppage of pay and the award of a pension. If any such case should happen, I should be happy to give it special and sympathetic consideration.

  E.N.S.A. (QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS)
  Mr. Cocksasked the Prime Minister to whom Questions should be addressed relating to the work of E.N.S.A. among the three Services, the Land Army, the factory workers, miners, etc.?
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): E.N.S.A. is a subsidiary of N.A.A.F.I. Questions about N.A.A.F.I are usually addressed to the Secretary of State for War. It may, however, be more convenient to address Questions about entertainments provided for a particular Service to the Minister responsible for that Service.

  NATIONAL MILITARY TRAINING
  Sir L. Everardasked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to adopt a system of national military training after the war?
  The Prime Minister: I hope so: but it is too early to pronounce.

  STATE CONTROL OF INDUSTRY (HOME SECRETARY'S SPEECHES)
  Major Petherickasked the Prime Minister whether the speech made by the Home Secretary on Government control and economic affairs to the Fabian Society recently represents the policy of His Majesty's Government?
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary informs me that he made it clear at the beginning of the speech referred to that he was speaking as a Socialist to his fellow Socialists of the Fabian Society. There was no implication in the speech that he was speaking for the Government.
  Earl Winterton: Will the Prime Minister make it clear that members of the Coalition Government have a perfect right in this Government, as in previous Governments, to speak to their own political associations as my right hon. Friend does to the Conservative Association and as Liberals do to the Liberal Association?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think that any particular advertisements of these facts are needed from me. In my view the less divergencies are emphasised the better.
  Major Lloydasked the Prime Minister whether the views on State control of industry after the war expressed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department at a public meeting in the Caird Hall, Dundee, on 3rd October last, represent the policy of His Majesty's Government?
  The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave on 12th October last in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Willaims), to which I have nothing to add.
  Mr. McKinlay: Is it the intention of the Government to ease the situation on the other side by making a declaration that it is the purpose to withdraw the controls immediately the war is finished?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. This would not be the moment at which I should be inclined to make any new declaration.
  Mr. Shinwell: Can the Prime Minister say whether the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary are having any influence on the Government?
  The Prime Minister: We derive the greatest advantage from the counsel of the Home Secretary on a great many subjects, and I hope we shall long continue to do so.
  Mr. Shinwell: But apart from deriving counsel and guidance, has the right hon. Gentleman any intention of ever applying any of these suggestions?
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is dealing with the speech delivered in the Caird Hall, Dundee, and I should not Eke to try to unravel this tangled skein at this moment.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Prime Minister support the Home Secretary in the statements that he makes?
  The Prime Minister: I am afraid I am a life-long opponent of Socialism.

  SYNTHETIC RUBBER PRODUCTION
  Mr. Neil Macleanasked the Minister of Production whether butadiene can be made from alcohol or coal; and whether, as this is an essential ingredient of buna rubber, he will cause experiments to be made so that the manufacture of synthetic rubber can be developed?
  The Minister of Production (Mr. Lyttelton): I am informed that butadiene can be made from alcohol or coal and that a good deal of information is available regarding the processes. The importance of synthetic rubber production in this country as a war measure is affected by the fact that supplies are now obtainable from the United States. I have recently however undertaken to make materials and building labour available for a scheme for making synthetic rubber by a company in this country if I can do so without affecting production of higher priority.
  Mr. Maclean: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in carrying on this production, there is any competition or any attempt to stop it by the rubber producers?
  Mr. Lyttelton: No, Sir.
  Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Production whether he has now completed his inquiry into the matter of producing synthetic rubber in this country; and when will a decision be reached?
  Mr. Lyttelton: I have now authorised the issue of the first requirements of materials to the company referred to in the replies given to my hon. Friend on previous occasions. The company is financing the project itself and I have informed them that I will authorise the use of building labour and further materials so far as they are available and not required for work of higher priority.
  Mr. Shinwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman say the amount of production with which this industry is to experiment? Is it to be on a large scale or on a small scale?
  Mr. Lyttelton: I cannot from memory give the exact production, but it is a commercial production and not an experimental one.
  Mr. Shinwell: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is going to encourage it for all he is worth?
  Mr. Lyttelton: I must encourage it only to the extent that it does not interfere with work of higher priority.

  SERVICE CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT (SALE)
  Mr. Keelingasked the Minister of Production whether he is aware that large quantities of Service dress caps, metal buttons and woven or metal badges are sold in shops to non-commissioned members of the Forces, despite such caps being normally unauthorised and despite plastic buttons and printed or plastic badges being free issues; whether he releases materials for the manufacture of these articles; and whether, in the interests of security and of economy of materials and labour, he will prohibit the sale of any non-commissioned clothing or equipment normally issued officially?
  Mr. Lyttelton: No releases of material are made for this purpose, but no doubt there are stocks of the finished articles and the small quantities of material that are required for work of this kind are not impossible to obtain, for instance, from

  1141
  scrap. A prohibition of the sale of such goods would not be warranted as a means of saving the very small quantities of material that may be used.
  Mr. Keeling: Would my right hon. Friend ask the Service Departments to investigate this wasteful duplication of equipment and also to examine the question of security?
  Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, Sir, I will get into touch with my right hon. Friends.

  MOTOR CAR TYRES
  Mr. Hannahasked the Minister of Production why, as we have a surplus of rubber in the country, long-distance road-transport contractors are compelled to purchase part-worn, retread and other unserviceable tyres?
  Mr. Lyttelton: The supplies of natural rubber in the British Empire must be shared with our Allies, and the needs of the United Nations require that economy in the use of rubber should not be relaxed. Road transport contractors are not required to use part-worn and retreaded tyres which are unserviceable.
  Sir Edward Campbell: Can my right hon. Friend say whether it is a fact, as stated in the Question, that there is a surplus of rubber?
  Mr. Lyttelton: If we were waging the war alone our supplies of indigenous rubber in the British Empire are more than sufficient to meet our own requirements, and there is a substantial exportable surplus, which is sent to the United States.

  FACTORY, RENFREWSHIRE (ALTERNATIVE WORK)
  Major Lloydasked the Minister of Production whether he is aware of the concern with which the workers at a certain war factory in Renfrewshire view his decision to cease production very shortly; and whether he can arrange for alternative products at this factory so that its trained and efficient personnel can be retained?
  Mr. Lyttelton: The question whether alternative work can be found for the factory in question is being investigated as a matter of urgency, but I am unable
  1142
  to say at present what success is likely to attend our efforts.
  Major Lloyd: Does my right hon. Friend realise that a number of these people are due for discharge in the next few days and that it is a matter of great urgency? Will he consider meanwhile allowing production to continue pending a further decision?
  Mr. Lyttelton: I know that it is a matter of urgency. The date to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers is 16th November. There are one or two projects under consideration. I will keep closely in touch with the matter in the next few days.
  Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is deep feeling in Scotland about the closing of factories? Will he give particular attention to this factory, which is new and well equipped, and see that it is kept going?
  Mr. Buchanan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this factory, which in the past has suffered a great deal of distress, is very up to date and very capable? Will he not consider making an effort to see that its first-class machinery can be used?
  Mr. Lyttelton: The machinery is of a very special nature. Our difficulty is to get alternative production. I would not minimise the difficulty, but I am doing my best.

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Service Women (Rations)
    Mr. Keelingasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether women in the Services who are messed are still receiving more meat, bacon, butter, margarine, sugar and jam than miners who eat at home; and whether, in the interests of coal production, he will reconsider the disparity?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane): As regards the first part of my hon. Friend's Question, maximum messing allowances for Service personnel cannot properly be compared with civilian household rations. As regards the second part of the Question, my hon. Friend is no doubt aware that my Department is prepared to arrange for the supply of food on category

    1143
    A scale for all pits at which canteen facilities are provided, and that it has been the policy of the Departments concerned to encourage and assist the provision of good meals for workers "on the job." Such provision has been greatly extended in mines and factories during the war period, in order that full nutritional needs may be met.
    Mr. Keeling: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the first part of the Question, or explain why he cannot answer it?
    Mr. Mabane: It would not be proper or reasonable or fair to make comparisons which would not indicate the way in which the nutritional requirements of both categories are being met. While the answer to the first part of the Question is that the women in the Services do receive more of these particular foods than miners, that does not give the whole picture.

    British Restaurants
    Mr. Liddallasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food why British Restaurants get larger allowances of rationed commodities than privately-owned restaurants of like size?
    Mr. Mabane: British Restaurants do not get larger allowances of rationed foods than comparable privately-owned restaurants. They get the same allowances.

    Olive Oil
    Mr. Douglasasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will arrange to import olive oil from the Mediterranean area instead of wine?
    Mr. Mabane: No olive oil is at present available from the Mediterranean area.

    Cocoa (Producers' Prices)
    Sir Leonard Lyleasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in view of the fact that in 1942 His Majesty's Government made £1,350,000 profit by trading in cocoa, he can state the price paid to the producers in the West Indies and in West Africa, respectively?
    Mr. Mabane: 1.7 per cent. of cocoa purchased by my Department is from the West Indies, for which the price to the producer ranged in 1942 from £38 10s.
    1144
    to £89 10s. a ton according to quality and grade. West African purchases are made from the West African Produce Control Board, but I understand that the producers' prices were approximately £15 a ton on the Gold Coast and £14 10s a ton in Nigeria for the season ended 30th September, 1942.
    Sir L. Lyle: Is this considered a remunerative price by the producers, and, if not, is it not a mistake to cut the price too low when our object is to improve conditions?
    Mr. Mabane: The arrangement to reduce the price is a matter for the Colonial Office, and the Question should be addressed to the Secretary of State.

    Emergency Storage
    Captain Pluggeasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in addition to potatoes, he proposes to effect special storage of other commodities for emergency food next year?
    Mr. Mabane: Provision will continue to be made so far as practicable to meet all future contingencies.

    Sugar (Price)
    Sir H. Williamsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether it is intended to pay compensation to food distributors who incurred losses in connection with the increase in the price of sugar of 1d. per lb. in September, 1943?
    Mr. Mabane: As the answer is long I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:
    No, Sir. The price of sugar to the public was increased by 1d. per lb. on 19th September, 1943. In order to minimise the special profits which would otherwise have accrued to dealers, wholesalers and retailers who hold stocks of sugar, it was arranged that the price of sugar purchased by distributors should be increased from dates earlier than 19th September, with the intention that, on average, the distributors would dispose of their stocks at the old price and would be left on 19th September with stocks purchased at the higher price. A similar policy was pursued when the price of

    1145
    sugar was reduced by 1d. per lb. in December, 1941. This policy is intended to minimise stock profits and losses arising out of changes in controlled prices. It is recognised that under this procedure distributors holding stocks in excess of the average benefit when prices are increased and lose when prices are reduced, and the converse applies to distributors holding stocks below the avergae. A meticulous adjustment of the profits and losses of food traders on the occasion of a price change would, however, involve a nation-wide inventory of stocks which could not be justified in present circumstances. These individual differences are incidental to trading, and my Noble Friend does not intend to pay compensation to distributors of sugar who have incurred losses in connection with the recent price increase nor to recover profits from those distributors who made profits on the same occasion. The general policy being followed by my Department in this matter is, I understand, acceptable to food traders. Discussions are, however, taking place between representatives of the trade and officers of the Ministry on the detailed procedure to be adopted in future cases.

  TANK PRODUCTION
  Mr. Stokesasked the Minister of Supply the type and name of British tanks, of which production is continued, mounting guns over 3-inch calibre, which are considered battleworthy?
  The Minister of Supply (Sir Andrew Duncan): It is clearly not in the public interest to give any such information.
  Mr. Stokes: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it a disgraceful thing in the fifth year of the war there is still no adequate British tank of the kind described in the Question?
  Sir A. Duncan: I think that is a gross exaggeration in every respect.
  Commander Locker-Lampson: Are not the Germans aware that these tanks are battleworthy?
  Mr. Hammersley: Will the right hon. Gentleman lend the weight of his influence to the request that we should have a Debate in Secret Session, when all aspects of the matter could be considered?
  Mr. Hammersleyasked the Minister of Supply whether the new Director-General of Tank Design and Development is now in charge of tank production?
  Sir A. Duncan: No, Sir. But future arrangements are under consideration in view of the impending return to his firm of the present Director-General of Tank Production.
  Mr. Hammersley: In view of the fact that the former Director-General of Research and Development has been sent to America and that my right hon. Friend has just informed us that the Director-General of Production has resigned, what are we to understand—
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is making a speech and not asking a question.
  Mr. Hammersley: The question I am putting is, What has happened in the organisation that these two important people have left?
  Sir A. Duncan: These two important people have not left on any ground of disagreement of any kind or description. The Director-General of Tank Production was loaned to us by his firm over a year ago, with a warning that there must be a time limit because of changes taking place in his firm, and it is with great public spirit that they have allowed us to keep his services as long as they have.
  Mr. Stokes: Who is the Director-General of Tank Production?
  Sir A. Duncan: Mr. A. Boyd.
  Commander Agnew: Did I understand my right hon. Friend to say that the Crown was warned? Has not the Crown power of life and death?
  Sir A. Duncan: Certainly the Crown has power of life and death. There is, however, no doubt that, unless for the purposes of our own production we regarded this as a reasonable thing, we should not allow it to happen.
  Mr. Hammersley: Is it not desirable, in view of the fact that these two people have left the organisation now, that we should have an opportunity of discussing the matter in Secret Session?
  Sir A. Duncan: Neither has yet left the organisation.
  Mr. Stokes: Is it not a fact that Mr. Boyd is leaving out of complete disgust?
  Sir A. Duncan: Certainly not. There is not a vestige of truth in that suggestion.
  Mr. Hammersleyasked the Minister of Supply why, following a recent long distance comparative trial of British and American tanks, it is now found desirable to have a second trial?
  Sir A. Duncan: These trials are not related to one another. Trials of tanks, including comparative performance tests, are constantly in progress as part of the normal development programme.
  Mr. Hammersley: Is it not a gross waste of public money that there should have been a trial of these vehicles, and now there is going to be another, costing scores of thousands?
  Sir A. Duncan: Trials play a very essential part in the production of these machines.

  MINISTRY OF INFORMATION

    Hansard and United States Congressional Record
    Mr. Astorasked the Minister of Information whether he will propose an arrangement whereby Hansard would be supplied free to any member of the Congress of the United States of America who desired it, in return for which Members of Parliament would be entitled to receive the Congressional Record?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Mr. Thurtle): Copies of Hansard go to the Library of Congress, and the Library of this House receives a copy of the Congressional Record. So far as I know, these facilities have been found adequate for their purpose.
    Mr. Astor: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, human nature being what it is, that arrangement means that M.P.s do not read the Congressional Record and that Members of Congress do not read Hansard? Will he see whether this suggestion cannot be considered?
    Mr. Thurtle: Our information is that there is no general demand for these facilities. If we find a queue in the Library waiting to read the Congressional Record, we will reconsider the matter.
    Commander King-Hall: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his information is not up-to-date in the matter? I have recently been to Washington and have been requested by Members of Congress to see if anything could be done to provide facilities for them to get copies of Hansard.
    Mr. Thurtle: We have received no request from America for more copies than the one they are receiving.
    Major Petherick: Will the hon. Gentleman begin by issuing to every Member of Parliament a copy of the official record of another place?
    Colonel Arthur Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman send a dozen copies of Hansard instead of one and see how that experiment works?

    Coalmining (Recruitment Publicity)
    Mr. Sloanasked the Minister of Information the total cost of the various campaigns, including advertising, for recruitment to the coalmining industry?
    Mr. Thurtle: The total expenditure incurred on publicity for recruitment to the coalmining industry is approximately £24,000.
    Mr. Cocks: How many recruits have you got for your £24,000?
    Mr. Thurtle: There were 3,366 who opted for the mining industry of those called up, and there were 3,500 recruits.
    Mr. Cocks: Why does not the Ministry employ a better advertisement writer?
    Mr. Thurtle: I would point out that the decision to advertise for these recruits was a Government decision. We were only the instrument for carrying out that decision.
    Mr. Sloan: Is my hon. Friend aware that money was wasted by advertising in newspapers that could bring no result at all to the mining industry?
    Mr. Thurtle: That is a matter beyond my province. We were simply carrying out the decision of the Government.

    Broadcasts (Members of Parliament)
    Mr. Moelwyn Hughesasked the Minister of Information whether he is aware that more than half the talks in

    1149
    English, broadcast on Home and Forces Programmes during the 12 months beginning 1st October, 1943, by lion. Members were broadcast by members of the Conservative Party; and whether he proposes to take steps to correct this discrimination?
    Mr. Thurtle: No, Sir. I explained the B.B.C.'s policy in this matter in the answer I gave on 4th November to a Question put to me by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall). My hon. and learned Friend will appreciate that the B.B.C. invites Members of Parliament to talk or participate in programmes for many purposes that have no political significance.
    Mr. Hughes: Is my hon. Friend not aware that the figures lave been computed from the returns provided in the OFFICIAL REPORT by his Department? Therefore, why do I get the answer, "No," to the first part of my Question?
    Mr. Thurtle: I think my hon. and learned Friend does not appreciate the fact that in these talks were included all sorts of matters which have no relation to politics at all. For instance, however ingenious Members of Parliament might be, it would be difficult for them to get any party political content at all into subjects like these: "Tunes to my Taste," "Our Remote Ancestors," "The Chairing of the Bard" and "Desert Island Discs."
    Mr. Hughes: But cannot such matters as my hon. Friend has referred to be found on both sides and not be entirely limited? Including that, is it still not true to say that the majority of talks given by Members of this House are given by members of the Conservative Party?
    Mr. Thurtle: My hon. and learned Friend must face this fact: for good or ill nearly two-thirds of the Members of this House are members of the Conservative Party.
    Dr. Morgan: Is my hon. Friend basing Tat answer on professional knowledge or partisan knowledge?

  TELEPHONE CALL-BOXES
  Colonel Greenwellasked the Postmaster-General whether operators on trunk telephone circuits are instructed to
  1150
  see that audible conversation is possible between a call-box and a subscriber before demanding the surrender of the call-box fee; and whether there is any means of identifying an operator who puts through a call on which conversation is not possible?
  The Postmaster-General (Captain Crookshank): The answer to both parts of the Question is "Yes, Sir."

  BUILDINGS (MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURE)
  General Sir George Jeffreysasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works whether he is aware, in respect of the allowance for maintenance expenditure, that the present system under which not more than £100 may be expended without special licence on any one item of Schedule A assessment, operates very unfairly in the case of agricultural holdings, as a farm comprising several houses and buildings assessed jointly can only get the same allowance as a single cottage; and whether he will take steps to do away with this anomaly?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Hicks): I cannot admit that because a licence has to be applied for, the system operates unfairly. The test is whether the work is permitted. Maintenance licences covering expenditure in excess of £100 in a period of 12 months are freely granted on the recommendation of the county war agricultural executive committees for essential work to farm buildings and houses?
  Sir G. Jeffreys: Is it not quite illogical to allow the same sum for property worth many thousands of pounds and property worth only a few hundred pounds?
  Mr. Hicks: For maintenance work on farm buildings and houses we rely upon the recommendation of the county war agricultural executive committee. If they recommend, we freely grant permission.
  Sir G. Jeffreysasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works whether he is aware that owners, architects and builders are still compelled to apply to his Department for a building licence where it is proposed to expend more than £100 on the property included in any one Schedule A assessment; and that, while local authorities can now carry

  1151
  out essential work costing £250 in the case of a house and £200 in the case of a flat without a licence, whether he will place both parties on the same plane of freedom from applying for a licence?
  Mr. Hicks: In view of the shortage of labour and materials my Noble Friend is not at present proposing to alter the procedure, now operating in respect of all types of property, under which private persons must apply for a licence where it is proposed to expend more than £100 in a period of 12 months. Moreover, if the limit were raised as suggested, it would in many cases enable a private owner to carry out non-essential work. It is, of course, the policy of the Ministry to grant licences for essential work to dwellings in all proper cases, on the same basis as that authorised for local authorities.
  Sir G. Jeffreys: Is my hon. Friend aware that great difficulties are put in the way of getting licences? Would it not be more logical and sensible if a lump sum was allowed for the whole property rather than this level amount of £100 on every assessment?
  Mr. Hicks: In regard to any dwelling which it is necessary to repair, if an individual will make application to the local authority and a certificate of essentiality is agreed to by them on the same basis as if the local authority had carried out the work themselves, then in every case we grant a licence. There must, however, be control over unnecessary expenditure.
  Sir William Davison: Is it not a fact that local authorities say that they must have choice of tenants and that often the private owner is unable to replace his tenant himself?
  Mr. Hicks: That has no application to the answer I have given.

PALESTINE (JEWISH IMMIGRATION)
The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Colonel Oliver Stanley): The Statement of Policy relating to Palestine which was issued as a White Paper in May, 1939, provided for the admission to Palestine of 75,000 Jewish immigrants during the period of five years ending 31st March, 1944, subject to the criterion of the economic absorptive capacity of the
1152
country. It was contemplated that there should be an annual quota of 10,000 and, in addition, as a contribution towards the solution of the Jewish refugee problem, 25,000 refugees would be admitted as soon as adequate provision for their maintenance was assured.
The war has prevented the fulfilment of this programme. The number of Jews who entered Palestine legally or illegally up to 30th September, 1943, against the total of 75,000 to be admitted under the existing quota system is 43,922. There are thus 31,078 who, it may be fairly assumed, would have reached it before 31st March, 1944, but for the exigencies of the war. His Majesty's Government have been considering this position, and have reached the conclusion that it would be inequitable to close the doors of Palestine to these persons on account of the time factor. No effort will be lacking on the part of His Majesty's Government to facilitate their arrival, subject to the criterion of economic absorptive capacity.
Earl Winterton: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend make it clear, in order to avoid disappointment, that one of the great difficulties about moving refugees to Palestine or anywhere else is the question of shipping and that that will not necessarily become easier in the next few months?
Colonel Stanley: I am glad my noble Friend has raised that point. I hope nobody will think that because of this there is any guarantee that these unfortunate people will be able to reach Palestine. All we have done is to remove what might be a legal obstacle.
Sir Percy Harris: But will the Government make it as easy as possible, in view of the unfortunate position of these people?
Colonel Stanley: The chief obstacle is the domination of Hitler over Europe.
Commander Locker-Lampson: Does not my right hon. and gallant Friend think that in this connection Jews come first?
Miss Rathbone: While I recognise the value of the concession which has been made, would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman let us know whether the Government also intend to remove the restriction on the number of adults entering on the immigration quota, as hitherto

1153
the fact that the majority have to be children with only accompanying adults has been the greatest obstacle to the entry of the permitted number?
Colonel Stanley: That is quite a different question. Perhaps the hon. Lady will put it down.
Mr. Pickthorn: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's declaration to be taken as settling the question of principle that rations of immigration can be kept over from year to year and accumulated?
Colonel Stanley: I am not sure that I quite appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. I think that this settles no question of principle but merely one of equity. Something which would have happened under the White Paper but for the war has been put right.
Mr. Pickthorn: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman really clear to the House in his distinction between principle and equity; and is not the question quite clear—does this or does it not settle as a matter of principle, that where a maximum quota of immigration is fixed for a year any number not reached in that year can be carried on to the next year, and the next year, and so on indefinitely?
Colonel Stanley: I am afraid that I still do not see the hon. Gentleman's point. The quota system would come to an end at the end of March, and there was no question, therefore, of succeeding years. All that this settles is that those who did not get in by 31st March, because they were prevented by the war, will not be kept out because of that fact.
Mr. Mack: Having regard to the expected improvement in the military position in that area and elsewhere, is it possible that a number of these refugees may be subsequently saved, and should not greater facilities be accorded to them to enter Palestine as soon as practicable?
Colonel Stanley: We do what we can. I am afraid I cannot forecast as optimistically as the hon. Gentleman the future course of military events in that area.
Mr. Mack: Do I understand the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to mean that after having discharged what he regards as his obligation to these 30,000 odd Jews to enter Palestine, no further numbers would enter in any circumstances?
Colonel Stanley: That is quite a different matter.
Mr. Hammersley: Is it inherent in the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's statement that additional shipping facilities will be given to the 32,000 as and when shipping facilities are available?
Colonel Stanley: The hon. Gentleman must realise that the difficulty at the moment is that these unfortunate people are not allowed to leave.
Miss Rathbone: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give early attention to the point which I raised about permitting adults to enter within the limits of the White Paper number, as often it is easier for adults to escape than for children to secure permission to leave?
Colonel Stanley: Perhaps the hon. Lady will have a word with me afterwards.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill.
Income Tax (Employments) Bill.
Prolongation of Parliament Bill.
Workmen's Compensation (Temporary Increases) Bill.
Parliament (Elections and Meeting) Bill, without Amendment.
Amendment to—
Price Control (Regulation of Disposal of Stocks) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
"That, nothwithstanding the practice of the House, the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill may be considered in Committee immediately after the Bill has been read a second time."—[Mr. Attlee.]
Mr. Robertson: On a point of Order. May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker? I wish to know why no statement was made yesterday by the Minister in charge of the Fish Sales (Charges) Order, in view of the known opposition to it, and also in view of the much more important fact that large increases in the cost of fish were authorised by that Order and that those increases must be borne by the consumers.
Mr. Speaker: I am afraid there is no point of Order here. It was open to any hon. Member who was present yesterday to raise those questions on the Order. The hon. Member did not ask those questions then, and he cannot raise the matter now.
Mr. Gallacher: Could we not have a statement from some Minister on why the Whips did not arrange for the business to be carried on yesterday, in view of the fact that we are always being told that there is no time for discussing matters which many private Members wish to discuss? We should have a guarantee that we are not going to be "done in" in the same manner to-day.
Mr. Speaker: That also is not a point of Order. If hon. Members had chosen yesterday to raise any of these matters, the discussion would have continued, and the fault therefore lies with hon. Members themselves.

SECRET SESSION
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I informed the House yesterday that if possible on the Third Sitting Day there would be a Government statement and a Debate to follow if the House so desired. I am glad to inform the House that the Foreign Secretary has returned safely and will make a statement in the House on the Third Sitting Day. I desire now to make a statement on Business, in Secret Session, and therefore, Mr. Speaker, I espy Strangers.
Whereupon. Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 89, put the Question, "That Strangers be ordered to withdraw."
Question agreed to.
Strangers withdrew accordingly.
The House subsequently resumed in Public Session.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPRO- PRIATION) (No. 2) BILL
  Read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House; immediately considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  Earl Winterton: I think it desirable that some Member of the House, perhaps some old Member like myself, should make it clear that this Bill has gone through all its stages without dicussion for special reasons and that it does not form a precedent for the future.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  PURCHASE TAX (ALTERATION OF RATES) (COTTON COUNTERPANES)
  Resolved,
  "That the Purchase Tax (Alteration of Rates) (No. 2) Order, 1943, dated 16th October, 5943, made by the Treasury under Section 20 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940, a copy of which was presented to this House on 26th October, be approved".—[Captain Waterhouse.]

TUBERCULOSIS
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. James Stuart.]
Mr. Ammon: I can think of no stronger indiotment of our social and economic system than that after all these years we still have to discuss as a matter of primary importance the incidence of tuberculosis among our people. Looking back as far as one can, this has been a perennial subject in this

1179
House, and my mind goes back to the days, a great many years ago, that I spent in the Post Office service, where tuberculosis was then considered a scourge to such an extent that people used to look round their offices and almost be able to tell who was going to die next from it. During the course of years due to improvements in conditions, better office accommodation and instruction how to deal with the complaint and the actions of the staff, who were among the first to combine in order to build sanatoria, the disease has gradually been eliminated from the Service, but we are now in the position, in 1943, that it is possible for the Ministry of Health to say that tuberculosis is still the chief destroyer, except in war, of human life in its prime. I submit that that opens up a very grave condition of affairs, more particularly as there has been a considerable increase in the incidence of tuberculosis from 1938 up to the present time, although there was a slight drop between 1941 and 1942.
The tragedy is all the worse because this position is largely remediable. It would be possible in a properly ordered society to stamp out this tragedy because it arises largely from lack of nutrition, over-fatigue, excessive drinking, poor ventilation and lack of exercise—all things that are in the realm of handling in a properly organised society. Looking at the complaint itself, I suppose it would be fair to say that the soil of it is the body and that the seed are the bacilli. It is necessary, therefore, to make the soil as infertile as possible, that is, to build up bodily resistance. It is true that much can be done by training of conduct and habits to prevent the spread and growth of this disease, but it does require a little more than that, and that is why some of us are very anxious that there should be some definite indication as to post-war planning, with regard both to housing and dealing with our medical services and also seeing that, so far as is possible, the men return from the front to conditions which will not be conducive to the growth of this terrible disease. Still more is this necessary because there is no doubt men will come back in many ways more susceptible to the disease, and that susceptibility will be increased if provisions are not made to deal with the matter as quickly as possible. So the Debate takes
1180
on a little more urgency than it has done on previous occasions, because we have to face the very serious facts that exist with regard to the health of our population. Before the war it was a matter of concern that we were an ageing population, that in a few years a very large proportion, if not the majority, of us will be drawing pensions. How far will that be accentuated, following the loss of the best of our young people in the war? It is essential that we should give very earnest attention to grappling with this disease, which is still the most fatal to our race, apart from war. There must be an early searching-out of causes which are likely to develop active T.B., and steps have to be taken soon to do so and to prevent the soil, which is the human body, becoming a means of carrying and disseminating this evil complaint.
From some statistics I saw the other day, I understand that we have made a start with mass radiography, but that the number of sets is inadequate, and there is difficulty in obtaining the necessary skilled staff. In those conditions, I beg the Ministry that there will be no attempt to treat this matter in a spirit of fatalism, but that there will be an earnest effort to deal with it, even if it costs money, inconvenience and a certain amount of risk. In the long run the risk and the expenditure can be no greater than they will be if the disease is allowed to get out of hand. One of the things that can be done in the use of radiography is to take the sets to the factories instead of the managements sending workers to a more or less distant point. The objection will be at once raised that there are two difficulties, one of which is expense and the other the obtaining of the necessary expert staff. So far as the first is concerned, I think there is no reason in present conditions for expense to be allowed for one moment to stand in the way of improving the health of the community, even if it means saving the life of only one man or woman. Everything must be done to bring into service all the latest scientific developments and everything that research can give us, in order to undo all that may have grown up during these years of war. We have cause to be grateful for those who have had the ordering of our food supplies and have kept them on lines where we have had the maximum of nutritional advantage, during times of real difficulty.

1181
The other point follows from what I have said. It is useless to discover early cases and to put the people off work only for them to stop at home waiting for beds. That will not help the situation a bit but will add considerably to the anxiety of the patients and of those who have the care of them and are near and dear to them. From many inquiries I have made I understand that more beds could be occupied at once if there were the necessary nursing and domestic staffs. I speak on this matter with a certain amount of knowledge in regard to a large municipality. One of the things which the Ministries of Health and Labour must do is to see that adequate staff is supplied to deal with this problem as and when it arises.
That brings me to two other points in dealing with this problem as a matter of national urgency, as it undoubtedly is. There is the difficulty of chronic cases which are discovered too late to be cured. Something can be done by care and training in habits that will help to restrict the infection. I hope as time goes on that one will not allow unreasoning sentimentalism to prevent the separation of chronic cases from the rest of the community. In that connection one can strongly commend such enterprises as Papworth, Preston Hall, Spcro and similar workshops, and steps should be taken to increase them. These patients are capable of doing work and, with proper care and conditions, can live a considerable number of years.
I pass to my final point, which concerns allowances. The time has come when we have to draw the line between what we call recoverable cases and cases that will not recover, but allowances should be provided for all. It is a matter of concern to the whole community that the health and economic conditions of these patients should be well preserved, because the complaint is bound up with the health of the community. It is very pathetic to have to tell a man in a sanatorium that he cannot have an allowance because he is not likely to recover, when he is alongside another man who is getting an allowance. It has the inevitable result that the first man is referred to public assistance, which causes depression in the sufferer and has a psychological effect retarding recovery considerably. Expense is a minor consideration. What really matters is proper treatment for the recovery of the patient and building up the health of the community. This can be done, and
1182
will give us a return pressed down and running over.
Faced as we are with a certain depletion of the best manhood and womanhood of the nation, arising directly out of the war and the fact that in postwar years we shall have a call to deal, as far as we can, with those who will return giving them such accommodation and conditions as to enable them to put up the biggest possible resistance to the ravages of this or any other complaint, it is essential to bear in mind that these measures are bound up with the whole of our post-war development. It is essential that we should get a clear statement on questions of housing, prospects of employment, medical health and national service. I hope that in the discussion which follows hon. Members will bring home to the Ministry the need of not accepting with complacency the present situation, hoping that somehow, somewhere and somewhen these things will right themselves. They will not right themselves except by a rigorous campaign against the disease. The mere fact of the existence of the disease is the strongest condemnation of our present economic and social system. The complaint is absolutely within the power of the community to remedy, but it is still the greatest potential danger in our midst to human life.
Mr. Clement Davies: I am glad that the hon. Member has given us an opportunity to discuss this question. It has always seemed to me that the subject divides itself into three parts: prevention, precautions and treatment. With regard to prevention, I am glad that the hon. Member has called attention to some of the factors which are the main causes in the spread of this disease. It is extraordinary that even now our laws are, in the main, passed for the protection of property and not for the protection of persons. The whole strength of the law is brought to bear in any shape or form if the least bit of property is interfered with, but the full strength of the law is not brought to bear when personal suffering occurs which may be due to sheer neglect on the part of some member of die community or, indeed, of the community as a whole.
I was called upon in 1937 to inquire into this subject throughout my country, which unfortunately holds a very bad record in the matter. One of the most startling

1183
things is that at the head of the list—that is, the black list of tuberculosis—are three of the counties which one would rave thought would be the healthiest in the land, Anglesey, Carnarvon and Pembroke. Those three counties have not only the sea about them but perfect scenery, hills and so on; nevertheless year after year they show the worst tuberculosis record. One asks, To what is this due? There is this germ from which all of us may suffer but which no one has found, but which is met with everywhere. Why is it that, in some places, it can attack with such fatal effects? Apparently it is due to malnutrition, insufficient food, bad housing, bad conditions in school, bad conditions in factories and in mines, and the hon. Member has quite rightly urged 'that if these are the main factors they are matters which we can tackle. Quite rightly he says, What do we propose to do in our postwar policy to tackle this question?
May I mention to the House now a few matters upon which I have to report? With regard to housing, after the last war opportunity was given to local authorities, but very few opportunities have been taken. They were given power to build. What did I find? There were still thousands of houses in which people lived which were unfit for human habitation, where not only had the women to contend day by day with dampness, earth floors and so on, and where children were born and brought up, where the tuberculosis patient lingered on month after month, and where he died, and where nevertheless families went on living. Houses were pointed out to me which were known as death houses, where healthy families had come in one by one only to be wiped out by this dread disease. I shall never forget one house to which I was told five young men had brought their brides, five young families had been born there, five families had been completely wiped out, and still that house existed. That is to be found everywhere. Surely we can tackle that and tackle it nationally with greater power being exercised than has been exercised by the Ministry. I found, unfortunately, that so many local authorities had failed in their duty. Why? Because the penny rate loomed larger in their minds than the health of the people, and no steps had been taken by the Ministry of Health to correct that. Take
1184
my own county. A penny rate produces for the whole county only £630. There are eleven councils, including six so-called urban councils, although the biggest town is under 5,000, and four rural councils. Far away the wealthiest is a rural district council with 19 parishes. Thanks to the fact that the Liverpool Corporation pay such a handsome part of the rate, their penny rate amounts to £290 out of that £630. What has been the result? They have built between the two wars fewer than one dozen houses for the 19 parishes. Not a word of protest from the Ministry. I want them to take in the future a much more active rôle. Then there are the conditions in the factories, the mines, and the quarries. I only wish that Members could realise the conditions under which slate is quarried in the Blaenau Ffestiniog district, where there is so little air where the man is working down in the bowels of the rock that there is not sufficient to keep a candle alight standing upright; it has to be laid on its side, and you cannot see the man when he is two yards away because of the dust. Again, those are conditions which we can rectify. Some steps have been taken since I reported on that in 1938.
In the case of schools, again I blame the central authorities. In 1927 a report was called for by the Board of Education with regard to the schools in Wales, and I think—I am now speaking from memory on matters which were brought before me five or six years ago—that there were something like 187 schools blacklisted by the Board of Education as being an actual danger to the health of the little children attending. If the parents knew that and kept their children at home, they were liable to be brought up before the magistrates and prosecuted for not sending their children to a school which the Board knew was a danger to the health of the children. I come along ten years later and find the same condition of things, practically unchanged. Letters have passed between the Board of Education and the local education authorities with three months elapsing between a letter and a reply. These have been the usual things:
"I desire to draw your attention to such and such a school …"
and
"I am in receipt of your letter and will lay it before my authority when it meets."

1185
and meanwhile the children were still going to a school which in the knowledge of the authorities was a danger to their health. Those are conditions which we can and must see that they cease to exist at the earliest possible moment.
Then, on the question of feeding, it is another terrible thought that it required a war for us to appreciate the necessity for feeding schoolchildren at midday. Some of us were campaigning for that long before the war and were not being listened to. The cost again loomed in their minds, the penny rate once more, the removal of responsibility from the shoulders of the parents. In the meantime the child was suffering. What is the cost? I remember so well being present at a march past of these little children. There is a wonderful movement in Wales which in my opinion is far finer than the Boy Scout and Girl Guide movements. We know it as the "Urdd Gobaith Cymru," where the little mites are brought together, and every year they assemble in what I suppose Boy Scouts would call a jamboree, but it is a far finer intellectual movement which we have for our children. On the occasion to which I am referring the retiring President was the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). The incoming President was myself. We were standing together watching these children go by, and I have never forgotten his turning to me as the sturdy little children came on, carrying their flags and marching like an army. He said, "Country children." I replied, "No, sir, the Rhondda." He said, "Impossible." I replied, "Yes, sir, warm meals midday." Another little lot came up looking weak and puny. I said, "Country children, sir." He said, "Why?" I replied, "No food from early morning breakfast until they get back after walking across the fields."
As well as feeding for the children there should be clinics. I think there should not only be a kitchen and a place where the children have their meals together, but there ought to be attached to each school a little clinic. Another great advantage the war has taught us is the necessity for these little clinics attached to every factory. Already they are to be found here, there and everywhere. Why not have one in the schools? Little children fall and meet with accidents. The mere fact
1186
that they have to attend such a clinic will itself assist them in after life.
All these are on the preventive side. Now for the precautionary side. I am very glad there is a movement for mass radiology. What we want, of course, is to find the patients at the early stages. Unfortunately what so often happens is that they do not come into the hands of the doctor until it is almost too late. I therefore want every effort made to see that there is made available in every district a method of examination so that they can be tested. You have also to bear in mind that you have to proceed very carefully. There is a shyness; people are afraid of the verdict. Therefore they should be encouraged to go and should be told, "Do not worry about the verdict. If by chance you have got it, do not worry; there are tens of thousands who have it slightly, and they can still go on. Go in, find out what is the matter, and we can cure you."
Finally, there is then the curative side. There is nothing quite so heartbreaking as the case where the patient has now been told, "You are suffering from this dread disease of tuberculosis. The best treatment that can be given to you cannot be given at home, and we are making arrangements for you to go to a sanatorium." Well, it is a big wrench, but at last the patient consents to go, and then when he has summoned up his will to go and his family are prepared that he should go there comes the news, "There is no bed ready for you, and you will have to wait." He has been told that the cure is there, but not at home, but that he cannot be taken because there are not sufficient beds. There is a waiting list in Wales, and there has been a waiting list year after year after year. Sometimes it gets a little less, sometimes it increases. There ought to be always vacant beds ready to take in the patient at any time. That means more sanatoria, more beds, more staff. I am glad the hon. Lady nods her head in regard to this matter.
How are you going to get more staff? May I beg the Ministry of Health to make the conditions more attractive for the staff? I should imagine that there is a world of difference between the nurse in a general hospital where the patient is there for a short while, where her best attention is required for a little while, where she sees an improvement and she then attends

1187
to someone else, and a nurse who day after day is in attendance on these poor people, sometimes seeing them instead of improving going slowly down. What are the conditions under which she works? I hope there has been an improvement since I saw them in 1937 and 1938. In no single instance did I find real attraction in the way of accommodation for the nurses, what I might call perfect surroundings. In so many institutions they were provided with dormitories for six, or eight, or ten. I know the female sex well enough to know that there are moments when a woman likes to be alone by herself in a place where she can throw herself on her bed and sob for ten minutes, go to sleep and then be all right again. She cannot do that if there are six or eight people looking on. That can be improved, but there are other things which are thoroughly bad. One wants better treatment for the staff, better accommodation for them, and a more attractive life. How many instances do we know of men leaving the sanatorium because their families were getting less money than they would if these men were at home? A little improvement in this position was announced a few weeks ago, but not enough. We have to say to the man, "Here is an opportunity for you to become a healthy member of the community. We will take care of you in this sanatorium. While you are there we will also take care that you do not have any mental worry, by keeping your family as well as we can. Come, health is in front of you! there is a new life for you." That I should like to see the policy of His Majesty's Government.
Sir Henry Morris-Jones: We are indebted to the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) for raising this subject. We have been much moved by the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). We in Wales are very greatly indebted to him for a valuable report which he published, after a careful inquiry, some years ago. I have never embarked, and I do not intend to embark, upon a technical discussion of any subject in this House. This is not the place for it. But I might mention that there is a very great difference between tuberculosis now and what it was when I knew it in general practice 30 years ago.
1188
It was then the terror of families. Now it has become an ailment which is within reasonable measure of being eliminated. But I agree with the hon. Member for North Camberwell that it is a blot upon this great country that we have not done more to eliminate this dread scourge. We ought to concentrate upon the main problem of housing. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is doing what he can, under very great difficulties. It is the custom in these days to look upon Russia as being par excellence everything that is good. I must say that when I read the news service which we get from Russia I cannot look at the figures there without admiration. Already in this war they have built 176,000 houses in the destroyed areas of Stalingrad and elsewhere. That is an example which we might follow. Materials should be given priority over anything, after the immediate war necessities of the moment.
Neither of the two hon. Gentlemen touched on what is probably one of the chief causes. I think that the black-out has aggravated tuberculosis. People in this country for the next three months will be sitting in rooms, in factories, in hotels, in clubs, in all the buildings of these islands, from five o'clock in the afternoon until eight o'clock in the morning, without any fresh air penetrating to them. I have seen a system by which ventilation is achieved in spite of the black-out, but in the greater proportion of buildings in this country there is no ventilation of any kind during the black-out. This is not the time to discuss whether we could have a reconsideration of the whole question of the black-out, but I think that the authorities should ameliorate it at the earliest possible moment when they consider themselves in a position to do so. I would endorse what my hon. and learned Friend said about the conditions of staffs in hospitals and sanatoria. The nursing service in this country has as high a standard as any nursing service in the world in regard to ability and devotion, but the conditions of nurses and other hospital staffs are not as good as those in many other countries. In New Zealand they have excellent amenities, both physical and mental.
Dr. Edith Summerskill: New Zealand has a Labour Government.
Sir H. Morris-Jones: In Sweden and Norway the system of State supervision and care of hospitals and nursing far exceeds that in this country. The conditions of service, the salaries and pensions and the amenities provided are far better than is the case here. I appeal to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and to those associated with him to put this matter in the first category of social improvement. In that way the staff position will be improved. I am confident that in a few years tuberculosis in this country will have become one of the diseases of the past, like smallpox and the other epidemics which used to haunt us in the old time.
Dr. Edith Summerskill: It is very regrettable that an important Debate which concerns thousands of suffering people in this country should have been initiated at such short notice. A number of Members are very interested in this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) is chairman of a large hospital, and the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) is chairman of a hospital. I know that both were very anxious to take part in such a Debate as this. It was a great surprise when I came to the House to-day to hear that this Debate was to be held at such short notice. Even those of us who are very familiar with the subject, who spend our lives in great part tending sick people, would have liked notice. I should have liked to bring certain documents to the House. I have been unable even to obtain a list of the new allowances. I want to register my protest against the Debate being conducted in this way.
Mr. Speaker: I hope the hon. Lady is not suggesting that I was wrong in selecting the subject.
Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir, I am not for one moment criticising you. But unless one makes a protest Debates are initiated in this haphazard fashion. We are always being told that Parliamentary time is very limited. There are many things which I should like to raise, and I hope to have the opportunity of doing so on the Adjournment next Session. I am surprised that when Parliamentary time is so limited we do not use it to the best advantage. Had we had notice, these benches would have been better tenanted.
1190
I was very glad to hear the hon. Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris Jones), a professional colleague of mine, illustrate his remarks by referring to progress in the Soviet Union and in New Zealand. I endorse everything he has said. The other Members who have spoken have dealt with the general aspect of tuberculosis. I want to address myself simply to the new scheme of allowances. The Ministry of Health, out of its experience, knows that a tubercular patient is reluctant to have treatment in a sanatorium, because he knows that during his stay there he will be losing his wages, and his family will be suffering. There is always a desire to leave the sanatorium before the patient is cured, and before it is advisable for him to return home. The Ministry felt, quite rightly, that a scheme of allowances should be introduced to subsidise the workman entering into a sanatorium, and to free him from anxiety. I feel that that reform should have been introduced many years ago. It is deplorable that so many patients should return home to infect their families, who in turn have to be found accommodation in sanatoria. This scheme was introduced, but to our surprise and horror—horror is not an over-statement—we discovered that these allowances were to be given only to those patients who were considered curable and that those patients who were suffering from chronic tuberculosis, whom the experts thought were hopeless, were to be denied these allowances.
I cannot understand how the Minister of Health, who makes on many occasions such noble professions in his desire to help the suffering, should have been persuaded to allow such inhuman and callous treatment to be meted out to a section of the community who are deserving of the greatest pity and sympathy. I want to remind the House what this means. If a patient is told that he is not to receive an allowance, he interprets the withholding of the allowance as a pronouncement of the death sentence. I have a number of letters on this subject, and the Minister of Health must have been deluged with letters, judging by the number I have received as a result of putting down certain Questions in this House, but one that I read last night was poignant. It was written by the parents of a boy of 22, who informed me that they had been told that this youth was not to receive the

1191
allowance, and they were withholding that information from the patient because they could not bear to see the despair of this boy of 22 if he knew that his case was hopeless and incurable. I want Members of the House to realise what a dark future must yawn in front of these patients when they are told that they are not to have an allowance. As a doctor, I find it very difficult to understand the approach of these officials who must have drawn up this scheme. It is absolutely contrary to the principles and practice of the medical profession. What would be the effect if we adopted the same principle in our hospitals and told our almoners in the hospitals that they must separate the curables from the incurables as that tragic procession of out-patients comes into the hospitals? Suppose they were to be examined, and the almoner was to tell them, "We cannot manage or afford treatment here. The hospital is too poor to finance you, because you are regarded as incurable, chronic, hopeless. Would you mind leaving by that door?" To other patients they would say, "The doctors say there is a chance for you. We think we can find enough money for you. You can go through that door and have an operation and a bed in this hospital, because there is hope for you." If we applied the principle which is expressed in this scheme to our hospitals, that would be exactly the treatment we would mete out to our patients to-day. How would the world regard us? They would regard us as savages and as barbarians if we treated our sick and helpless in this way. It is opposed to all that is fine and noble in the treatment of the sick and needy.
I have often heard the Minister of Health quoting the Scriptures. I wonder whether he has ever heard of the parable of the good Samaritan? How can he justify the passing by of the sick and helpless, leaving them to die? I wonder also whether he has ever seen, what so many of us who are in the medical profession have seen, the life led by the sufferer from tuberculosis who is not in hospital. I have been in those little back rooms in London where a, working mother has been told that her grown-up child needs fresh air, plenty of food and a room to itself. I have been in those little back rooms, with the windows wide open and with as little furniture as necessary,
1192
stripped of all but the bare necessities. I have myself stood there shivering and have talked to the poor, pathetic patient in bed, lying there in misery. These patients are often deprived of visitors, because unfortunately, the sufferer from tuberculosis in our midst is often regarded by the healthy as untouchable. There are these individuals lying in little back rooms—and I say little back rooms because generally the family have to give up a small room because they cannot spare a large one—throughout the country. Now, these people, who are without companionship, without visitors and without the normal creature comforts which we enjoy, have been given a companion by the Minister of Health—black despair. I call upon the Government to reconsider this inhuman Regulation which treats the patients so savagely.
I want to say a few words about the amounts of the allowances. Everybody here knows—and it is not denied—that these allowances are inadequate. I sat in this House last week and heard it said that most of the allowances approximated to the public assistance rates, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer), who is chairman of a hospital committee, said that in many areas the allowances were less than the public assistance rates. When I raised this matter before, the Minister reminded me that there were such things as discretionary allowances. Most of us are familiar with the working of the discretionary allowances. It means nothing to the sufferers. They want to know how much they will get if they go into a sanatorium. It is no good saying that there may be a kind of means test and that they may be given a certain amount. They want to know what their financial position is likely to be, otherwise they will not be able to make the arrangements necessary for a long stay, not one of a few weeks but of six months, a year or two years in a sanatorium.
I was discussing this a fortnight ago with a specialist who is in charge of a chest clinic in the East of London and he told me that in his opinion, looking at the matter objectively, this scheme would have no appreciable effect and would not reduce the incidence of tuberculosis in this country. I only want to mention one allowance which I consider so inadequate and ludicrous that it is difficult to believe

1193
that the Government could have given the particular section of the community that will be given this allowance any consideration at all. I refer to the housewives' allowance. According to the scheme, if a housewife develops tuberculosis, the husband is to be given 10s, a week during her absence in the sanatorium. Every Member in this House knows how difficult if is to get domestic help of any kind. Could any hon. Member find a woman to go into a working class house to do all the cooking, scrubbing, mending and to care for the children for 10s. a week? It is impossible for that to be done, and if I am told that there is to be given a supplementary allowance I can only say that, in order to find proper domestic help in these days for a household where it is necessary for the woman to care for the whole of the household, it will be necessary to give a larger and more generous allowance. Otherwise, what will happen? The housewife, of course, will refuse to go away. She will stay on. She may infect her children, and if she is at last persuaded to go away, she will be worried and anxious all the time she is in the sanatorium, wondering whether her children are being properly cared for.
I do ask the Minister to reconsider these scales. I want more adequate allowances, and also the allowance to be given to every tubercular patient irrespective of the stage of the disease in order to give these unfortunate people a chance to regain their health and strength.
Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: It was not originally my intention to intervene in this Debate, and I would not have done so had it not been for the emphasis which practically all previous speakers have made, that the incidence of this terrible disease is entirely due to bad economic and social conditions, malnutrition, bad housing and the like. They may be right, but if so, how do they account for the cases which occur in houses where the conditions are ideal and where the meaning of the word "malnutrition" is not even known because conditions are ideal in every respect? During the course of my life five cases have come intimately to my notice each of which terminated fatally and in not one of these cases did poverty enter in the slightest degree. The housing in each case was luxurious and
1194
food in unlimited quantities was at disposal. At the same time, the patients died. It may be said that is ancient history. It is not. In one case it happened quite recently. In the house where the patient lived the conditions were ideal, food was always forthcoming in unlimited quantities and the patient always used to exercise in the open-air, but the result was the same. If, as previous speakers have said, this is entirely due to poverty, how do they account for cases like that?
We are also told by the medical profession in this House that if this disease is taken in time it can always be cured. I can only conclude that they mean that traatment should start before it can be detected by the ordinary medical practitioner or even by the specialist. In the cases that I have in mind not only were the ordinary medical practitioners called in, but specialists of the most expensive kind were called in during the comparatively early stages of the disease. There is one hope, in my opinion. One hears a good deal of talk in these days about mass radiology, and I understand that the Ministry of Health has completed arrangements for the manufacture of a certain number of sets of the necessary apparatus. I believe that up to a few weeks ago 17 of these sets had been issued, but what are 17 among a population of 42,000,000 or 43,000,000 people? When I made application for a set to be issued to the City which I represent—the City of Hull—I was told that there were not sufficient and that the 17 sets which were ready were to be issued to other places. Surely it is time that every city of any size had facilities for mass radiology. I believe that it is only by such means that one can hope to tackle this disease in the stages which are sufficiently early to allow a recovery to be made. I am not an authority on this subject, and it is not my intention to speak for much longer, but I beg the Ministry of Health to do more than they are apparently doing at the present time with regard to the provision of sets of this apparatus. From the experience one has had up to the present time and the hopelessness of expecting an ordinary medical practitioner to diagnose this disease in time for it to be cured, an appreciable improvement can be made in the treatment of this terrible disease only by the issue of further sets of apparatus.
Mr. McNeil: It is not my purpose to join with the opening thesis of the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward). I think it is beyond dispute nowadays that this disease varies in its incidence directly with poverty. My hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) did a service to the House when they repeated what cannot be too often said, that death can be bought off, at any rate so far as this disease is concerned. I am quite certain that if the public of this country had firmly fixed in their minds the figures provided by experts, they would not allow any Government to remain in power which did not address itself to the basic problem of the prevention and cure of this disease. The Ministry of Health should say to the Treasury, "This is our business. We will tell you what the cost is afterwards, because we know that whatever it is in pounds, shillings and pence it will be far less than the cost in misery and squalor not only now but in future years."
I want particularly to refer to what my hon. Friend the Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill) said., namely, the extraordinary restriction on this scheme of maintenance and treatment allowances. I want to say to the Government spokesman who will reply to the Debate that the Ministry of Health and the Department of Health for Scotland that they have deliberately gone out of their way to mislead the public on this issue. The Department of Health for Scotland have issued what they call a model leaflet which they suggest should, in turn, be issued to the public. The first paragraph of this leaflet says:
"In order to help men and women who need treatment for pulmonary tuberculosis but for whom treatment will mean an interruption of earnings and other income, the Government make special allowances."
As my hon. Friend the Member for West Fulham has pointed out, this, to say the least, is a gross inaccuracy. In the circular which the Department of Health sent out to local authorities they tell a rather different story. My hon. Friend said the allowances were not made available to people who were incurable. The picture is much worse than that. Here is an extract from paragraph 27 of the official
1196
circular in which the local authorities are warned:
"… it is clear that the purpose of the allowance (as described above) cannot be met where treatment cannot do more than alleviate a chronic condition."
That seems to me to say that not only is the incurable person to be pushed aside but that the person whose condition might be alleviated by treatment is also excluded from the scheme. Moreover, as my hon. Friend quite clearly showed, a burden is thrown upon the local authority and upon the medical officer of the local authority, which is not only unprofessionable and intolerable but, I suggest, is not an administrative possibility. The medical officer is to say that certain people shall qualify and others shall not. The second group of patients are not given details of this circular. They are just told that they do not qualify. If relatives or even the patient presses for a reason why they do not qualify the doctor is left with this most unprofessional task of saying, "You do not qualify because in my opinion I cannot return you to work within a definable period." One of the greatest medical officers in this country, a man whose reputation is of the highest, said to me that he was being asked for the first time in 40 years of public life to hand out death certificates to some of his patients. That is inhuman and it is a harsh administrative principle for which I cannot find any parallel except in that of the Poor Law in the 16th century.
My hon. Friend quite properly said that the Minister of Health enjoys a reputation as a good man of the church. My right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood), who is now on the Government Front Bench, enjoys an equally good reputation outside and inside our party. It is not peculiarly germane to our discussion, but I should like to ask either of them to justify this attitude in terms of the Christian doctrine. They may say that it is not their job so to justify it but to justify it as an administrative scheme. When I questioned the right hon. Gentleman previously on the subject he sought to escape by saying that he had acted upon the findings of the Medical Research Committee, which was set up to inquire into this matter last autumn. But that is not sufficient; it is never sufficient to throw an authority across the Table of this House. That is

1197
no escape or defence. If a Minister intends to cite an authority to this House, then he must explain why the authority should be accepted. In this case examination of the authority will not provide an escape. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell pointed out, this same report provided for the treatment and employment of chronic pulmonary tuberculosis cases which are now excluded from the scheme. One other possible reply is that the primary purpose of the scheme is to restrict the spread of infection. I should be inclined to agree that that would be an excellent basis. But my right hon. Friend cannot believe that that is happening under this scheme.
Life my hon. Friend the Member for West Fulham, I have had many letters. I do not mean to quote them all to the House, but here is one from a patient in a sanatorium. I will not reveal the names but I do not mind letting my right hon. Friend see the letter. The patient says:
"Just before I was discharged another patient left of his own accord although he was obviously far from well. I asked his reason and was informed that he had been told he was a chronic case and was not eligible for maintenance grant. Until then he had held out some hope of recovering sufficiently to be able to resume more or less normal life but when told he was incurable he immediately said, "Then I shall die at home."
That is sad enough, but let us look at the administrative importance of the question. The letter goes on:
"He arranged to leave the sanatorium a day or two later despite the fact that he has a family of eight youngsters among whom he will now be in an excellent position to disseminate the germs of tuberculosis …"
My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Fraser) told me that in his Division a man had said to him, "I am not going to be left to die and rot in an institution, uncared for." He probably inferred—although he had no right to do so—that if the State were not prepared to make to him and to an acute case in the next bed similar allowances, he would not be prepared to have the full professional service made available to the other acute case. That man also went home. In my own Division yesterday an officer told me of a boy of 16 whom the medical officer was unable to include within the scheme and who had to be considered as a chronic case. Of course, the boy's mother took him home. I am not arguing on sentimental grounds; I am arguing that if the aim
1198
of this scheme is to prevent the spread of this infection it will fail by excluding the chronic pulmonary cases. The chronic type of case goes home and goes to work. My right hon. Friend, who is an authority on this Committee's report, knows that. They go to work where, of course, they infect their fellow workmen.
I would also like to say, not so strongly although I think I am on fairly firm ground, that the Government make a similar mistake when they exclude the non-pulmonary cases. I have a letter from an authority on non-pulmonary tubercular diseases who says:
"The reply I should make is that if the non-pulmonary case in the non-productive group does not get early enough treatment he stands a fair chance of becoming a pulmonary case."
I had one example thrust on my attention concerning a bus driver, suffering from a hip condition, who was ruled outside the scheme. His general condition deteriorated until he is now, unfortunately, within the scheme. Whether he will remain within the scheme and not develop as a chronic case is at this stage a matter of medical guesswork. One other defence may be made, that this scheme is an experiment. I should think that the experiment has had by now a fair chance of being examined. It has been running for eight months, which the House may be surprised to learn. One of my right hon. Friend's greatest difficulties, with which I very much sympathise, is of course the limitation of the number of beds available, but hope that is not going to be used as an excuse—it is not a reason—for this restriction of the scheme because, even if it is true that we cannot find beds for these chronic cases, I am arguing—though I do not need to because it is axiomatic—that it would be much better to provide funds to permit these chronic cases to stay at home. They will not be non-infective there. They may infect the children. But still they will be in contact with a lesser potential area for infection than if they are forced out to work by not being provided with adequate funds. The hon. Lady dealt with the inadequacy of the scales. Let me corroborate what she said. For certain categories in Glasgow the public assistance scales are higher than those which the Government have laid down. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) may deal with this aspect of the scheme be-

1199
cause on scales and insurance there is no greater authority on this side of the House. I am distressed and a bit disturbed about this scheme, and I may be thought to be prejudiced, so let me read part of a letter from that most sober journal, "The Scotsman," in which the writer discusses the scheme and says:
"This extract may be interpreted as meaning that it is unjustifiable to spend money on people whose disease is incurable. Viewed in this light, the scheme appears as a piece of cold blooded expediency designed not for the relief of mental or bodily sickness but purely as a measure towards alleviating the man power shortage. As such it is a disgrace to a so-called Christian country."
There is a loophole within the scheme for local authorities which I hope they will use. Paragraph 26 of the circular says:
"If the authority are in doubt as to the application of this memorandum to individual cases in respect of which applications are received, the Department will be ready to advise and give a statement of the facts, but it is not contemplated that such reference should often be necessary."
I do not like the last phrase. I have tried to get figures from the Minister of Health and have so far failed. But I have some figures from the Scottish Office. They disclose that, out of every three cases making application, one has been refused. If the Department does not contemplate that local authorities will often have to refer cases to them, that is not a contemplation based on facts. It is a hope. I hope on the other hand that every local authority in the country, and every medical officer who is truly a medical officer will say, "It is no part of my job, it is not my duty, it is not a task for which I have ever been trained to be a finance clerk for the Treasury. My job, is to heal people and, if anyone wants to decide that this man or that woman is inside or outside the scheme, let them decide." I hope local authorities will make the scheme unworkable by referring every tuberculous applicant to the Ministry of Health for decision.
Mr. Cocks: I should like to say a word or two in support of my hon. Friend's appeal to the Government to remove from this scheme the limitation that these special allowances shall only be given to sufferers from tuberculosis who can be healed sufficiently to go back to work. I am very sorry, in view of the importance of the matter, that the Minister
1200
of Health is not here himself. I do not know why he is not. With all respect to the Under-Secretary of State, he is really not an adequate substitute on this matter for the Boanerges of the platform, the pulpit and Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill) asked how it was that the Minister of Health could justify the fact that he ignored the parable of the good Samaritan and saw sick people and passed by on the other side. It is very simple to give an answer. He can say, "I am not a Samaritan, I am only a Siinonite—in other words, a mere camp follower of the Tory Party." As he is not here, why is there no representative of his Ministry? What about his, I am sure efficient but rather more obscure, Parliamentary Secretary? She was here only a few moments ago. Why have we not any representative of this great office present? I do not know whether it is an indication of the reconstruction of the Government which is now taking place and which has long been due.
I have here a circular issued by the Public Health Department of the Nottinghamshire County Council. It says:—
"In order to help men and women who need treatment for pulmonary tuberculosis, but for whom treatment will mean an interruption of earnings or other income, the Government makes special allowances. The object of the allowances is to enable necessary treatment to be undertaken without feeling anxiety about the support of a family or the upkeep of a home."
Judging from that, it is not merely whether the case can be cured or not. It is only to meet cases of interruption of earnings. I have a case in my constituency of a girl of 18. For two years she has been ill with pulmonary tuberculosis. She was in a sanatorium for nine months and was discharged in December, 1942. The doctor said he could do no more for her. She is and will always be unfit for work. She was taken ill when 16, so she has not enough stamps on her card to qualify for unemployment benefit, and she gets nothing under the scheme, although she will never again be fit to earn money. I have a letter from a distinguished doctor, the county medical officer for Nottinghamshire. He says:
"I have now personally looked into the record of this case carefully and regret to say that under the terms of memorandum 266D, the patient is ineligible to receive the allowance. She is in such a stage of the disease that treatment cannot do more than alleviate the chronic condition."

1201
She is therefore not eligible under the scheme. He goes on:
"This limitation in the terms of the Memorandum of course excludes a considerable proportion of tuberculous persons benefiting under the arrangement and imposes upon the officers concerned with its administration a duty which from a purely humanitarian point of view is very distasteful.
I think the Ministry should remove this limitation. The general impression is that these allowances are provided only if people can be patched up and made fit to work again. In other words, the scheme is based upon earning ability and profit-making rather than humanity. The Government are winning a great war through the sacrifices of millions of people, and a scheme like this is unworthy of such a Government and should be altered in the way my hon. Friend has suggested.
Mr. Sloan: These recurring Debates on tuberculosis do not often lead us very much further. I am old enough to remember that when consumption was diagnosed it was generally considered as a death sentence, and its victims were allowed to cough their lives away. They were offered very little hope indeed and were looked upon almost as suffering from some type of leprosy. We have certainly travelled some distance since then, although the attempts to get a grip of the disease and have it eradicated are not very widespread. It is alarming to know that it is still on the increase. Many reasons are given for this, but I think it requires no new investigation and no experimental or research work to understand what is the cause. I remember during the last war, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was outlining the new world that was to come, he said that the causes of T.B. were very simple. They were bad housing, especially dampness, bad sanitation, under-feeding and over-work. I do not think the decade which has passed since then has fundamentally altered the causes of T.B. They are still there. I do not know why we should wonder at the fact that there has been an increase, or at least no diminution in this disease when we remember the 20 years of poverty and malnutrition that we have experienced in the interval. If malnutrition, under-nourishment, bad feeding were the causes of the disease then, these have been accentuated since, because there has been no
1202
general improvment, at any rate up to the time of the outbreak of war.
As far as Scotland is concerned, the position of housing remains practically unaltered. It is true we have built a number of houses, but it is also true that the position is not very much improved. I believe that there is more overcrowding in Scotland to-day than there was at the commencement of the building, because for every house that we have built, we have demolished one and the position as regards overcrowding is better only to the extent that the people are living in houses of a better type. But the overcrowding remains and we have villages in Scotland, especially in the mining districts, where there is no water supply, where an open stinking drain is the only form of sanitation, and where the open "midden" is an eyesore. We find those disgraceful conditions prevailing 20 years after the time when we were promised "homes fit for heroes." How we are to eliminate this dreadful scourge without tackling the root cause, is one of the things which it is most difficult to understand.
The question of hospital accommodation has been widely discussed in this Debate, and I suggest that to proceed on the lines of the tuberculosis hospitals is the wrong way to set about dealing with this problem. Even to-day, with all the education that we have had in regard to this disease, people are very reluctant to go into what is termed a sanatorium. We have tried in some cases to change the name from "sanatorium" to "chest hospital" but that does not materially alter the position, because people are enlightened enough nowadays to know that when the chest is in danger, it is a question of the lungs. Our attempts, so far to provide hospital accommodation have been of a most inadequate description. Generally the hospitals are built in the most outlandish places, are most incommodious and are difficult for the relatives of the patients to visit.
Then we have started out on the lines that these people must be segregated. I think we must recognise that as entirely wrong. Hospital accommodation for tuberculosis patients should be part of our general hospital scheme. Accommodation for the treatment of the disease should be part of the general hospital set up in any district. There is just as much reluctance on the part of parents or other relatives, to

1203
send members of their families to sanatoria as there would be to sending them to mental institutions simply because of the difficulties that have grown up in this respect. In Ayrshire we are attempting to deal with that problem by making the tuberculosis hospital part of the general hospital scheme. It is no wonder that people die in so-called sanatoria because if you go into them and look at them, it must strike you that there is nothing left for a person to do but to die—in such a place. Something ought to be done to brighten the lives of the patients and give them an incentive to live, but if they are shown a ten-year-old cinema picture now and again, we imagine we are providing adequately for the entertainment of these unfortunate people. I do suggest that in considering the question of hospital accommodation we should aim not at separating those who are under treatment for tuberculosis but at making such treatment part of the general hospital scheme.
The difficulty still remains of diagnosing this disease. From my experience and having spoken to doctors in these institutions I would say that the patients are generally far too late in arrival at the institution for treatment; that the disease has taken such a hold that the cure is more difficult than it might otherwise have been, and that, in many instances, the patient is beyond recovery. I should like to know what is the difficulty about instituting a system of mass radiography. The disease ought to be traced earlier; and surely there ought not to be any difficulty in providing the necessary apparatus for this purpose. I have seen patients who have been treated for almost every disease under the sun, who have been in various institutions for treatment and have been sent hither and thither until they completely collapsed. Then, when they were X-rayed, it has been found that they were being treated all the time for the wrong disease. Surely we have travelled sufficiently far to be able to find a way of preventing that sort of thing. The quicker the disease is diagnosed, the more easily it can be treated and the better the prospect of a cure.
When you speak to medical authorities on the matter they say, "If we could get them in time, we could eradicate tuberculosis in a generation in this country." If so, why all this difficulty about securing
1204
the equipment necessary for this elementary process? I hope something drastic will be done on this question of mass radiography. Doctors tell me that when a case of tuberculosis is diagnosed, it is imperative that every member of that family should be tested. The discovery of one case is evidence that the infection is in the family somewhere. It does not grow of its own accord and when tuberculosis is detected in a family, every member of that family ought to come under observation, to ascertain whether there is a carrier among them. If we merely lift out the one person who has collapsed from the disease, and take that person away for treatment, and leave the family as it is, we are not doing what we ought to do to eradicate the disease. I wonder whether powers of compulsion could be used to bring every member of a suspected family under observation and investigation. If we are to get to the root of this problem and not merely to tinker with it it is along those lines that something must be done.
I have many objections to the scheme of payments which has been outlined. It is an inadequate scheme and is only playing with the question. We have now added to our investigators, a new official known as the "T.B. Investigator" who wanders round the districts. Why should all this be necessary? We are introducing a scheme for the benefit of sufferers from this disease. Why cannot we do it without all this investigation. If the doctors certify that a person is suffering from tuberculosis, we then require special proof that the person will recover sufficiently to be able to resume work. How is it to be known whether a patient will ever recover or not? Who is to say to a man or a woman in these circumstances "No, we cannot assist you because you are doomed to die. We will never be able to put you on your feet again; you will never recover and therefore you cannot receive the benefit of this scheme." I think that is the most shocking part of this proposal and one that ought to be removed from it altogether.
There are many other aspects of this question, but I am sure hon. Members of this House who pay particular attention to it, realise that if we are to eradicate this disease, we must first house our people properly. In my own county we need 10,000 houses before we can say that our people are living without fear

1205
of contact with tuberculosis. We must remove the rotten insanitary conditions under which so many, of our people live. We must make sure that after this war we shall not have another 20 years of malnutrition and poverty as we had after the last. All your medical authorities can do will be insufficient, unless the standard of nutrition is maintained among the people and the question of dietary will need to receive a great deal more consideration than it has had up to the present. There is no denying the improvement that is taking place among our schoolchildren where they are being provided with meals at school. In most areas parents are perfectly willing to pay for these school meals, and the feeding of our children should become part and parcel of our educational system. It should be as necessary for them to have their meals in school as it is to have their mathematics. Where the children have been fed and where they have taken advantage of the milk that has been supplied there is an undoubted improvement in their health, and one that will be lasting if we are able to continue it and able to improve upon our very meagre attempts at the present time. I hope, therefore, that the question of these allowances will receive a great deal more consideration from the Department, that some of the anomalies will be removed, and that people will not be made to feel that there is some taint connected with them when they are asked about it. It is our bounden duty to do the best we can to eradicate from our midst the scourge of T.B.
Mr. Buchanan: I understand there is a desire to proceed to another subject of some importance. I have no wish to intervene too long in this Debate, but I do want to raise one or two points. I want to emphasise the points that other speakers have made. My first point is one which has been raised by at least three other speakers, the making against the medical profession one of the most unfair charges I have ever known. When this scheme was announced, the Secretary for Scotland almost captured my enthusiasm for the measure. I thought that for once Parliament had got something. I lived in a fool's paradise for two or three weeks. The object of the scheme is set out in the Memorandum. One of the difficulties that local authorities and the medical profession found in
1206
grappling with this scourge was that people were faced with a terrible financial position when they went to receive treatment. The financial handicap was so great that people would not be treated. When this Paper was issued it was thought that an effort had been made to grapple with the financial hardship arising from treatment.
My first point is the terrible responsibility resting on the medical profession. I confess that when I first considered the scheme I thought it embraced T.B. as a whole. I, like many others, know very little about the science of medicine, and one has got to be guided by those who do know something about it. From my contact with the medical profession I find that there are a good many quite honest differences of opinion among it. A great number of medical men take the view that after a certain age T.B. is practically incurable—that men and women who reach a certain age cannot be properly cured at all. The symptoms can, perhaps, be modified, but there is practically no cure, and that is why local authorities, the medical profession and everybody concerned with the disease try to contact the victims of it at the earliest possible stage. What does this scheme mean? It means that unless a medical officer of health says that a person can be cured, that person does not get an allowance. The medical officer must certify that in his opinion the person concerned is likely to respond to treatment. Failing that, there is no allowance for the sufferer.
The refusal of the allowance to a victim of this disease is the worst thing that can be done. In the past the refusal of unemployment benefit had the same effect. It was not the actual refusal of the money alone that was the worst; it was the fact of the refusal that practically sent the refused person to hell, and that is much the same position here. If there was no scheme, a person would not apply, and he would not be refused. Now that there is this scheme, he applies, thinking he comes under it, and the medical officer of health says, "No allowance for you." In effect, he is -saying to that person, "No allowance; absolutely incurable." That is the effect of this scheme, and I think it is a shocking thing. I think we ought to take the view that if a person is prepared to try and try and try, no matter how

1207
incurable his condition may seem to be, the State ought to assist him in every possible way and not condemn him. I know of a capable man who applied for this allowance but was refused on the grounds we have heard. His case had gone too far. It is a terrible thing to contemplate that man being told that, and that sort of treatment cannot be defended.
The other point I wish to make is on the scale of allowances. What is the scale? The allowance for a man and a wife is 39s. That for a child under 10 years is 5s., between 10 and 14 years the allowance is 6s. 6d. and, I think, between 14 and 16 it is 8s. Therefore, in the case of a man and his wife with two children, one child, say, at 5s. and one at 6s. 6d., the total allowance would be 50s. 6d. This was heralded as something great. Actually, this scale is worse than the Glasgow Poor Law scale, because a man is told that as he is insured under National Health Insurance the £1 which he receives under health insurance has to be deducted from the total allowance. Under the Poor Law Acts the first 10s. 6d. of health insurance is excluded.
We had a great Debate here about ex-Service men. What is the position there? If an ex-Service man receives his pension for T.B., the whole of his pension is taken into account. If he gets a pension for a smashed leg or a smashed arm, then £1 of his pension is excluded. Could hon. Members imagine a more cruel device? It means that if an ex-Service man suffering from T.B. and an ex-Service man suffering from a smashed arm or leg both go into hospital, the wife and family of one of them get £1 a week more than the wife and family of the other ex-Service man. Is there any defence for that?
Take the case of the man with a wife and two children who gets the allowance of 50s. 6d. less £1 health insurance, which brings his total income to 30s. 6d., and who has been earning, say, £4 or £5 a week. Where is the financial inducement for that man to be properly treated? When this scheme was introduced I thought it a step forward. As a matter of interest, some of the assistance boards treat the people better. When a man of, say, 65 marries a younger woman of, say, 55, he becomes chargeable to the assistance board, but she may be receiving
1208
National Health Insurance, and in that case their total allowance exceeds the 39s. payable under this particular scheme. The scheme is not attractive, and I trust that the Secretary for Scotland and the Minister of Health will apply their abilities and their minds to seeing that those people who deserve not merely our sympathy but our help get it, and that they will at least make some endeavour to rescue them from the terrible disease from which they suffer.
Lieut.-Colonel H. Guest: I do not wish to intervene in this Debate except to say that I am associated with one of the London hospitals in connection with the T.B. problem, and I think we all welcome the scheme of radiographical stations throughout the country for the early detection of T.B. I think that if T.B. can be detected in the early stages it can be very largely cured. I am associated with some voluntary hospitals connected with the T.B. problem, and I should be grateful to the Minister of Health if he would reveal to us how we are going to associate ourselves, in view of the municipal hospitals, State hospitals, and hospitals maintained by the rates, with those with whom we shall have to work in co-operation. Voluntary hospitals do very good service with this T.B. problem, largely because they are able to carry out research and go in for the very high-class form of surgery which is called for. The greatest trouble that we have, as a research hospital, is to know where to send patients when they have undergone the necessary surgical treatment. If you catch T.B. early enough and treat it properly it can be dealt with, but even with scientific dealing you must have some place where patients can go afterwards to have real remedial care. It is in that connection more than in any other that we in the chest hospitals find the difficulty about recuperative treatment.
I should appreciate it very much if the Ministry of Health could tell us in no uncertain language how the voluntary hospitals which serve such a useful purpose can be best associated with the great State effort which is being made to treat tuberculosis as a whole. Both sides have a function to fulfil. The State can do a lot in the way of general treatment, and the specialist hospitals can do a great deal indeed in scientific development of treat-

1209
ment, but until we know how we are to be related, from the voluntary hospitals to the State hospitals, it is impossible to make any satisfactory progress. Tuberculosis is the great scourge with which this country has to deal and we need to draw in all the efforts of medical skill and science and of voluntary and State help. It is up to the Ministry of Health to guide us how we can best guide the nation to get through this serious and increasing trouble of tuberculosis. I know that the trouble is largely due to housing and nutritional conditions. During the last four years we have had a larger access of T.B. than in the years preceding. The problem can be dealt with and I think that the Government are taking the right line with these radiological centres. If it is possible to detect T.B. before it becomes acute it can be dealt with on broad general lines by voluntary and State effort, and I think that a great step will be made thereby.
Mr. Gallacher: Two years ago or so I was making an inquiry into the incidence of T.B., and as a result of that inquiry I wrote a letter to the Secretary of State for Scotland in which I put forward certain proposals in connection with housing, central cooking and dieting, and one or two other points that I considered essential for combating this disease. I hope that that letter will be dug out and reconsidered in the light of the discussion which has taken place to-day. Many of the points which have been brought out are of the utmost importance if we are to make a serious effort to tackle this terrible disease. I want first of all to draw attention to a matter which should be considered by every sufferer in the country, and it is that tuberculosis is not something that should be hidden or be ashamed of. There is a terrible feeling everywhere that T.B. is a sort of secret crime and that people must not let anyone know that there is anybody in the family suffering from it. One member of a family after another will hide it and never admit its existence to anybody. That is one of the difficulties.
One or two speakers mentioned the necessity of finding out whether there is a carrier of tuberculosis in a family from which cases have come. It should be the duty of the doctor to find an opportunity of examining other members of such families. I have been visiting some of the institutions recently where I have
1210
seen many difficult cases. I was speaking to a case where three members of a family had been through a sanatorium. Then another was brought in, the mother, and it was discovered that she was the carrier in that family. Anyone is liable to the disease if his system is weakened by over-exertion or chills. It should not be thought that T.B. is something peculiar to a family, and people should not hesitate to make its existence known. Mass radiology will be very valuable, but it is not enough. I was talking to a patient the other day who had been called up for the Army. A member of his family had been affected by T.B., so he reported it and asked for an X-ray. He got it, and he was passed A.1. His chest and lungs were as near perfect as could be. A year later he was in a sanatorium. T.B. does not of necessity start in the lungs, but can be in other organs. If a patient is examined by someone who understands the disease, it can be detected. Therefore mass radiology may give very good results in people who nevertheless have T.B. elsewhere in their system.
Children who are affected should be taken away from bad surroundings immediately. There should be a special ward set aside in hospitals for the care of children suffering from T.B. Another important thing is that some interest is provided for patients. I was at the Glen Lomond place, where patients have all kinds of interests provided for them. I liked the method of accommodation, small rooms which were very useful in the treatment, and were very different from the general hospitals with their large wards where all the patients succeed to a great extent in depressing each other. The patients were interested not only in light labour but in making things. They had built themselves a very fine bowling green. Patients can be encouraged to organise entertainments. Musical instruments might be supplied and opportunities given for the development of the theatrical art.
Above everything else I would ask the Department to use their influence with the Board of Trade to get an allocation of 16 millimetre projectors for some of these institutions which are far from any social centre. The Secretary of State for Scotland can say that they get along very well for three months with some patients, and when they have just become of use

1211
they leave, because they are far away from any centre. There is not much chance of social life for patients or nurses. I know that these projectors are of great value to the Forces but I suggest that an allocation should be made so that once a week some entertainment could be given, not only to the patients but to the attendants. I hope that everything will be done to make the scheme a success and that many of the suggestions that have been made to-day will be accepted, because they would strengthen the scheme and make it cover a much bigger range than it will cover in its present state.
Mr. Mathers: In the raising of this matter to-day and in the discussion, I think Scotland has taken more than her share, certainly more than the Goschen quota which is usually allowed to us. It is all to the good that this matter has been raised in the way it has, and I am certain that we do not need to appeal to the Secretary of State for Scotland or to the Under-Secretary of State to be sympathetic to the point of view that we have been putting forward. I am certain that we have that sympathy in advance. In pressing this matter to-day my colleagues have plied the Ministry of Health and the Department of Health for Scotland with reasons why they should demand an improvement in the scheme that has been in operation for a short time.
I know there is keen interest among hon. Members to hear the reply on behalf of the Government, so I will limit myself to one or two points. I shall allow others to speak for me, which I shall do principally by quoting letters from constituents of mine who are suffering from this disease. Out of the number of letters which I have received on this matter I have chosen two from nurses who contracted this disease in the course of their nursing service and are now declared ineligible for any allowance because they are not considered to come within the scope of the scheme for remedial treatment which would enable them to get back to work. There is something serious in the fact that nurses can contract a disease of this kind in their service and be made entirely incapable for work. Yet apparently there is no compensation for them at all and no possibility of their sharing in the scheme.
1212
The first letter I want to quote sets out the experience that the nurse had and the position in which she is now placed, and I wish to quote to the House her summarising of the position after she had been refused an allowance by the medical officer. She says:
"So it boils down to this: Either I must stop having the food my condition urgently requires and get into so weak a state that I won't be able to take any precaution to prevent others taking it—[the disease, she means]—or I eat the food which my mother and brother should be having and if (which would be very probable) they should contract the disease the Government will immediately pay them an allowance to prevent T.B. from spreading. It does not sound sense and is it human?"
I think there we have the position very succinctly summed up and put in a way which must appeal very powerfully to those who have charge of this scheme and who must realise what the position is. I forwarded it as I do the letters I get in connection with this matter to the Secretary of State for Scotland, and nothing could be more kindly than the type of letter I receive in reply when these cases have to be refused because they do not come precisely within the scope of this scheme. Yet even in sending these kindly worded letters to these people, telling them they are not to have the allowance because of the limitations placed on him, I shrink from doing so. Yet there is no alternative to my making the position known. It is obvious that the patients themselves have not, up to the time of my sending them the reply of the Secretary of State for Scotland, fully realised the position in which they are placed, because that same correspondent, that same nurse from whose letter I quoted, after receiving the reply I was able to send her from the Secretary of State, said:
"Had the medical officer been honest with me, I would have saved you the trouble of taking up my case."
There is something despairing about that which I am sure is recognised by anyone who has to deal with a case of that kind. Here is another nurse in exactly the same kind of position who has been denied the opportunity of having this scheme extended to her. I will not go into her history. I simply want to show how the reaction of the refusal of the allowance can be different in one case as compared with another. This correspondent says:
"I am deeply grateful to you for the help you have given me in this matter concerning

1213
T.B. I shall look forward to the day when some of my wishes come true. It is because I have the disease myself that I understand so well the sufferings, mental and physical, of those like afflicted and whom I want to help so much. I will try to be patient because I know that huge Government schemes take time to get properly going. Thank you again."
That is her reaction, and I suggest that this is the kind of thing at which this Debate should aim, not to appeal for sympathy, but to inspire those who are in charge of these affairs with the absolute necessity of being more strenuous in their efforts to serve these people and more demanding upon the Treasury, because it is not simply a case of pleading that there is not the accommodation in the different sanatoria throughout the country in order to treat these people. I believe it is necessary to provide money in the homes like those in the first case which I quoted, to provide the money in order that we may be absolutely certain that they are properly fed, that they have a sufficiency of proper nourishment, which, even if it cannot remedy their condition, will certainly alleviate it and have a tendency to prevent the disease from spreading further. My feeling when listening to this Debate to-day is that the Government should be aware that there is a strong feeling in this House that more is required in connection with this matter and that if it be that the remedial measures cannot be properly applied, in any case let us have the means of alleviating the effects of the disease, even if that only means providing more money to meet the case of those who are denied the opportunity of sanatorium treatment and must stay at home.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): The hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon), who opened this Debate, set a very high standard, which has been maintained right to the last speaker in dealing with a subject which, I think, can more keenly interest the Members of this House than almost any other subject, the subject of a disease which has for generations been exercising the minds of those who are keenly interested in our health services, a disease which, in the words of the hon. Member for North Camberwell, is the greatest destroyer of life. While there may have been some criticisms of the scheme that was brought into operation by the Government, and of which it has
1214
been suggested that it does not do all that ought to be done and that it is rather hard on some of those who do not get a 100 per cent. grant from the State payable through the local authority, nevertheless there will go out to the country as a result of this Debate something which I think will be very useful. There are far too many people who have, in their minds even yet, despite all the preaching, all the talking and all the pamphlets dealing with this problem, that this is an incurable disease. One thing as a result of this Debate which I am perfectly sure will be a message of hope to thousands of those suffering from this insidious disease will be the realisation that, if caught in its early stages, if treated properly, getting the advantages which ought to be and can be provided within the limits at our disposal, the medical knowledge that is available and the medical science that can be provided, they can be cured. There is that hope so far as those hundreds, thousands of people are concerned who contract this disease or even may be liable to contract the disease, because I believe it is possible to discover now whether a person is liable to contract the disease and possibly save him even from contracting it. Then in the other cases where it is contracted, by remedial measures, by action taken in its early stages, the people concerned can be restored to health and strength again.
I entirely agree with what has been said by many Member—I think the suggestion has been contained in every speech—that if we are to eradicate this disease from our midst, because at the moment we are only dealing with remedial measures, I think I will go the length of saying that we can never eradicate it from our midst unless we have good housing for our people, unless we have an adequate supply of proper food and unless we have in any social system of the future security from want. These are the three points which were specially made in the opening speech of this Debate by the hon. Member for North Camberwell, which have been followed by almost if not quite every speaker who has taken part in the Debate.
Mr. Kirkwood: This is a workers' complaint; where are the Government?
Mr. Westwood: I am speaking for the Government. I hope I shall make just

1215
as good a job of it as those who have already taken part in this Debate. I will try to keep to as high a level as has been maintained. Special reference has been made to mass radiography and to its inadequacy. We have got to start some time. We have started now, even in the midst of war. It is perfectly true so far as the scheme is concerned, which I will deal with later, that it is a war measure, but I am one of those who sincerely hope that when the bells of peace ring out that will not mean the end of this measure. I want to see it continue. It is quite possible that we may discover, as a result of experience, that there are improvements that can be effected so far as the scheme is concerned, but the mass radiography is a start. Thirty sets are to be provided. Of these, three sets are to be provided in Scotland. That means training staff and getting accommodation, and consequently that cannot be done just at once. The three radiography sets in Scotland will be placed in Glasgow, in Edinburgh, and in the county of Lanark. It is quite possible that we may be able to develop that later, but we are in the midst of war, and there is difficulty in getting these sets, but even in the midst of war we have been trying to do something for the purpose of dealing in the early stages with this particular disease.
Another point raised by several Members in dealing with the general problem of tuberculosis was the shortage of staffs. That happens to be a very distressing fact, a shortage of domestic staffs, a shortage of trained nurses. That is a reality we have to face up to; it is there. Some methods are being tried out with a view to encouraging young, women to enter the nursing profession. I shall not argue at the moment whether they are adequate or not. I am merely pointing out that there are inducements being held out and prospects offered with a view to attracting into the service those who can give their assistance in dealing with these particular problems. I am inclined to think that if we are to meet the requirements of nurses we will require an adequate domestic staff, because you cannot provide the amenities for the nurses unless you have an adequate domestic staff. Therefore the work on which we are engaged just now, even in directing domestics to take service or get work in our hospitals and to recruit in connection with that service,
1216
I for one am perfectly sure will help us in dealing with this particular problem.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) said there were three outstanding things we had to keep in mind in dealing with this problem: prevention, precaution and treatment. I am rather pleased that he made special reference to the need for developing the feeding of schoolchildren. It is a thing I have argued for ever since I have been in public life. I believe that if it is possible to get in our schools as part of the school curriculum the provision of a well balanced mid-day meal free, and I am working towards it—I remember the Debate on the Scottish Bill very well—we will have gone a long way to improving the health of our children. We can now see the progress being made. We can see the equipment being provided. In my own county of Fife, once we provide the equipment, with the scheme which they now have, we shall have the finest feeding service in Scotland. We shall be able to build up a healthy childhood, which will grow into healthy youth and be able to resist the attacks of tuberculosis. I was very pleased to hear that reference—not the only one which has been made in the Debate—to the need for developing the school feeding service, in the interests of better health.
I come to the scheme which was discussed by the hon. Members for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill), Greenock (Mr. McNeil), Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), and others. This is the scheme which has been announced and which is now in operation in Scotland and in England. I put Scotland first, because I am a Scots Minister; no doubt, if an English Minister had been making this speech, he would have put England first.
Mr. Cocks: Why is not an English Minister doing it?
Mr. Westwood: Because I think on this occasion a Scots Minister can do it just as well as anyone else. [Interruption.] It often happens that Scots Members do not help a Scots Minister when he is doing his best. The tuberculosis scheme arises from recommendations made by the Committee on Tuberculosis in War-Time, which was appointed by the Medical Research Council, at the Government's request, in the autumn of 1941. The Committee were asked to advise on possible preventive measures, because there was a serious

1217
increase in the incidence of tuberculosis. That that increase was alarming is shown by the fact that the figures for 1942 showed an increase in pulmonary tuberculosis of 31 per cent. in notifications and 18 per cent. in deaths over the figures for 1938, the last complete peace-time year. To cope with the rise in the incidence of the disease the Committee recommended, among other things, the controlled use of mass radiography.
Sir A. Lambert Ward: What are the figures for non-pulmonary tuberculosis?
Mr. Westwood: The corresponding figures are three per cent. and 12 per cent. I have already given the number of mass radiography sets that are to be made available.
Mr. McNeil: Two years after.
Mr. Westwood: You cannot do everything at once. Yet have to get the sets. It is not a crime to start in the right direction. We have started. [Interruption.] I am not dealing with illusions at present, I am dealing with sets. We have provided 30 sets, to facilitate early diagnosis. Also, special financial assistance has been provided, to induce patients to accept early treatment. The Committee, in recommending this, pointed out that tuberculosis is a special case, the needs of which the ordinary National Health Insurance scheme is not designed to meet. It is clear, from the description in the Report of the special character of the disease, that they were dealing with pulmonary tuberculosis. They say:
"It affects the productive groups of the population. It usually extends beyond six months."
I would remind the House that the point of that is that the full sickness benefit under National Health Insurance of 18s. ends then, and is superseded by disablement benefit of 10s. 6d. That tends to reduce the standard of living of the patient and his family, although the patient requires a high standard of living for successful treatment. If the disease is treated in its early stages there is a good chance of full recovery and restoration to work. A scheme for special financial assistance was announced, in accordance with suggestions made by the Committee, so as to contribute, both directly and indirectly, to the control and the prevention of tuberculosis. That was
1218
the basis of the scheme. Directly, an adequate standard of living would aid the conquest of the disease and lessen the risk of its developing in the family, and, indirectly, it would make it easier to persuade the patient to complete his treatment, and not to return to work prematurely. It would remove some of the fear that prevents many adult home contacts from attending for examination, and would increase the acceptance by workers of mass radiography schemes. We have not taken away from the local authorities their responsibility for dealing with this disease. That remains with them. The scheme is worked through the local authorities. Neither have we imposed any new burden upon the local authorities.
Mr. McNeil: A financial burden.
Mr. Westwood: No, we have not imposed any new burden on them. We have taken away some of the financial responsibilities they had. We say that if a case can respond to remedial treatment, if it is in its early stages, instead of coming only under the system which allows in Scotland a grant of approximately 25 per cent. of the cost to be made to the local authority, we will provide 100 per cent. of the cost of allowances if they can induce people to leave off work and to take advantage of the scientific treatment which is available, provided that, in the opinion of the medical officer, they can respond to that treatment. It is still the duty of the local authority to be responsible for that treatment, but when the medical officer decides that the case is able to respond to the treatment, the State will bear 100 per cent. of the cost of the allowances. So far as I understand local administration, there is nothing to hinder them providing exactly the same allowance for the other cases which they have not passed.
Mr. McNeil: Through the Poor Law?
Mr. Westwood: Not necessarily through the Poor Law.
Mr. Buchanan: What is the other method?
Mr. Westwood: My impression is that under the 1929 Act, in Scotland at any rate, provision might be made for payments to sick persons under the health account, as it is. I am not going so far as to say that it would take in the dependants.
Mr. McNeil rose—
Mr. Westwood: I have not interrupted anybody else, and I am trying to state the case.
Mr. McNeil: You have been very provocative.
Mr. Westwood: It is not the same scheme. I am dealing with the question of allowances. We have not added anything to the cost to the local authorities; we have taken away some of the financial responsibility, by providing 100 per cent. grant for cases approved by their medical officers. On 8th October, 1942, the Minister of Health said in the House that:
"Where facilities for diagnosis and treatment are available it is important that those who give up work temporarily for treatment, which is in the interests of the public health no less than their own, should be able to do so without financial anxiety as to the maintenance of their dependants. Local authorities are accordingly being authorised to grant financial assistance in such cases, to provide for the maintenance of the dependants and to avoid the break-up of the home while the breadwinner is undergoing treatment. This assistance is administered by the Public Health authorities as a part of the approved treatment under the tuberculosis scheme, and the cost incurred by them, in accordance with detailed arrangements which I am now working out with their representatives, will be repaid from Exchequer funds.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th October, 1942; col. 1353, Vol. 383.]
I am trying to meet the point made by the hon. Member for Gorbals, who mentioned the scale. The local authorities can also make special discretionary allowances; and we reimburse them, both in Scotland and in England, to the extent of 100 per cent. Special allowances are made, according to need, to meet standing commitments, such as rent, insurance payments and hire purchase payments. Superimposed on that again, there are special payments which the local authority can make, again according to need, to cover travelling expenses of relatives visiting patients in hospital, to provide domestic help where the patient is a housewife, and so on.
Mr. McNeil: Without limit of time or of amount?
Mr. Westwood: All I say is that I know of no case that has been put up to us so far. I am not saying that the scheme is perfect. Neither the hon. Member nor I are perfect; at least I am not.
Dr. Summerskill: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the limit imposed in providing a substitute for the housewife?
Mr. Westwood: The limit will be 10s.
Dr. Summerskill: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how to find a substitute for the working housewife for 10s. a week?
Mr. Westwood: I am pointing out that this is an experimental scheme, and we shall find that there will have to be adjustments.
Dr. Summerskill: But surely you cannot find a substitute for 10s. a week.
Mr. Westwood: This is an experimental scheme, and I am merely pointing out what the scheme is. An allowance scheme is being applied for pulmonary tuberculosis cases because of considerations of national importance. It is true, and it was pointed out by several speakers, that many sufferers from pulmonary tuberculosis delay or avoid seeking treatment because they fear it may mean a long period of absence from work and subsequent hardship upon the dependants. The object of the allowance is to remove that anxiety.
Mr. Buchanan: Where does it remove it? If you give a man with a wife and two children £2 10s. 6d. at the very most, and he has been earning £4 or £5 per week, I cannot see how you can remove fear and want.
Mr. Westwood: I have not said that we have, but that the object of the scheme was to do that.
Mr. Buchanan: Has it achieved its object?
Mr. Westwood: The allowance would remove that anxiety and allow sufferers to seek treatment at the earliest possible moment. As I have already indicated, the object of the scheme is in the interests of the patient and of the community as a whole. By undertaking early treatment the patient has a better chance of full restoration to health and working capacity, and the allowance assures the well-being of his dependants in the meantime. That is the object of the scheme. It is of at least equal importance in the interests of the community as a whole that sufferers from pulmonary tuberculosis should seek early treatment. A person in industry suffering from this disease may be aware

1221
of his condition or he may carry on work unaware of it and to all appearances be in full health, but in either case his condition is likely to deteriorate progressively. Therefore adequate and timely treatment is of the utmost importance from the point of view of maintaining the public health. This, I submit, is a fundamental justification for making allowances available in pulmonary tuberculosis cases.
Mr. McNeil: The right hon. Gentleman does not make allowances available for pulmonary tuberculosis. That is what we have been talking about.
Mr. Westwood: I am pointing out that the scheme provides relief for pulmonary tuberculosis cases.
Mr. McNeil: Only relief for acute pulmonary tuberculosis cases.
Mr. Buchanan: The schemes does not apply to all people.
Mr. Westwood: The scheme does not apply to all. It applies to those who can respond to treatment and who, if they will leave work in the early stages of the disease, have a chance of complete recovery. As far as Scotland is concerned, it means that three persons out of every four who have applied for assistance have been granted it.
Mr. Gallacher: We want four cases out of four.
Mr. Westwood: That is a matter for argument afterwards, but this is a scheme to induce individuals to get early treatment. The main purpose of the allowances scheme is to rehabilitate those who can be rehabilitated. The scheme, however, allows considerable latitude. Allowances are payable for six months after leaving a sanatorium to all patients who are not fit to resume full work in that period. Thereafter allowances may be renewed on the certificate of the tuberculosis officer for two further periods of six months if remedial treatment is to be continued. If treatment is still required in individual cases thereafter, the Departments have to be informed, but allowances may continue until the Department advises against it up to a period of 12 months. Allowances may be paid to patients where the tuberculosis officer considers that the equivalent of approved sanatorium treatment can be carried out at home under his direction. The Department has to be consulted if it
1222
is proposed to continue this form of treatment beyond 12 months. We recognise that the scheme is in its experimental stage, and we are examining the experience of its working up to date with a view to seeing what improvements can suitably be made in it within the limitation imposed by available hospital resources. We shall look into the position closely.
Meanwhile I sincerely hope the advice given by the hon. Member for Greenock will not be accepted by medical officers of health, when he said that he hoped they would try to make the scheme unworkable. I want everyone to help in making this scheme a success, even although it does not meet all the desires of all my hon. Friends opposite. I was asked whether I could justify it on Christian grounds. I am justifying it here as a Minister of the Crown, but also on Christian grounds
Mr. Gallacher: And on Mohammedan grounds too?
Mr. Westwood: I was not asked on Mohammedan grounds. I cannot speak on Mohammedan grounds. I only speak on Christian grounds. I can defend it anywhere. It does not deal with social security as such. That is a problem to be dealt with in a comprehensive scheme which will deal not merely with the chronics of one disease but, I hope, the chronics of all diseases. This is a remedial measure for the purpose of assisting rehabilitation where it can be made a success, and I have no hesitation in defending the scheme anywhere, believing that it is a step in the right direction. It has benefited three out of four cases in Scotland. We are closely watching the scheme in its operation with a view to finding out where remedies can be applied in any general scheme in the future.
Mr. Cocks: Will my right hon. Friend consider including incurable cases in the consideration that is to be given to the question in future?
Mr. Westwood: I cannot say that I can do that. I said that I hope incurable or chronic cases will come within the general security scheme and will not apply only to those suffering from one disease but for all diseases.
Dr. Summerskill: The right hon. gentleman said that the scheme had benefited three out of every four cases in

1223
Scotland. Does he mean it benefited three out of every four cases recommended for the allowance or three out of every four cases of patients suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis in Scotland, as that is a very different thing?
Mr. Westwood: I cannot say that it is three out of every four cases of people suffering from tuberculosis, but it has benefited three out of every four cases where application has been made. They have to make application.
Dr. Summerskill: Those are the acute cases. What is the number of cases?
Mr. Westwood: There were about 2,700 cases. If I had sufficient time, I would give all the details. I am always willing to give exact figures if desired. I have them here, but I know that I have almost exhausted my time under the arrangements made for other hon. Members to raise another subject, and I wanted to give way to them. There have been approximately 2,700 cases for which application has been made.

GREECE AND BELGIUM (FOOD AND MEDICAL SUPPLIES)
Mr. Stokes: I have given notice, on behalf of a considerable number of other Members, of all parties, in the House, to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare that we want to take this opportunity of raising what to many of us inside this House and to a great number of people outside is the very vital question of famine relief in Europe during the war in what is known as occupied territory. I can assure my hon. Friend that we approach this matter in a spirit of intense persuasiveness. We understand many of his difficulties and have no wish whatever to ask for the impossible. We want him to listen to what we have to say and to see whether he can do something to meet us in the further relief for which we are asking in certain territories. There is a very strong feeling outside the House, both in this country and elsewhere, that something more should be done than is at present being done by His Majesty's Government. Let me make it plain at once to those hon. Members, particularly as I do not see them here, who are criti-
1224
cising us for wanting apparently to be of assistance to the enemy, that no one wants to do anything which may assist the enemy. We do not believe that the assistance for which we ask, if carried out properly and in a way well known to the Parliamentary Secretary, would be assistance of any kind whatever to the enemy.
In order not to make the scope of the Debate too wide, we want particularly to refer to two aspects; first of all, an increased amount of relief of foodstuffs to Greece and, secondly, to urge His Majesty's Government to consider falling in with the requests, which, I understand, have been made—certainly they are well known—of the Belgian Government, that something should be done in the way of essential medical provisions and vitamins for our Allies the Belgians. And this is limited, as an hon. Friend points out, in the case of Belgium, to nursing mothers and small children. We are asking for controlled relief. As there may be some misapprehension, I will describe what that means. There are two types of controlled relief. There is the kind of controlled relief where there is the existence of neutral means of supervising the distribution of the stuff when it arrives, and the other type, that I call controlled relief, is where the relief supplied is so little and gradual that even if there was abuse you could effect control by turning off supplies from the source from which they come; and if the enemy did use such supplies, further supplies could be stopped.
My mind—to-morrow being 11th November—goes back to that time when we closed down on the last war in 1918. I am reminded, as the House will be, that in that war, as in this, the Greeks and Belgians were our Allies. They still are our Allies, and everybody knows what a gallant fight was put up in Greece, and I believe that history will prove that the Belgians did not do so badly either in extraordinarily difficult circumstances. My mind went back also to the dreadful condition of things found in Europe after the last war. Some people might accuse me of being sentimental. I do not know anything worth living for except some sort of sentiment. I remember the shock it gave me when I saw a starving child. To appreciate what a starving child means you have to pick it up and hold it in the light

1225
and looking through it see nothing but skin and bone. It is a tragic thought that starvation conditions prevail now. And I submit that it will be due, in my view, to the wrongful attitude on the part of His Majesty's Government if the same kind of conditions prevail in some of the territories of our Allies as prevailed in other parts of Europe at the end of the last war.
Our special appeal, as I have said, is to help forward both the Belgians and the Greeks, and while I do not want to go into any great amount of statistical data, I think it is important that the House should realise where the foodstuffs for these territories came from prior to the outbreak of the war. When I speak of foodstuffs I include food for human consumption and feeding stuffs for animals which provide human food within the territory. I believe I am right in saying that prior to the outbreak of the war 70 per cent. of the foodstuffs consumed in Belgium came from outside what we call the blockade and approximately 60 per cent. in the case of Greece. I would ask hon. Members to bear that constantly in mind when listening to the Debate. It is quite a mistake to think that those countries are normally self-providing and that the enemy has gone in and filched all the foodstuffs and has left them starving. Without supplies from outside they are quite incapable of maintaining, themselves, even if the enemy did not take away an ounce of foodstuffs.
May I deal with one or two of the arguments which are normally raised against famine relief of any kind? The first one is, as I have said, that it will help the enemy. Well, we do not want to do anything that will help the enemy. We do not believe that assistance of this kind, properly controlled and limited in its scope, will be of any assistance to the enemy whatever. It will not provide, for Belgium, food for the adult population. The Germans look after that themselves. Where adults are used to further the efforts of the German war machine the Germans see that they are well fed. The people we are seeking to assist are those who are not being helped by the Germans, those we hope to rely on in the future, whatever the date may be. There is the further argument that supplies will be abused. I have yet to learn from the Parliamentary Secretary that there has been any authentic case of any serious
1226
abuse or of supplies being taken away. In support of that, I will quote from a report of a State Department of the United States of America of April this year:
"Information from neutral sources indicates that food relief supplies being sent to Greece are being distributed to the people without interference by the occupation authorities and that there has been no diversion of these supplies to the enemy."
It is constantly represented to me by people who study this matter that there has been no serious abuse of any kind whatever. Another point in support of the contention that it will not help the enemy is that, so far as I know, both the Greek and Belgian Governments in this country are not in agreement with the present policy being pursued by His Majesty's Government. Surely their advice ought to receive serious consideration. After all, they are just as anxious as anybody to have the enemy beaten and out of their territory. Neither Government would ask for anything to be done which would prolong their agony and the war. Finally on this point, I would emphasise that as regards medicinal stores, particularly in the case of Belgium, dried milk and vitamin tablets, there is not the slightest case for saying that they would help the enemy or would relieve them of another of their responsibilities.
The next big argument is this: constantly it is stated, and the Parliamentary Secretary has stated in answers to Questions, that it is the responsibility of the Axis to feed the populations of the occupied territories. The hon. Gentleman has quoted to me Clauses 47 to 52 of the Hague Convention, No. IV, of 1907. I am not a lawyer—the hon. Gentleman is—but I made a search through those Clauses, and I cannot find any reference there which will indicate that the occupying Power is responsible for making good the foodstuffs that come from outside the territory. I would like the Attorney-General to come here and, as a lawyer, tell me precisely where it is in the Hague Convention that this responsibility is laid upon the occupying Power. In connection with this point of foodstuffs in and out, the hon. Gentleman, in an answer to a Question on 27th October, told me that imports from Axis sources into Greece and Belgium exceeded the exports of those two countries. So I do not see what there is further to argue about with regard to that form of possible abuse.

1227
Then comes the question of moral obligation I consider that this is a silly argument. We are not fighting the Germans because they are moral but because they are amoral, and to tell me that a moral obligation rests on the Germans to do something cuts no ice whatever, especially as you cannot feed starving children on moral obligations. It is revolting to think that there are millions of nursing mothers and unfed children who, with a small amount of aid from us, would be relieved of much of their agony and suffering. As an ordinary Member, I take the view that it is as much our moral obligation to see that something is done as anybody else's obligation. It is no use saying that just because the Germans do not stand by their moral obligations we shall do nothing about it. The argument produced by Ministers—and I think the Foreign Secretary is among those who have used it—is that you cannot do it for one or two countries without doing it for all the others. I think that is wrong. It is quite absurd to say you will do nothing because you cannot do everything. We quite understand that in the case of Poland and Czechoslovakia it is very difficult to attempt to do anything, and I understand that the Dutch Government have expressed the view that they do not want anything to be done. The two countries we are particularly pleading for to-day are Greece and Belgium, who supported us in the last war and to whom we are looking for support again when we invade Europe. We feel that we should show our humanity, our gratitude for their efforts, and our recognition that their main supplies come from outside during the war in doing something more than the Government have been doing up to the present time.
Another argument used is that domestic produce from the countries concerned might be withdrawn if further supplies are sent in. Has that proved to be the case? In point of fact we have been doing this for Greece, to a considerable extent, for a long time, so the argument that by doing it for one you must do it for all has already broken down in practice. Apart from that, is there any real evidence that domestic produce has been taken away? I would like to quote what the Archbishop of Canterbury said on this point about helping the enemy:
1228
"I am convinced that the schemes to which I have given my support, and which have been carefully worked out, would not aid the enemy or hinder our war effort."
I would like to refer to a point made by the Parliamentary Secretary on 8th July, when we last debated this subject. He said that the supply of some of the foodstuffs would relieve the strain on the enemy's transport system. Is that really a serious thought? Take the case of Belgium. We are asking for only 2,000 tons a month. That means seven 10-ton trucks a day. Does he really say that that will seriously interfere with the enemy's transport system or relieve them of any great burden, more especially as they are not supplying now. As for claiming that we have not the shipping available, the answer to that is that the stuff would be carried in neutral bottoms, provided by Belgium or Greece, as the case may be, and would not interfere with our shipping resources at all. Take the case of Greece itself. At the present time Greece is getting something like 15,000 to 20,000 tons per month. That is splendid. It is much more than went there before we started the agitation about this matter. Both the Swiss-Swedish Commission working in that country and, I understand, the Greek Government have asked for a further 4,000 tons of fresh food a month. If that is so, is there any reason why they should not get it? If it can be proved that food has-been properly distributed and has not helped the enemy, then there is no reason why further supplies should not be made available.
As an argument against doing any more, the Parliamentary Secretary told us that there was a better harvest in Greece this year and that they would not need so much help from outside. That was in answer to a Question on 29th September. My answer to that is that Mr. George Exintaris, who is the ex-Minister of Agriculture in the Greek Government, has said that the harvest this year is bad and that famine conditions will prevail. I will quote his actual words in this extract from the "Manchester Guardian" of 8th October, 1943:
"Unless what he calls the 'unexpected' happens and Greece is liberated this year Mr. George Exintaris, a former Greek Minister of Agriculture, who escaped from his country in June, is afraid that famine conditions this winter will be as bad as in the black five months at the turn of 1941–42. From January to June, he said, the food situation in Greece

1229
was much better, partly because of the help from Canada and elsewhere and partly because a feeling of confidence swept the country and all the existing reserves were freely used. Since then, however, there has been a quick deterioration. The crop has been bad, there is a deficit of 150,000 tons of wheat and the stock have gone. He wants the shipment to Greece to be increased by 2,000 tons a month of fish and meat products, by 2,000 tons of rice, and by extra milk—that is, if the 'unexpected' does not happen."
It would appear, therefore, that the Parliamentary Secretary is not correctly informed as to the state of crops in that territory. In view of what has been happening in Athens let us consider what a great difference even the small amount of relief they have already had has made to the population. I am told that 500 died of hunger in Athens and Piraeus in the first two weeks of October this year. That is fewer than was the case in the black months of two or three years ago when 1,700 died every day. On 14th October this year the hon. Gentleman told us that no extra request from the Swiss-Swedish Commission had been received. I do not understand that, because I have been given to understand that they have asked for extra supplies over and above the 15,000 to 20,000 tons.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dingle Foot): Would the hon. Member give me the date of the answer to the Question he has just mentioned?
Mr. Stokes: It was 14th October this year. To turn to Belgium, I have stated that 70 per cent. of her feeding-stuffs come from outside the blockade, and I believe that to be substantially true, but what I think is not generally realised is that we get a very considerable amount of supplies from such places as the Belgian Congo, a fertile country whose supplies are available for the use of the United Nations. Surely that should be borne in mind when we are considering whether we are going to help our colleagues in Belgium or not. At present we are not sending anything at all. Yet we are using the products of the Congo. There is, as in the case of Greece, both shipping and money available.
I join issue with the Noble Lord the senior Minister, who stated on 15th October that the reason the people of Europe are hungry is because the Germans have stolen their food. I agree
1230
that the reason why the people of Europe are hungrier than they need be is that the Germans have taken much of their food, but 70 per cent. of the normal feeding-stuffs which the Belgians consumed came from outside Europe. That is a criticism that we are going to have to face for ever when the war comes to an end, and our Allies may very well curse us for what we have done. In December, 1941, there were 69,000 special food cards issued in Belgium for tubercular cases. Fifteen months later that figure had gone up to 109,000. Forty per cent. of the children in Ghent are suffering from rickets, and 80 per cent. in other parts, largely because they are short of vitamin D. In the ordinary children's homes, where sickening children go to recuperate, the ordinary daily rations have been reduced by as much as 50 per cent. What kind of nation are our friends in Belgium going to be reduced to if this is allowed to continue?
I asked the Minister on 8th July a Question to which I never got a convincing answer. In the early days of 1941 what I referred to loosely as the Hoover scheme was proposed to the Belgian Government, the German Government and ourselves. It was welcomed by the Belgian Government, and the German Government accepted it in principle. It may be that, had we pursued it, we should have come up against all sorts of difficulties and not been able to carry it through. But is it not true that at or about the same time, after His Majesty's Government turned down that proposal, the Belgian Government brought in a scheme of the same nature for the approval of His Majesty's Government which has not been accepted?
There are three other specific questions that I want to ask. First, as the hon. Gentleman hangs so much of the Government case on the responsibility of the occupying Power under the Hague Convention, will he or one of the Law Officers tell us precisely where in the Hague Convention it is stated to be the responsibility of the occupying Power to make good shortages caused by the blockade, as we call it—I agree it is a loose term—shortages due to the fact that feeding stuffs from outside the blockade are no longer possible? The Hague Convention, I do not believe, ever contemplated the state of things that we now see. Secondly, has

1231
any instructed or authoritative opinion ever shown that the 1914–18 Hoover scheme, which was accepted by us for supplying food to the starving peoples of Europe, proved to be a mistake? Has there been any authoritative evidence that substantial supplies were misused and misdirected by the enemy? In the Debate on the 8th, I accepted a statement that there had been abuse, but I am told that I was wrong and that there is no authoritative evidence. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence, I shall be glad to hear it. Thirdly, are the present Greek and Belgian Governments domiciled in this country in agreement with the present policy of the Government or in disagreement? In the case of Greece, would they welcome more relief and do they consider that it could be supplied without helping the enemy, and in the case of Belgium are they definitely pressing for these moderate supplies for which we are now asking? It is interesting to consider what our great Russian Allies think about this matter. Here is a quotation from a note handed to the British Ambassador in Moscow on 25th October, 1939:
"It is known that the universally recognised principles of international law do not permit the air bombardment of the peaceful population, women, children and aged people. On the same grounds the Soviet Government deem it not permissible to deprive the peaceful population of foodstuffs, fuel and clothing and thus subject children, women and aged people and invalids to every hardship and privation by proclaiming the goods of popular consumption as war contraband."
I do not believe the Government of the U.S.S.R. have changed their views for a moment. Have they stated that they have?
To follow the policy that we are recommending is obviously good business. When the war comes to an end, unless we now do something about it, surely the only well-fed, fat, sleek people are going to be Germans, and all our friendly populations are going to be down-and-out, and starving, and they will hate us and be quite unable to govern Europe. They may be glad to be liberated from the Nazi yoke, but though unfortunately I am not a parent, I can imagine the awful bitterness which will prevail in the hearts of the parents of children as a result of the restrictions they have been suffering, and in many cases death, for the want of foodstuffs. There is a huge body of opin-
1232
ion in America and here that wants the Government to do something—none of us want to do anything which will help the enemy—to help the children and the nursing mothers in Belgium and give a little further relief to the starving people of Greece, showing that we really are fighting for Christian principles and that we recognise that these people are our Allies and are entitled to some substantial consideration.
Mr. Harold Nicolson: I am glad to have an opportunity to take part in this Debate, since it deals with a subject of very serious importance—one in fact which involves a grave question of national responsibility—and since I think it is right that such matters should be discussed in every part of the House by people who in other ways may not always take the same point of view. I am not a sentimentalist. I do not believe you can defeat panzer divisions by strewing cowslips in their path. I am not a pacifist. I believe the only way we can get total victory is by total war. I do not wish in any way to embarrass the Government, of which I am a most ardent supporter, nor do I in any way wish to criticise the Ministry of Economic Warfare. I believe they have in these difficult years carried out their functions most efficiently. It is not their efficiency I question; it is their state of mind. I have certain apprehensions about that. It is my experience that the young Departments—mushroom, possibly fungoid, Departments—have not possessed the traditions, and therefore the self-confidence, and therefore the flexibility, of the older institutions of State. I fear that the Ministry of Economic Warfare, being a Ministry of denial, may concentrate too closely upon negatives. I would beg the hon. Gentleman to search his conscience and consider whether, in the long years in which his Department have been training for battle and taking part in the muscular contests and wrestling matches in which with so much success they have engaged, it is not possible that the Department may have become a little muscle-bound. I would ask him to consider this matter not with a closed mind but with all the rich resources of liberal humanism.
I was a few days ago in Sweden, and I had occasion to speak to and interview

1233
a great many earnest and intelligent men who since the beginning of the war have devoted their experience and their energies to a study of the nutrition problem in occupied Europe and to the means by which malnutrition could be at least alleviated. I found it difficult to meet the arguments that they put to me. When we are in this House we take a delight—after all, it is our privilege and our pleasure—in criticising the action of Government Departments. When we go abroad we all feel that we must rebut and disprove criticisms of our Government. I know that when I heard these statements in Sweden I felt a rush of loyalty towards the Ministry of Economic Warfare, but I racked my brains to think of the arguments Ministers have in the past given me, hoping that I should find in them some armour-piercing javelins which would confound and utterly rout my Swedish critics. I searched, and what did I find in the palm of my hand? Not a javelin, not even a pointed dart, but just a handful of dust. I had not come to Sweden to throw dust in the face of the Swedish Red Cross.
They said to me, "Do your Government, do the House of Commons, know the conditions in Belgium and Greece? Do they see the vital statistics? Do they know the tuberculosis figures? Have they had the facts about child welfare?" "Yes," I said, "I think they have all the information." Then they said, "Is it that they mistrust the Swedish Red Cross or the Swiss Red Cross? Is it that they have no confidence in the international arrangements that we have made?" "No," I said "the Swedish Red Cross and the Swiss Red Cross are regarded in England with the deepest respect and admiration." Then they said, "Is it that your Government imagine that we are trying to send great fat food ships into Belgium? Is the House of Commons aware of what a tiny little scheme we have? Do they not realise that we can provide the ships and the money and the stuff and that it is only the navicerts that are spoiling what we wish to do?" "Yes," I said, "the House of Commons knows that." Then they said, "What is the reason?" I said, "There may be reasons of which I am unaware," and they replied, "Well, they must be very strange and very recondite reasons since, to us, the attitude of
1234
your Government in this matter is not in harmony with the high repute which Great Britain in these years has won."
What arguments could I bring out, but that wretched little trilogy of arguments which we have had before and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) has referred, but which I, if he will allow me, would also examine? There is, first, the absurd argument that we would be helping the enemy. I do not think that anything I have ever done in public or in private life has ever helped any Nazi in any way at all. I am perfectly convinced that in comparison with the great rocks of discomfort, the great precipices of destruction, which we are hurling upon Germany, any benefit they could get from this scheme would be worth no more than perhaps one, or perhaps two, or perhaps three, grains of sand. The thing is too disproportionate to be mentioned. A little drop of benefit might accrue to them, compared with the ocean of relief and encouragement which would thereby be given not merely to our Allies but to unborn generations in Greece and Belgium. No, I could not use to the Swedes the argument that it might help the enemy. It is a grotesque argument.
What about the second argument, that argument which I so regret to say my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who has not an escapist mind, used in this House in September last; the argument of the irresolute man, the argument of the thin end of the wedge? Is the fabric of our policy, is the structure of our resolution, made of such friable material that we are afraid of a wedge or two in our system? Are we in this country, we who have withstood the hammer blows of disastrous fortune, to be afraid of a little peg of wood? Surely, as my hon. Friend has said, in the Ministry of Economic Warfare we have an immense and perfectly patterned machine, a "cat and mouse" machine; and surely if a scheme such as we advocate were found to be moving dangerously, it would only be necessary to make a motion of the finger and thumb and the tap would be turned off. So I was ashamed to use to the Swedes the argument about the thin end of the wedge.
Then there is the third argument to which my hon. Friend referred, the argument about the obligation imposed by the Hague Convention on the occupying country. I dare say that my hon. Friend is

1235
right in saying that the Hague Convention of 1907 did not contain a Clause obliging the occupying country to maintain a pre-war level of imports. But it is a generally recognised principle of international law that the occupying country is responsible for maintaining nutrition in the occupied country above starvation level. I hate those words "starvation level." It is a horrible phrase, it is inaccurate, and it is often used carelessly in statistics. What is starvation level for an adult man is something quite different from what is starvation level to a little Greek child on some of these barren islands. Yet there is, it is true, a generally recognised principle of international law such as I have mentioned. But am I to say, am I to believe, that His Majesty's Government base a policy upon the assumption that any international principle will be followed and adhered to by the Nazi Government? This seems to me as grotesque as to say that you could moor a Dreadnought with a cobweb. No, there is no principle, no German principle, in this matter on which we can rely. But there is a German policy. It is a deliberate policy, a policy which was set out as long ago as 1934, a policy which they have effected with the utmost skill, with the most consummate strategy, with incomparable efficiency. It is the policy of so debilitating the populations of occupied countries that they will be unable to resist. It is even more fiendish than that. It is the policy of so debilitating those populations that even the generations yet to be born will be incapable of resisting the future encroachments of the herrenvolk.
I claim that it is the duty and the right and the privilege of this House to urge the Government to defeat that policy. Although we know very well that we cannot do much to defeat that policy, we also know that we can do a little; and I do not think we should be deterred, and I shall certainly not be deterred, from pressing that view in season and out of season whatever the Ministry of Economic Warfare may say. When I asked about this before, I was told that the door was not closed. I wish it were, because then we would break it open. As it is, the door is on the latch and there is a mighty strong chain hidden somewhere in that latch. I could not say these things to the Swedes when they told me that this did not seem to be in
1236
harmony with the high repute which Great Britain had won in all these years. I could not answer them, but I hope that this House will see that what we are asking for is a very little thing. I hope it will not be imagined from what my hon. Friend said about the Hoover scheme in the last war that we are asking for anything like that. I do not agree with my hon. Friend that the Hoover Scheme did not help the enemy. It did, and I could show my hon. Friend the passage in Ludendorff's book in which he admits that. I would not dream of anything approaching the extent of the Hoover scheme. I am not thinking of fat food ships being sent to Athens but of giving to Greeks, under a scheme which has worked so well, without any cost to ourselves in shipping or in money, a larger quantity, and a different quality, of the foods which they now require.
We have been told by Mr. Exintaris, recently Greek Minister of Agriculture, exactly what the position is in Greece to-day. We have been told how, after the victory of E1 Alamein, the Greeks imagined that we would be arriving on the morrow. We know that the harvest which promised to be so good has proved defective. We know what the circumstances are to-day and that 400 people are dying in the streets of Athens every week. We know that the suggestions which have been made could rapidly be put into practice. But that is not the only thing. In Greece we have managed to save a good many, thanks to the Swedish Red Cross. But in Belgium we have done nothing at all and the vital statistics in Belgium are perfectly appalling. We know that the Swedes have planned already to send stuff through Lisbon in a sealed train to Belgium, not for the whole population but for the children between six and fourteen which is the critical age. We cannot do anything. Why? Because of the Ministry of Economic Warfare. I do not think this House ought to lie down under that. I do not think the Ministry ought to accept that position. I beg my hon. Friend, in all earnestness, not to continue to adopt the obstinate attitude which he adopted before. If he gives way and accepts our scheme, then surely he will be giving life, and the hope of life, not only to the present population but, as I have said, to the children yet unborn

1237
in those countries—and I am using no rhetorical phrase. If he does not do that, then I say he will be disregarding what I hope is the conscience of this House. He is disregarding what I imagine is the conscience of the United States. He is disregarding what I believe to be the conscience of the people of this country. And he is disregarding what I know to be the conscience of the neutral world.
Sir Peter Bennett: I wish to support the case which has been put forward by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes). It is not often that I find myself in agreement inside this House with my hon. Friend. I am in agreement with him outside on matters of business and of sport, but I think this is the first time I have ever had an opportunity of saying a word in his favour inside the House. But I support the case which he put forward and which, I may say, he put forward so ably and, for him, with so much restraint. Political parties and sections do not enter into a matter of this kind at all. We are striving to put to the Minister a purely humanitarian point of view and I do not wish it to be thought that we are claiming to have any more humanity than Ministers of the Crown possess. I have discussed this with a number of them and have endeavoured to explain to them that we have no more virtue in this respect than they have, that we know they are as much human beings as we are, but that we feel they are being a little too much hidebound by rules and regulations, and a little too frightened to let their hearts have a say as against cold logic. I have never lived by logic. I do not find that it gets me anywhere. I find, in a good many cases, it is better to let that intuition which you can hardly explain take charge of your actions, and, in a good many cases, it is worth more than the cold logic of reason. At any rate, that has been the principle of my life.
I would like to suggest to my hon. Friend on the Front Bench, who is not quite so old as I am, that he might step outside his legal training and allow, for a short time, his heart and intuition to carry him along. I have not had the pleasure of discussing this matter with the Swedish Red Cross, but I have had to try and explain the attitude of our Government first of all to some good friends of this
1238
country in America, and I, frankly, found it impossible. Then I have had to try to explain it to my own constituents. I have had interviews with the Ministers, and I have tried to go back and reassure my constituents with what I have been told in answer to their questions, but I found it quite impossible to convince them that those reasons were really sound.
It was agreed to-day that this very small quantity of dried milk and vitamins was available to be sent for the use of the Belgian children. It was agreed that they are available, that the shipping is available, that the people to distribute them are available, and that they will see that they get into the right hands. How can the Government say that this would be helping the Germans and postpone the end of the war? If we thought that, we would not be pressing it. One point I want to make is that there can be no question of opening the door or putting in the wedge, because it is solely for the benefit of nursing mothers and the children on a very limited scale. If the Germans tried to take advantage of this, it would be instantly noticed. If they sent less food to the adults because we tried to help the mothers and children, it would be seen at once. Here is an opportunity where we can, without transgressing the main points suggested by the Foreign Secretary and others, help our friends without hindering the progress of the war. We cannot in any way be accused of arguing against that in making this small gesture, and I can assure the Minister that we shall be doing something that will put heart into the Belgian people. Those who travelled on the Continent just after the last war will remember the children's sufferings. They will remember that we were accused of being responsible for them, and I do hope that the Minister, who I am certain has a heart as large as any of ours, will consider whether, without running any risk whatever, he can fall in with this suggestion to help the peoples of Belgium and Greece.
Mr. Edmund Harvey: The case that has been brought before, the House has been put with such ability and with such moderation by my three hon. Friends who preceded me that I feel there is very little that I need add to the points they have made, except to emphasise again that in

1239
raising this plea once more, as some of us did in July last, we are supported by new facts which the Minister, I am sure, would wish to take into account. One of the new facts is that the harvest in Greece during the last summer has not been, as he expected, a good one, but, unfortunately, a very bad one. Another fact that has been recently revealed is the terrible increase of tuberculosis in Belgium. We had given to us by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) some figures that have come from the Belgian Government and from Belgian medical experts. We have also a report of the Secretary of State's Department of the United States, issued as recently as May of this year, in which it is stated:
"We have concluded that at least one-third of the young persons in Belgium are suffering from tuberculosis."
Earlier in this Debate we spent several hours in considering the problem of tuberculosis in our own country. What would have been the cry of indignation that would have gone up from both sides of this House, if it had been said that at least one-third of the young people of this country were suffering from tuberculosis? Yet that is said of the children of Belgium in the report of the American State Department. Are we to do nothing to help this tragic situation? The Minister who was seated on that bench an hour or two ago, said, in dealing with the problem of tuberculosis in our country, that it requires a full standard of living to combat the disease. Do my hon. Friends who listened to that Debate see the irony of our saying that of the tuberculosis sufferers in our own country, and, at the same time, refusing, not to give ourselves, but to allow to others the opportunity of giving, for the benefit of the women and children of Belgium.
Earl Winterton: Does the hon. Member seriously suggest that we in this country are responsible for the condition of people in the occupied countries?
Mr. Harvey: My Noble Friend entirely misinterprets what I said. I am asking that navicerts should be permitted to the Belgian Government to purchase food themselves and have it transported in neutral vessels for the young children and nursing mothers only. That is the simple request that is being made. If the Noble
1240
Lord had heard the earlier Debate he would have known that. We are not concerned with feeding the whole population.
Earl Winterton: I want to bring out this point. Is it not a fact that the great advance in tuberculosis in Europe is a result of the gross starvation by the Nazis of the millions of people in the occupied countries?
Mr. Harvey: The treatment of Europe by the Nazi authorities is very largely responsible. No one in this House doubts that, but the fact remains that, in spite of this, we can if we wish, do something to help a considerable number of this neediest section of our own Allies. We are not asking for the general feeding of the whole population of Europe. We are asking for an exceedingly limited scheme to help the young children and the nursing mothers of Belgium, a scheme to be carried out under the strictest control and under the aegis of the International Red Cross. I think that the position in regard to Belgium is so serious that it does need reconsideration, and I take comfort from the fact that somewhere, if not here, it is being reconsidered.
In a recent issue of "The Times" their Washington correspondent reported an interview with the Acting Secretary of State, Mr. Stettinius. According to this report Mr. Stettinius said that the possibility of an arrangement with the British, Swedish and Swiss Governments to ship goods to countries occupied by the enemy, primarily for hungry children—a question now before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee—was being studied by the competent Government agencies. That was as recently as 4th of November. I plead with my hon. Friend that he will go on studying the matter until he finds a positive solution. I am sure his heart is with our hearts in this and that he will be only too glad to find a solution. Are we not, in the eyes of the neutral nations, in danger of appearing like the priest and the Levite passing by on the other side, while the wounded traveller lies by the roadside?
I wish my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary could have been in his old place below me to-night. What a speech he would have made to urge the case for help to suffering humanity. I think my hon. Friend, with his great ability, could

1241
put the case to-day for the priest and the Levite. He would tell us that the Levite was a man with only a limited amount of money, which he felt he needed for his own family and had he given it to the wounded man, at the next turn of the road there would be another wounded man wanting help and then another and his money would all be gone. The priest looked farther ahead and said, "It is no use doing this. We are very sorry for this wounded man but the real remedy is that we must have strict police action to put down brigandage." That is the kind of defence that I am sure my hon. Friend could make even for the priest and the Levite, but it is not the kind of action which appeals to the ordinary citizen in this country and I am sure it is not, in his own heart, his own attitude.
It is not how the British soldier feels. We saw how in Sicily our soldiers, tired, hungry and weary and having to face the danger of mortal combat, shared their rations with the hungry children, and those the children of an enemy nation. We have been deeply moved recently by the account of how our wounded prisoners, coming back after years of captivity, when they left their port in Sweden have surrendered their packages of food and little comforts for their hungry friends in Occupied Norway. We saw a picture of those food packages and chocolate piled high upon the wharf, to be forwarded by the Swedish Red Cross to help the Norwegians. That was contrary to the views of the Ministry of Economic Warfare. How is it that the Ministry had not a representative there to plead with these soldiers and to say "You cannot do it," The hearts of those men were touched. They represented the true Britain and, surely, we in the House of Commons must be willing to back them up. I know that my hon. Friend is there to represent his Ministry, the Ministry of Economic Warfare. I used to think that the economic man was a miserable figment of the economists, a horrible bloodless creature without a heart and without imagination. I believe that in the Ministry of Economic Warfare the economic man exists. I beg my hon. Friend to stand up against him in the name of all that has made this country great, in the name of our common humanity and in the name of that Christianity which we profess with our lips, but too often dishonour in our lives.
Mr. Molson: The House has, I am sure, been deeply moved, as it always is, by the passionate sincerity in any humane cause of my hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. E. Harvey). I do not think, however, that he was quite right when he sought to draw a distinction between what the Parliamentary Secretary would be saying if he were on the back bench and what he is going to say, no doubt, as representing his Department. It is not pleasant for anyone to ask the Government to refuse to respond to the appeal that has been made, and yet it is because I am deeply convinced that the blockade, and the blockade maintained in its full rigour, is essential for bringing the war to an end at the earliest possible moment that I appeal to my hon. Friend to stand absolutely firm.
When in his speech my hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. H. Nicolson) criticised the Ministry of Economic Warfare as a new and upstart Ministry, I could not help recalling the melancholy record of the Foreign Office during those early years of the last war when my hon. Friend was an official of the Foreign Office. All that has been published in the succeeding years has shown us how greatly Germany benefited from large importations through neutral countries. My hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester has once more been hobnobbing with a neutral country which is one of the few which are not victims of the enemy occupation. I do hope that it will not have escaped the notice of the House that my hon. Friend referred to the large scale and deliberate policy of starvation which has been embarked upon by the Germans in this war. How he can say that this general policy of starving the whole of Europe has been started by the Germans and remorselessly carried through, and at the same time propose any considerable relief or benefit to all those millions of children in occupied Europe by the importation of a few hundreds of tons of powdered milk, I confess I am entirely at a loss to understand. If once the principle were established for some particular favoured part of occupied Europe that the rigour of the British blockade was to be departed from, then the whole logic and consistency of our position would have been abandoned, and the door would be open to unlimited claims from all the countries which are suffering in the same way. I therefore

1243
hope that my hon. Friend, whose position in this matter has always been so firm, will stand firmly to his guns now.
Mr. William Brown: I have listened with considerable emotion to the speeches that have been made. We had what I regard as a characteristically brave utterance from the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) and a very noble utterance from my hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. H. Nicolson). I want to concentrate on three points. First, it is argued against us that it is necessary, for the winning of the war, that this blockade should be maintained in its entirety. I regard that as utter and complete nonsense. Does the Minister think that his blockade is any substitute for what the Russians are doing on the Eastern front? Does he believe that it is any substitute for what we hope will be done on the Western front at an early date? Germany is not going to be defeated by starving the children of our Allies. Germany is going to be defeated by massive hammer blows from left and right.
In that set-up, it is argued that we must maintain the blockade to the point where we produce—"we" produce, just note that—in co-operation with our German allies—for, believe me, the Minister is an ally of Germany in this matter—[An HON. MEMBER: "Monstrous."] I am entitled to say that, and I shall hope to show, within the limits of my argument, that I think the Minister is a long-term ally of Germany for reasons I shall give—a situation in the Allied countries of which we ought to be ashamed, and which we should put right at the earliest possible moment. I am charged with making a monstrous statement when I say that the Minister, for whom I have nothing but the greatest respect, is a longterm ally of Germany. That seems an extreme statement. Let me analyse it.
What differentiates the German method of making war from the older method of making war? In the old days, armies fought against armies. To-day, armies fight against civilians and armies alike. There was a great deal of force in the speech recently made by the Minister of Labour, when he talked about the outcome not of this war, but of the next one, and when he pointed out that the whole strategy of Germany was devised
1244
either for victory now, or the certainty of victory next time, by so defeating, not merely the military, but the civilian strength, that what they cannot do today, they might hope to do some years hence. That is the whole explanation of the policy of starving the occupied countries, of deporting their men, and mobilising their women, and of lowering the standard of life. That is part of a considered German plan, not only for this war but for 20 years hence. The Parliamentary Secretary, with the best intentions in the world, does not realise that he is acting as an ally in that German policy, and that is what I meant by what I said a few moments ago.
The third point is that I wonder whether this House begins to realise the kind of conditions that are going to exist in Europe when the war is over. I remarked in a speech during a Debate recently, that the impact of the war upon this country has been four or five times what it was last time, and that the problems of peace will become correspondingly more difficult. If that is true of this country it is infinite more true of Europe. I sometimes wonder what those countries think. They must sometimes say to themselves, "We do not know who hurts us more, our friends or our enemies."
We are accomplices in this act of starving Europe, and we are left to-day with no excuse for what we do, because the food is there, the shipping is there. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where?"] Must I refer the hon. Member to the joint statement by the Prime Minister and President Roosevelt? We are told that the shipping position is easier, and the food position certainly is. I would welcome a 20 or 30 per cent. cut in our own standard of life in Great Britain if, as a result of it, we could save some hundreds of thousands of Belgian, French, and other children. I promised to sit down in five minutes, and I shall do so, but I beg the Minister not to give us a narrow departmental view on this. I beg him to think of the blockade weapon as only one among many. I ask him to believe that the nearer we get to the end of the war the less important is the blockade weapon. I beg him to have an eye to the future, because, believe me, if Europe is to be rebuilt on a basis that will endure, one of the first things we have to inject into Europe is the spirit of humanity and common goodness, the lack

1245
of which is our chief charge against the enemy whom we are now fighting. The hon. Gentleman had a noble father, who sat in this House, and who is still alive. He was a great man, and there are elements of greatness in the hon. Member. I ask him to let these elements express themselves, and not constrict them within the narrow limits of a departmental policy which makes half Europe ashamed of us, and half of us ashamed of ourselves.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dingle Foot): I should like as shortly as possible to answer at any rate the main points which have been made in this Debate and also some of the appeals that have been made. There was the appeal that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. E. Harvey) when he drew a moving analogy with the priest and the Levite. I wish he had carried his analogy a little further and told us what the Good Samaritan would have done in similar circumstances. One wonders whether even the Good Samaritan would have been quite so ready to pay out his twopence for the maintenance of the victim if he had known that a penny or three-halfpence was to be paid directly for the benefit of the thieves. I make no complaint at all that this matter should be raised again after a comparatively short interval, but I must remind the House that this issue was fully debated on 8th July, and on that occasion I explained, I am afraid at considerable length, the reasons for the Government's policy, and I must make it quite clear that nothing has happened to cause the Government to change the view which I then expressed.
I fully understand, of course, the anxiety which many people both inside and outside this House feel when they contemplate conditions in the occupied countries under German rule. I have no doubt—I am not speaking about hon. Members who have taken part in this Debate—that most of those who conduct the agitation outside for relaxing the blockade do so for the most worthy humanitarian reasons. But that does not alter the fact that the propaganda which is so freely disseminated on this subject through the country conveys a wholly distorted picture of what the conditions are, No one denies for a single moment the fact that there are great hardships in the occupied countries.
1246
It is perfectly true that in the urban districts there are very distinct shortages, particularly of meat and of fats. But the impression which is so sedulously created that practically the whole of occupied Europe is in a condition of famine at this moment is entirely misleading. The explanation why it is not so is, of course, perfectly simple, It is that as a general rule it does not suit the Germans to create starvation in countries which they have to garrison and from which they want production and labour.
We have had a number of references particularly to one or two countries. It did strike me as a little odd that not a single speaker so far has given us a single figure as to what the actual rations are. Let me take the present case in Belgium. That has been the country most frequently referred to. The actual rations of the normal consumer in Belgium, that is to say, the lowest category of consumer—as the House knows, there are supplementary rations for heavy workers and miners and other particular classes at the present time, and these rations are now generally available—the weekly rations for a normal consumer in Belgium include 62 ounces of bread, five ounces of meat, three and a half ounces of fats and over 100 ounces of potatoes. There are higher rations for other classes of consumers, and children under three and nursing and expectant mothers receive nine pints of milk a week. That also is generally available. I am not suggesting for one moment.—
Mr. H. Nicolson: Does the hon. Gentleman know what children of school age receive?
Mr. Foot: As I was about to say, there are shortages for children of school age and the milk rations are not always available for them. These figures however do not represent a starvation diet, and there is certainly no comparison between the standard they represent and the state of affairs which prevailed in Greece when the present relief scheme was first instituted there.
The hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. H. Nicolson) referred to the vital statistics in Belgium. I was a little puzzled why he did not quote them, because statistics, particularly of infantile mortality, have been given in the House on more than one occasion. Let me take

1247
the number of deaths in Belgium for the last four years. In 1939 they numbered 110,000, in 1940, 125,000—I am giving the round figures—in 1941, 120,000, and in 1942, 121,000. I do not say that the years 1939 and 1942 are exactly comparable, because of course there were considerable changes in the size of the population. All I am saying is that these figures convey an impression which is considerably different from that which is frequently given in this country about conditions in occupied territories.
Mr. Stokes: Can the hon. Member give us the figures on the fall in population?
Mr. Foot: I have only a few moments in which to reply, but, as I said, there has been a fall in the population, and therefore I am not trying to make an exact comparison. I give these figures, not because I want for one moment to minimise the hardships being suffered in occupied territories, but to show how misleading are many statements which are now being widely made on the conditions in occupied Europe. I am bound to say that I cannot see what useful purpose is being served by this constant presentation of a wholly distorted picture.
I come to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), and perhaps I might take his points in historical order. He started off by referring to the Hoover scheme in the last war. I am not going to dwell on that for more than a moment, because, as the hon. Member for West Leicester said, it is not generally proposed that we should repeat that experiment. But at any rate it gives us some guidance to-day because it was suggested, I think by the hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett) that if anything ever went wrong with the relief scheme we would at once know and we could stop the relief. That was not the experience of the last war. When the United States came into the last war and the Hoover Committee had to retire from Belgium and Northern France they had to hand over their work to a Dutch-Spanish Committee. That Committee found very considerable evasion of the conditions of the scheme which had been going on during the time the Hoover Commission was there, entirely undetected by that Commission.
Mr. Stokes: Is that report available?
Mr. Foot: I am perfectly willing at any time to give the facts on that, either in answer to a question or in any other way. I have myself studied the records of that scheme, which were kindly made available to me by the Foreign Office. I do not think anybody who studies them and sees how the scheme worked from day to day can have the slightest doubt that it was of the greatest assistance to the Germans, enabling them to lay their hands on far larger quantities of native produce than they could otherwise have obtained, and that it relieved them of the obligation they have had to discharge in this war to make available cereals and other foodstuffs from their own supplies.
Mr. Stokes: Is the hon. Gentleman intending to convey the impression that I was advocating the introduction of the Hoover scheme? I never said anything of the sort.
Mr. Foot: As my hon. Friend referred to the scheme in the last war, it seemed to me that there was some guidance to be drawn from the experience of that scheme, which is almost the only complete experience on which we are able to draw. On this occasion we refused to relieve the Germans of their obligations, whether legal or moral. The enemy has had to send in hundreds of thousand tons of grain from his own stocks. If we had repeated the experience of the last war, can anyone seriously doubt that that grain would now be forming part of the German reserves? My hon. Friend asked about the Hoover scheme in this war. I do not want to dwell on that matter. It is true that a representative of Mr. Hoover's organisation went to Berlin in February, 1941, and put a relief scheme before the German Government. It has been suggested that, in substance at any rate, the German Government accepted that scheme. I must make it clear that our attitude would not have been altered whatever the German Government's reply might have been, but I ask hon. Members to read very carefully the document, which I quoted in full in the last Debate, which was handed by tit:, German Government to the League of Red Cross Societies. It will be seen that the German reply fell very far short of a complete or unequivocal acceptance.
My hon. Friend went on to refer to the views on blockade and the position of food in the contraband list expressed by

1249
the Soviet Government at the beginning of this war, and asked whether we had any reason to suppose that their views had changed. As I informed my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) a few days ago, we have not received any further communication on this subject from the Soviet Government since Soviet Russia became a belligerent. But it has been our experience, both in the last war and in this, that when a country ceases to be a neutral and becomes a belligerent its views on these matters undergoes some sensible modification. I have not the time to deal with all these complicated issues, but if hon. Members wish to see a complete answer put forward on the question of food and the contraband list they will see it admirably set out in a pamphlet, "Blockade and the Civil Population," by Sir William Beveridge, a document which I think deserves as close a study as Sir William Beveridge's other publications. I pass over some of the other points raised. My hon. Friend referred to the legal position. I can only refer him to a reply which I gave in the House a few days ago.
Mr. Stokes: That does not answer the question at all. I am asking whether, under the Hague Convention of 1907, there is an obligation on the occupying Power to make good shortages which come from outside the blockaded area? Where in the Convention is that to be found?
Mr. Foot: It is clear from the answer I gave that we are not basing ourselves wholly in this matter on the Hague Convention. The Hague Convention carries with it a negative obligation, that the occupying troops shall not loot available supplies and that in any requisitions they make they shall have regard to the needs of the native population. Both obligations have been wholly ignored by the German occupying authorities and by the occupying forces. The German occupation has gone very much farther than a mere military occupation. It has involved in every case the most complete and detailed control over the national life of each country concerned, In each case the Germans have harnessed the factories, the mines, the transport and the man-power to the German war machine. It follows that they should be prepared to assume corresponding obligations for the maintenance of the people whom they are using in their
1250
war effort. I pass to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester. He told us that it was the German policy to impose malnutrition in nearly every occupied country, and he urged us to take steps to defeat that policy. Frankly, I was surprised to hear an argument of that kind coming from my hon. Friend. It must be apparent that nothing can go into any occupied country except with the permission of the German Government. Is it really conceivable that the German Government would allow supplies of food to pass through the blockade and reach those people if it were clear that the effect would be to defeat their own deliberate policy?
I come to the Greek scheme. As the House knows, we have the advantage of a Swedish-Swiss Commission in Athens. We have met most of the requests which have been made to us by that Commission. There have been one or two requests which it has not been possible to meet, for supply reasons. When the ships were sailing the particular commodities were not available. All I can say is that we have had the advantage of meeting Mr. Exintaris, and also of having in London recently Mr. Mohn, one of the Swedish representatives on the Commission. My Noble Friend and I have discussed with both the present conditions in Greece. It may be possible—I will not put it higher, because I do not want to create disappointment—to meet some of the requests. The neutral Commission has done most admirable work, and, as has been stated on more than one occasion, the imported foodstuffs have, as far as we know, been distributed by the Commission without interference from the occupying authorities. But, although my statements to that effect have been frequently quoted in public speeches and in the Press, not very much emphasis is generally laid on the other statements that I have generally made at the same time in this House, that we are not satisfied with the working of the safeguards for Greek domestic produce. I gave this answer only the other day to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon:
"In the late summer of this year Greek crops were requisitioned or destroyed in certain areas, allegedly as a reprisal for guerilla activities. The authorities in charge of the relief scheme who protested against these proceedings were informed that steps would be taken to avoid such incidents being repeated.

1251
I must, however, make it clear that any repetition would be regarded by His Majesty's Government as being in effect a breach of the conditions of the scheme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th October, 1943; cols. 40–1, Vol. 393.]
The House knows that we did make this special exception in the case of Greece, but no one should believe on that account that the enemy derives no advantage from the scheme. He most certainly does. Atter the defeat of Rommel the German attitude towards Greece, at any rate in economic matters, tended to undergo a change. Greece became once more a possible theatre of military operations, with the result that, much more than before, the enemy found need for Greek labour. To some extent that labour was available to him because of the food that we had allowed to pass through the blockade. I do not for one moment regret that we did it, but it is an illustration of what I am certain is true in all these ratters, that, if you relax the blockade, you are bound to bring some degree of benefit, direct or indirect, to the enemy. There is no such thing in these matters, certainly where you have an army of occupation, as a completely watertight scheme and the question that has to be decided in each case is whether the possible advantage to our friends outweighs the certain advantage to the enemy. In the case of Greece, and Greece alone, we decided that it did.
I come to the point which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. W. Brown). He raised the general issue as to the place of the blockade in our present strategy. He asked whether I regard it in any way as a substitute for military operations on the Eastern front or for possible operations in the West. I do not suggest, and no one connected with my Department ever has suggested, that the blockade is a substitute for defeating the enemy in the field. What we say—and we are reinforced by the experience of the last war—is that it is an essential part of total war. If you had had an unblockaded Germany, able to import freely from overseas, then it would have been a Germany which would have been much more formidable in the military sense. It is true that the German food situation is better than it was in 1918; it is a good deal worse than ours, but it is still better than it was in 1918. It is relevant to this subject to consider just how that has been
1252
achieved. It has been achieved because the German Government, in Germany alone, have placed 1,000,000 extra workers on the land since 1939. That is one of the main reasons for the present man-power crisis in Germany. Those 1,000,000 workers are in effect manning Germany's economic defences, and in this war, you can reduce almost every modern problem into terms of man-power. In this matter it is not possible for us to draw a valid distinction between Germany and the occupied territories. The political differences remain, but in the economic sense the occupied territories are all part of German Europe and are contributing in precisely the same way to the German war effort. In this country we have had one piece of singular good fortune. We receive lend-lease supplies for which we do not need to send exports in exchange. If we had to produce those supplies from our own resources or our own soil, or if we had to manufacture goods to send in exchange, then our own war effort would be considerably less than it is at the present time. If you are going to let in, in substantial quantities, all relief foodstuffs, to German-occupied Europe at this time it is going to be a form of lend-lease to the enemy.
Already we have to face very great commitments indeed. Not only have we to meet the needs of our Russian Allies, and not only have we had to meet the requirements of North Africa—and these have been considerable—but there are likely to be very considerable needs in any area which is liberated from German domination. We may be faced in many cases with a scorched earth policy, and in such cases the needs of those areas may prove even greater than those of the present occupied territories. We shall have to meet a very large commitment, and I do not think at this moment we can possibly add to it a vast, unspecified commitmént of the type which has been proposed here to-day.
Mr. Harvey: We are not asking that we should make any commitment ourselves, but that we should give navicerts to the Belgium Government to bring in a small amount at their own expense and not from our resources.
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."—[Mr. Drewe.]
Mr. Foot: All these supplies will have to come from precisely the same sources—the sources which are available to the United Nations. We shall be told that that is not what is contemplated and that all that is wanted is that comparatively small quantities should be allowed to go in. The hon. Member for West Leicester remarked rightly that I represent what is a Ministry of denial. We have had three years' experience in running the blockade, and constantly, in fact almost every day of our lives in relation to food or to some other commodity which it is desired to pass inward or pass outward, we are asked to make a concession on the grounds that the quantity is so small that it could make no real difference to the position of the enemy. We have this from experience, and it was also the experience of the last war, that you cannot admit one claim if you intend to refuse a great many others which are equally valid.
It is suggested that we should make some token shipments to particular areas. Then we should need to adopt a test of special need and to say that the particular token supplies should go to this area or to that area where the need happened to be particularly acute. We would be saying in effect that we would relax the blockade in any case where people were particularly necessitous or particularly hungry. I cannot imagine a greater disservice to the people in German-occupied countries than to adopt, either expressly or by implication, a principle of that kind. It means that we would be providing the enemy with a direct and a very powerful inducement to create extreme shortage over much wider areas. We know from experience that he would not hesitate to do it, and therefore we do not propose to lay ourselves open to this particular form of German blackmail.

NAVAL REPATRIATIONS FROM ITALY
Mr. McKinlay: I desire to pursue a Question which I addressed to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty on 20th October. I asked the First Lord on that date to state
1254
"the terms of the agreement under which 787 officers and men were repatriated from Italy in March, 1943, and the terms of the document signed by such officers and men before they were exchanged?"
My right hon. Friend replied:
"I would refer my right hon. Friend to the statement made to this House by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on 24th March last, in which he fully explained the circumstances leading to the agreement for the repatriation of these officers and men. The agreement reached with enemy Governments contained no special terms. The documents which were signed by such officers and men before they were exchanged, were discharge sheets containing a statement of pay received and an authorisation for the disposal of outstanding balances."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th October, 1943; col. 1369, Vol. 392.]
This is the outcome of a letter I received from one of my constituents on 11th August relating to his son, a survivor from H.M.S. "Sikh," which was lost at Tobruk. This young man was taken prisoner and spent a considerable time in an Italian prison camp. In my letter to the First Lord, I explained that when this young man joined up he was minus a kidney, that while in prison camp he suffered from pneumonia and that when he arrived in this country in June he was, shortly afterwards, again listed for active service. I asked the First Lord in that letter, whether he could explain to me the conditions under which the men were repatriated. The First Lord was good enough to reply stating the position of the man, together with that of the 786 other officers and men. The First Lord said that had the man been sick or wounded and repatriated, under the provisions of Article 68 of the Geneva Convention, he would have come within Article 74 which prohibits the employment of certain repatriated prisoners on active military service. He said that the seaman in question was not, however, repatriated under the terms of the Convention but by virtue of a special agreement.
That is the crux of the whole question. In my Question I asked what were the terms of the agreement, and I was referred to an answer given by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Well, with all due deference to the First Lord—he and I are quite good friends—I want to remind him that Mr. Barnum said, "There is one born every minute." There is no answer in the answer to which I was referred. There is reference to an agreement, to the removal of 700 Italian

1255
sailors and, in exchange under that agreement, the repatriation of British prisoners. I want to know what were the terms of that agreement. Were the men's names drawn out of the lucky bag, at random? Were the men removed from the Italian prison camp because they were suffering from disability? If they were removed, while in no way suffering from the effects of the war, then I protest against 787 able-bodied men being repatriated while at the same time we must have had in prison camps in Italy men who sorely needed bringing home. The answer of the First Lord himself was much more informative than the answer given by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
He at least drew my attention to the Geneva Convention, though I had never asked about it. I have had letters from other personnel. I have one from a lad writing to his parents from hospital. When he arrived at this place he was put through all the motions preparing him for active service again. Some of the men protested. It was suggested to them that they ought to "hush-hush" about it. In other words, it was conveyed to them that they were lucky. They were home. I want to know why a man who had to swim for it at Tobruk and who has suffered pneumonia twice, plus starvation in an Italian camp, finds himself now, on the certificate of the port officer, almost in the category of Grade I with nothing to prevent him returning to active service.
Surely if a Minister enters into an agreement on behalf of this country, we are entitled to ask what are the terms of the agreement. I stated that these men signed a declaration that they would not take up arms again against the Axis. The Minister did not give me an emphatic denial. He said he would be surprised to know that. I am speaking for the whole of these 787 men, because we are entitled to know these things. They are not fellows picked up from the street corner who can neither read nor write. I have conveyed to my sons, who are in the same Service, that they need never worry about their financial records. The Admiralty are so meticulously careful now as to how they stand in a financial sense, that they will bring in your pay record up to date and give you a
1256
document showing exactly how the contracting parties stand. I cannot believe that the only document that was signed was one relating to wages. One of these young men was educated at one of the principal public schools in Glasgow and he can read. His family is a well known one, with a business which was established 175 years ago, and they are not prepared to resort to subterfuges even to save the skin of their boys. What I could not get was the answer to a question which I am asking now: Can we have the specific terms under which these men were repatriated? Can we have a specific declaration that no document was signed to the effect that they would not take up arms against the Axis during this war? That is a simple proposition.
I would rather that the terms of the agreement were made accessible to hon. Members so that they could examine it for themselves. It must have been a matter of great expediency, it must have been carried through in an ungodly rush, but what I am very concerned about is that an allegation should be made against the Government that they are prepared to send men who are not physically fit back on to the active list. Everyone expects a man on the active list to do his duty and I think 99 per cent. of those in the Services, who have good health, desire to do their duty. But we have an obligation to the men in the Services and while it is true it may be an offence for a Service man to write to his Member of Parliament we should not forget that obligation. This young man writing from the hospital to his father says, "Please keep my name out of this if you get into touch with Adam McKinlay, because if you do not I am for it." There is one thing which you cannot take away. You cannot take away the responsibility of parents to their boys, even to their boys in the Services, and I want the First Lord in the short time at his disposal to answer the points which I have put. I do not accuse him of trying deliberately to push a man back into the Forces but I say this, that if the man I have in view, or the man on whose behalf I originally wrote, is sent, without previous notice, to any medical specialist in this country nominated either by the Admiralty or by myself and if they pass that man as Grade I you can name whatever naval charity you care, and there will be a substantial donation—and what goes for that young man goes for most of the young men involved in this

1257
case. I hope the First Lord will pursue this matter and give us the satisfaction to which we are entitled.
The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend has raised this matter in open Session, because it is essential that the facts should be known, in view of the manner in which the matter has been discussed in the past. We have not had it at any other time than Question time. First, let me make it plain -mat the agreement, as I said in my answer to my hon. Friend, had nothing to do with Article 68 of the Geneva Convention and therefore none of the terms of Article 74 could come into play. Secondly, the Italian naval personnel with whom the exchange was made, were not really prisoners of war in the sense that they were prisoners held by us. We exchanged with the Italians 788 men who had been sunk just off the coast of Saudi Arabia and who were interned by that neutral Power. Considerable difficulties and inconveniences were found with regard to the feeding and general attention to these people and moreover, when we were at the stage of being rolled back in the direction of the Nile Delta, it was not convenient for us to have persons interned who might escape and get out on our lines of communication. So we desired to exchange these men who were interned and who weft fit men and it would have been unreasonable in those circumstances and certainly in view of the general stricture upon our man power situation, for us then to have said, "We will exchange for these 788 able-bodied Italians, interned in a neutral country, 788 sick and wounded." A perfectly separate agreement, apart from the Geneva Convention, was made in which the 788 Italian naval internees in Saudi Arabia were exchanged for 788 British naval prisoners of war in Italy. That is what we did. The terms of the Geneva Convention and the operation of Section 74 with regard to sick and wounded do not apply to this case at all. These are the terms of the agreement. That is what my hon. Friend really wants to know.
The second point that he puts to me is whether or not these men signed an undertaking not to take up arms again. We have had that matter very carefully inquired into as far as we have been able to get the facts since my hon. Friend
1258
raised it in the House, and I have had inquiries made both at the Portsmouth and the Devonport barracks by the Commodore, a very responsible officer, who has interviewed a considerable number of the ratings concerned who were exchanged and who has spoken with the senior naval officer of the party who was exchanged and who was himself a prisoner of war—a responsible and educated person—who was able to understand what was being done. While, of course, he could not give the Admiralty an assurance that there was not a single man who had signed some such document put to him by the Italians, what he could say was that no such document was submitted to any man he knew and certainly not to himself or any brother officer. Indeed, if the Italians had put such a proposition to any one of them, they would have been breaking the terms of the agreement. All I would say to my hon. Friend is that it some educated person among the ratings who understood Italian did sign such a document, then he must give me more facts of that kind, which would involve not only checking the statement of the man concerned, but taking the matter up with the Italians as a breach of the agreement.
One or two of the ratings said that perhaps the sergeant who was in charge of the handing over of some of them said, "You are out of the war. You won't have to serve again," and that is the maximum we have been able to get. The terms of the agreement make it perfectly clear that it was an exchange of able-bodied men on both sides. I do not want my hon. Friend to submit to this House or to the public that if under a separate agreement of that kind we get able-bodied men we should say they should not serve again in the war. There are other men who also have fathers and mothers, who go through a campaign, are wounded, recover and go back into the campaign again. Whether these men are tit or not to go on with their duty will have to be determined from the medical examination and the hospital treatment that they receive. As regards the particular young man in whom my hon. Friend is interested and of whose physical disabilities he feels he can be very certain, if he will supply any further medical evidence about which he wishes me to make inquiry, I will have it gone into. Nobody would want to see a man sent back to active service if he is not fit.
Mr. McKinlay: Is the right hon. Gentleman trying to suggest that a man who is minus a kidney before he goes into the Service is a fit man to serve on a destroyer?
Mr. Alexander: If a man is minus a kidney, it does not sound very good to me. It all depends what he is capable of. We surely must take the medical view. I submit that the general results of the call-up, the examination and the treatment of men in this war have not been such as to bring grave reflection upon either the standard or the adequacy of the treatment which the men have received. I do not think that could be borne out at all. Indeed, as regards the Admiralty, we have not only very able medical officers in the respective posts, but we have some of the highest consultants of Harley Street and other great consulting centres who are at our service the whole time, and whose services we never hesitate to solicit in any particular case where treatment is required.
1260
I think I have put the case fairly to my hon. Friend, as I do want to stress again before I sit down that in this case there is no question at all about an exchange of sick, wounded and unfit prisoners. It is a question of exchanging for Italian internees from a neutral country who were becoming a nuisance to us as being on our lines of communication, for able-bodied naval ratings taken from us and who were in Italy. On that basis, I am afraid I cannot revise any decision that we have already arrived at.
Mr. McKinlay: Is it understood that from the beginning it was an exchange of able-bodied men against able-bodied men?
Mr. Alexander: Most certainly, that was the basis of the agreement between Italy and ourselves. We asked for no single undertaking from any of the 788 Italians that they would not fight again.
Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

ROYAL NAVY
  A.M.G.O.T.
  A.M.G.O.T.
  Discharge Certificate Entries (Dieppe)
  Discharge Certificate Entries (Dieppe)
  Naval Auxiliary Personnel
  Naval Auxiliary Personnel
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Factories and Establishments (Nurses)
  Factories and Establishments (Nurses)
  Paper Manufacture (Straw)
  Paper Manufacture (Straw)
  Flax Retting Process (Investigation)
  Flax Retting Process (Investigation)
  FISH SUPPLIES, LONDON
  FISH SUPPLIES, LONDON
  BELGIUM (FOOD SUPPLIES)
  BELGIUM (FOOD SUPPLIES)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Deceased Officers' Estates (Claims)
  Deceased Officers' Estates (Claims)
  Overseas Service (Age Limit)
  Overseas Service (Age Limit)
  W.A.A.F. Camp (Conditions)
  W.A.A.F. Camp (Conditions)
  A.T.C. Cadets (Greatcoats and Footwear)
  A.T.C. Cadets (Greatcoats and Footwear)
BRITISH ARMY
  Welfare Officers
  Welfare Officers
  Case for Inquiry (Captain K. Pennell)
  Case for Inquiry (Captain K. Pennell)
  Post-War Commissions
  Post-War Commissions
  Repatriated Prisoners of War (Clothing)
  Repatriated Prisoners of War (Clothing)
  Training (Agricultural Land)
  Training (Agricultural Land)
  N.A.A.F.I. (Food Charges)
  N.A.A.F.I. (Food Charges)
  Deceased Officers' Estates (Claims)
  Deceased Officers' Estates (Claims)
  Civilian Population, War Zone (Relief)
  Civilian Population, War Zone (Relief)
  Rationing (Chocolate)
  Rationing (Chocolate)
  JAMAICAN HOME GUARD (CHINESE PLATOON)
  JAMAICAN HOME GUARD (CHINESE PLATOON)
  PETROL STATIONS, TRURO
  PETROL STATIONS, TRURO
COAL INDUSTRY
  Necessitous Undertakings
  Necessitous Undertakings
  Prisoners of War
  Prisoners of War
  Reserve Stocks, Medway Area
  Reserve Stocks, Medway Area
  Essential Work (Coalmining Industry) Order
  Essential Work (Coalmining Industry) Order
  WIRELESS RECEIVING SETS, MOTOR CARS
  WIRELESS RECEIVING SETS, MOTOR CARS
  AIRGRAPH FORMS (PHOTOGRAPHS)
  AIRGRAPH FORMS (PHOTOGRAPHS)
  ARMED FORCES (NEWSPAPERS)
  ARMED FORCES (NEWSPAPERS)
  TANGANYIKA (LAND SETTLEMENT)
  TANGANYIKA (LAND SETTLEMENT)
  KENYA (LAND SETTLEMENT)
  KENYA (LAND SETTLEMENT)
  AIRFIELDS, COLONIES (UNITED STATES AIR FORCE)
  AIRFIELDS, COLONIES (UNITED STATES AIR FORCE)
  SIERRA LEONE (DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH)
  SIERRA LEONE (DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH)
  OPIUM SMOKING, BRITISH FAR EAST TERRITORIES (TOTAL PROHIBITION)
  OPIUM SMOKING, BRITISH FAR EAST TERRITORIES (TOTAL PROHIBITION)
  WEST INDIA ROYAL COMMISSION REPORT
  WEST INDIA ROYAL COMMISSION REPORT
  JAMAICA (LAND SETTLEMENT COMMITTEE'S REPORT)
  JAMAICA (LAND SETTLEMENT COMMITTEE'S REPORT)
NIGERIA
  Civil Service (Appointment of Africans)
  Civil Service (Appointment of Africans)
  Teachers' Salaries
  Teachers' Salaries
  COLONIAL TERRITORIES (INTER- IMPERIAL AND INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION)
  COLONIAL TERRITORIES (INTER- IMPERIAL AND INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION)
  RAILWAY TRAFFIC DIVERSION (BOMB)
  RAILWAY TRAFFIC DIVERSION (BOMB)
EDUCATION
  Married Women Teachers (Billeting)
  Married Women Teachers (Billeting)
  Part-Time Teachers (Remuneration)
  Part-Time Teachers (Remuneration)
  REQUISITIONED LAND, DURHAM COUNTY
  REQUISITIONED LAND, DURHAM COUNTY
  FOXES, NORTH WALES (DESTRUCTION)
  FOXES, NORTH WALES (DESTRUCTION)
  ROADS (SIR CHARLES BRESSEY'S REPORT)
  ROADS (SIR CHARLES BRESSEY'S REPORT)
  PORTUGUESE STEAMER, "PADUA" (REPLACEMENT)
  PORTUGUESE STEAMER, "PADUA" (REPLACEMENT)
  RUBBER PRODUCTION, CEYLON
  RUBBER PRODUCTION, CEYLON
  POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION, WALES
  POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION, WALES
  ETHIOPIA
  ETHIOPIA
  BRITISH CHILDREN, PORTUGAL
  BRITISH CHILDREN, PORTUGAL
  REPATRIATED PRISONERS OF WAR (SWEDISH GOVERNMENT'S ASSISTANCE)
  REPATRIATED PRISONERS OF WAR (SWEDISH GOVERNMENT'S ASSISTANCE)
  DIVORCE COURTS (CONGESTION OF BUSINESS)
  DIVORCE COURTS (CONGESTION OF BUSINESS)
Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRI ATION) (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from The Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911, and read 1a.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived: Bill read 3a, and passed.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (TEMPORARY INCREASES) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Bill read 3a, and passed.

PARLIAMENT (ELECTIONS AND MEETING) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have it in command from His Majesty to signify to the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Parliament (Elections and Meeting) Bill, gives his consent, as far as His Majesty's Prerogative is concerned, that the House may do therein as they shall think fit.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Bill read 3a, and passed.

PLANNING: POWERS AND PRICES.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH had the following Notice on the Paper: In view of the danger of inflation of land values, and of delay in proceeding with the replanning and reconstruction of towns damaged by enemy action, to call attention to the recommendation of the Expert
628
Committee on Compensation and Betterment dated 25th April, 1941, to the effect that the compensation ultimately payable in respect of public acquisition of land, or of the public control of land, should not exceed sums based on the standard of value at 31st March, 1939; to call attention to the acceptance on 17th July, 1941, of that recommendation by Lord Reith, Minister of Works and Buildings, on behalf of the Government, and to the specific pledge of the introduction of legislation in due course by which that acceptance was accompanied; and to move, That in the opinion of this House it is essential that His Majesty's Government should introduce at an early date legislation covering as a minimum (1) power for local authorities to acquire compulsorily such areas as may be required for the purpose of essential replanning and reconstruction at prices related to pre-war values as recommended by the Uthwatt Report and as promised by the Government; (2) the prescribing of a simple and very speedy procedure on the lines suggested in the Uthwatt Report for the obtaining and exercise of such compulsory powers with right of entry in advance of settlement of claims to compensation.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the rather formidable-looking Motion standing in my name has been on the Paper now for some considerable time. It has taken its final shape as a result partly of the debate which took place in your Lordships' House on September 22, on the Motion of my noble friend opposite, Lord Latham, and partly as a result of a speech made by the Minister of Town and Country Planning a few weeks ago to an audience composed very largely of members of local authorities. The legislation which is asked for in this Motion is designed more particularly to help local authorities in the very difficult task with which they find themselves faced as regards reconstruction. I should like to tell your Lordships quite briefly, in plain language, what the Motion means, because I am afraid it is rather involved; but before I do that I wish to make clear something that the Motion does not contain, because there may be some misunderstanding, and I wish to remove, as far as possible, all reason for controversy.
My Motion does not cover the elaborate and perhaps controversial scheme of the Uthwatt Report in connexion with the global acquisition of development

629
rights. The Uthwatt Reports—there are two of them, the Interim Report and the Final Report—are very comprehensive documents and it is therefore difficult to refer to the Uthwatt Report without possibly creating some confusion, but in fact the Motion on the Paper deals specifically with three points and gives two reasons why it is urgent that the Government should take the action proposed. The first of the three points is what is briefly known as the 1939 ceiling. Your Lordships will remember that when Mr. Justice Uthwatt's Committee were appointed they were asked to report as a matter of urgency what should be done to prevent land speculation, and they did report within a space of weeks, and within another space of weeks the Government accepted the recommendation that in order to prevent speculation in land, land acquired for public authorities or for public control for reconstruction should be acquired as a maximum at the price ruling in March, 1939.
Partly owing to the delay and partly for other reasons, I think, there may be some headaches in the application of that principle of the 1939 ceiling. But the Government have accepted the principle and I hope they are going to apply it. The headaches in its application are, I suppose, a matter for the Government. What we had hoped was that, if there were headaches, they would be headaches for the land speculator, and we all hope so still. Whatever headaches there are I am quite sure they will be represented to your Lordships as the headaches of the widows and the orphans, because the land speculators have a habit of hiding behind the widow and the orphan. It is very dangerous to make a concession sometimes for that reason, because it will be found that it is the speculative gentleman who will reap the benefit. However, I hope the Government will say that they stick to the principle of the March, 1939, ceiling. We shall await with interest the method of its application.
The two other points in the Motion relate to the acquisition of land by, or on behalf of, local authorities. Many of the local authorities, particularly in the "blitzed" cities, are faced with great opportunities of reconstruction, and they all feel, I think without exception, that they must be armed with greater powers than they now have, both to acquire land en bloc and to
630
have a speedier procedure. I quite agree that at first sight a proposal that there should be power of entry in advance of settlement of claim for compensation appears rather drastic, but all those who have had experience of the acquisition of land by local authorities will know that, unless interminable delays are to take place, something of the kind is necessary. If the Government had passed this legislation eighteen months ago perhaps it would never have been necessary to be so drastic. The pledge was given thirty months ago, and one would have thought that that might have happened, but if we are now to wait eighteen months even after the passage of this legislation before the local authorities can get possession of the land, then indeed reconstruction will be long, and I believe fatally, delayed. The pledge has been given that there shall be this speedy procedure. Naturally we shall expect safeguards in it to avoid injustice, but speedy procedure is essential, and I hope to hear from the noble Lord who is to reply to-day that legislation is to be introduced.
There is nothing in this Motion, I think, that was not in the mind, at all events, of my noble friend Lord Latham in connexion with his Motion on September 22, and I need not cover the ground further on that score. On that day we listened, with the respect we always accord to him, to the noble Lord who replied for the Government—who gave us an oration, I should have said, in praise of procrastination. He did it very well. We always enjoy listening to the noble Lord. I have some reason to hope he may be a little happier to-day. I trust so at all events. I think he will be able to tell us something about the racehorse starting down the course to-day. So far we have only dealt with, and everything that is proposed in this Motion only concerns, local planning. I have given my noble friend private notice that I intend to ask him how the Government, assuming they are going to do what is suggested to-day, are going to fit that into the framework of national planning.
I am one of those who approach national planning from the point of view of housing. Many of your Lordships are perhaps more interested from the point of view of amenities—another very important matter—the protection of the coastline, the protection of beauty spots and so

631
on, all very important aspects of planning. But to my mind they are transcended by the importance of housing, because the real fact is that without national planning no effective policy of housing is possible. Housing is one of the most non-controversial things in Party politics to-day, and it is a matter of great regret to me that so many people who are keen about housing do not yet realize the fundamental fact that without planning this housing policy is quite unrealizable. I need not labour the point of the non-controversial nature of a practical housing policy for immediate application. If there is one thing that the men composing our Armies abroad are thinking about it is the homes to which they are going to return after the war, and any Government which lets down those hopes more than is necessary —because they will be let down, as the prospect of immediate housing after the war is now remote—will meet with very grave condemnation. We all welcome the Prime Minister's new slogan, which he gave us yesterday, "Food, work and homes." Nothing could be better. Food and work depend upon efficient planning in industry, and so do the homes. National planning, I submit to your Lordships, is necessary for all three.
Let me remind your Lordships of the position between the wars, because some people seem to think that they have nothing to do but go back to what we were doing before the war and all will be well. We were then building a great number of houses. Something like four million houses were built between the wars; two-thirds, I may remind your Lordships in passing, by private enterprise, and about one-third, a very necessary contribution, by local authorities. If national planning had been in operation at the end of the last war the result would have been infinitely better than it was. Just consider the results of the inter-war building effort. In 1918 our towns were already too big and too congested. By 1932 they were devastatingly bigger and even more congested. Traffic was approaching a state of deadlock in 1939, and nobody can contemplate the renewal of unlimited motoring on the roads and in our towns without grave forebodings as to the consequences both in loss of life and in industrial inefficiency, because these delays are very serious from the point of view of national
632
efficiency. Ribbon development—a most wasteful form of development—was, it is fair to say, only stopped by the war. Millions of people had been turned into strap-hangers at enormous cost to them in time and in money.
Worst of all—this is the feature which appalls me more than anything else—was the way the towns were divorced from the countryside. There is a horrible word which was coined, I think, by the Barlow Commission, "conurbation." It is a horrible word, but it pictures the most hateful feature of the towns. It must be a matter of regret to all who love the majesty and might of London and its grandeur that there should be this urbanization of its population. The evacuation at the beginning of the war threw a lurid light on the effects of urbanization on our population. No population can stand more than a certain percentage being crammed into conurbations. Unless we can do something to check this the future is black indeed. Every nation must have a healthy rural population, and that is why we need a healthy agriculture. That is the other side of the medal. Unless the towns can always have contact with the country and with the revitalizing and revivifying influences of the country, then indeed we are heading for disaster. I conclude on that score that to get houses where we want them, and of the kind we want, we simply must check the growth of the great urban conglomerations.
That leads me to the second question I want to put to my noble friend. Do the Government accept the unanimous conclusions of the Barlow Report on this subject? These conclusions are quite concise, and I will read them in abbreviated form to your Lordships. Unanimously the Commission accept the following conclusions. They say that national action directed by a Central Authority is necessary with three objectives:
"(a) Continued and further redevelopment of congested urban areas, where necessary.
(b) Decentralization or dispersal, both of industries and industrial population, from such areas.
(c) Encouragement of a reasonable balance of industrial development, so far as possible, throughout the various divisions or regions of Great Britain, coupled with appropriate diversification of industry in each division or region throughout the country."
The Barlow Commission add:
"The continued drift of the industrial population to London and the Home Counties constitutes a social, economic and strategical problem which demands immediate attention.
The Central Authority, whether advisory or executive, should … examine forthwith and formulate the policy or plan to be adopted in relation to decentralization or dispersal from congested urban areas…"
What we want to know is whether the Government accept these conclusions, and if so what is their policy in order to give effect to them?
In that case I would also like to know, in relation to the control of the location of industry, what are the relative roles in this matter of the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Planning, because I have seen in the Press references to surveys of the Special Areas being made by the Board of Trade. The approach to national planning of industry by way of the Special Areas is in my submission wrong. The only hope is to regard the development of our whole industry from the national point of view, and to endeavour to promote the greatest efficiency from the top and not in relation to the Special Areas. My noble friend Viscount Ridley, who speaks with greater authority on this matter than I do, will, I hope, have more to say about that. It must surely be the policy to develop our greatest natural national asset, which is coal, and I understand that with the great development of plastics, if national industrial policy can be regarded from that point of view, there is great hope of bringing that great asset once more into its proper place. I know there is great apprehension amongst industrialists on the score of planning, though I believe it to be ill-founded. I see no reason why it should be necessary to dictate to industry where it should go. I believe the policy of barring the congested areas would lead in time to the results which we desire.
I would like to make one reference to the speech which I have already mentioned of the Minister of Town and Country Planning because he said something which interested me. He said among other things that there was bound to be some delay before the planning machine left the ground and became airborne. That is interesting, because when the Minister without Portfolio moved the Second Reading of the Bill creating the Minister of Town and Country Planning
634
he said it was going to mount him on a racehorse. We know that the racehorse showed some disinclination to face the starting gate and has never made great speed down the course. If the Ministry of Planning is now to become an aircraft I should like to ask what role the Minister is casting himself for in the aeroplane. Is he going to be the pilot or is he only going to be a passenger? So far the evidence is that he is only a passenger. If the Minister is going to be a passenger in the aircraft piloted by somebody from the Board of Trade I do not think he will ever get off the ground. In those circumstances I think he would do better to stick to his racehorse. Perhaps my noble friend will enlighten us on that point. If the Minister of Town and Country Planning is only going to be a passenger in an aeroplane, what was the good of appointing him at all? Why not leave things as they were? I mention that as an argument in favour of national planning. This matter has to be treated nationally.
I wish to mention to your Lordships another essay in planning which illustrates the same point; that is the great London County Council plan for London. Now this plan, in my opinion, has many very admirable features; in fact, I think it is a very fine achievement to have produced it at all. The proposal for the ring roads is very fine. The conception of the industrial and cultural precincts is magnificent. The whole treatment of the river front is inspiring. But the plan has been offered for criticism, and the only criticism I wish to make is on the subject of densities. I shall not elaborate the subject because it is, perhaps, not too much to hope that we may one day have a debate upon it even in your Lordships' House. I hope that my noble friend and his advisers will reconsider the question of densities. There are three densities per acre at which the population is to be housed—100 to the acre, 136 to the acre, and 200 to the acre. At 100 to the acre, broadly speaking, it is to be fifty-fifty houses and flats; at 136 to the acre it is to be, broadly speaking, 33 per cent. houses and 66 per cent. flats; at 200 to the acre it is to be 100 per cent. flats. That is the apotheosis of the flat, and I do not think it is practicable. I do not believe that you will ever get 100 per cent. of your population to live in flats.
There are three attributes that I think we want in our homes of the future— children, gardens and privacy. None of

635
them are notable attributes of the flat. I am not saying that you can do without flats altogether; of course you cannot. Flats are, in my opinion, a necessary evil, but they ought to be kept within bounds. I am horrified to see that the whole of the Central and West Central area, including some of the parts of Kensington, is zoned for development at 200 to the acre, or more at the discretion of the County Council, and it is anticipated that the whole of that development will be in the form of eight-or ten-storey flats. To be fair to this plan, perhaps the authors do not mean that to be carried out in its entirety for there is a reference to the Campden Hill part of the area, which is to be zoned in this way, in which it is described as having a mellow beauty of its own which might be spoiled by injudicious planning. That is to be found in another part of the Report. As I am sure your Lordships will understand, I am offering my tribute of praise to the London plan, subject to further reconsideration, I hope, on this one point. And the point I want to make to-day is that the plan should be related to national planning, because surely it is quite a waste of time for the London County Council to try to settle the future population of their area except within the framework of national planning, and some overruling plan as to where industry is to go and as to where industry is to be allowed to spread and multiply in that area.
Yet a further point in connexion with national planning which must receive great consideration is finance. In my opinion in finance we have the crux of planning and the clue to its successful carrying out. Many things in planning are just as much national as local—roads, densities, "blitzed" areas. Nobody can say that there is not national responsibility for all of those, and in every case, I believe, local authorities will need financial help. Planning, if it is carried out from a national point of view, may mean the transfer of land values, and local authorities cannot face up to that by themselves. My hope is that the Government will, in due course, come to the conclusion that some rather large scheme of purchase with Exchequer funds is called for. I think it is a national matter, and that national funds should be applied to the solution of this problem. I would like to see this land made available prob-
636
ably at lower prices for the benefit of local authorities. It would not represent a total loss, for quite clearly there would be a large saving in the housing subsidies which would have to be paid if land could be made available at a lower cost. The cost of housing people at proper rents would be met in that way instead of by direct housing subsidies.
That raises another point which is also very important—the ownership of this publicly-owned land. I hope that the Government are thinking in whom that ownership ought to be vested. I do not think, and I speak, I hope, not impolitely, that either the Treasury or the local authorities, on their past records, are very satisfactory land owners. What you want is the point of view of good estate management, and that is a very long-term point of view. All your Lordships will recollect the criticism which was incurred by the Treasury under the Ribbon Development Act, when they were inclined to formulate their policy so as to force quick development of the frontage, a thing which most of us thought was wrong. Some of the local authorities, admirable as they are in many ways, have been known to sell land surplus to requirements, and buy it back at a very much increased price for road widening some years later. The question is where shall wisdom be found, and where is the place of understanding? The solution may not be easy, but I think that some form of trusteeship might well be devised to try to ensure really good estate management.
This is my final word. We must never forget that good planning, that is good estate management, pays. Critics have said that the London plan is ridiculous because it will cost thousands of millions of pounds. So it may, and over fifty years it will still be a good investment. Quite apart from the cash return—and I believe a cash return will come—there would be the immense intangible benefits which would result from successful planning. The waste of human efficiency in our present arrangements is frightful. Your Lordships are familiar with the waste of time and of everything else involved in the muddled arrangements from which we suffer. Thousands of millions of pounds are going to be spent, whether we like it or not, and it seems to me folly to spend them other than in a way which will provide a satisfactory return. We

637
all welcomed the great slogan of the Prime Minister yesterday, as I have already said, and I think we can all feel greater certainty than ever that this is the Government which will go down in history as having led us to victory under the inspiring leadership of the Prime Minister. But my last word to the Government is this: it will take all the Prime Minister's unique drive and initiative if in the field of reconstruction, after all this delay, they are not to go down in history as "the Government which missed the bus." I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in the opinion of this House it is essential that His Majesty's Government should introduce at an early date legislation covering as a minimum (1) power for local authorities to acquire compulsorily such areas as may be required for the purpose of essential replanning and reconstruction at prices related to pre-war values as recommended by the Uthwatt Report and as promised by the Government; (2) the prescribing of a simple and very speedy procedure on the lines suggested in the Uthwatt Report for the obtaining and exercise of such compulsory powers with right of entry in advance of settlement of claims to compensation.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, I want to support the point of view which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, has put forward. The two matters which he has taken from the Uthwatt Report can by themselves, I think, immediately be put into operation, without any need to discuss or to settle the larger and more controversial questions to which he has referred. Many of your Lordships will have knowledge and experience of the work done by local authorities in attempting to plan, and of the impossibility which they find of coming to any definite conclusion until they know whether or not they can obtain land for certain purposes and the sort of expenditure to which they will be committed. In peace-time there was a good deal of experience of the system necessary for developments which went ahead slowly far the provision of houses, schools, and so on. There was a system of compulsory purchase for specific objects, but it led to endless delays and difficulties in any concerted effort to attack the problem which then had to be faced, and it is generally felt by most local
638
authorities that the problems with which they will be faced after the war are going to be very much greater and will require a much more effective piece of machinery.
The question of the quickness or otherwise of the procedure for the acquisition of land by local authorities seems to me to be largely a legal matter, which would have to be determined on the basis of the need of the authorities for the land, while at the same time the rights of the owners of the land (whether they be citizens or companies or corporations of some kind) to express their opinions and at least state their case are safeguarded. It must be clearly implied in any such legislation that those rights remain, but the machinery must operate in as quick and effective a manner as possible. In general, I have not found much criticism of the proposal for the stabilization of land values as at 1939. It is felt, I think, that, at any rate for the time being, that is a fairly effective, rough-and-ready method of doing justice which would meet the objections of those who might cavil, and I think quite rightly, at the more complicated and obscure procedure outlined in the remainder of the Uthwatt Report. As to the question of whether or not it is desirable or necessary that the special considerations asked for in this Motion should be applied only in the case of excessive damage in bombed cities, or whether they could be universally applied to all local authorities who wish to carry out general development, I do not quite know the answer, but it seems to me that, once the principle is established, this is a system which would work, whether it is for the specific purpose of quickly re-planning a bombed town or whether it is for the purpose of developing an area in a normal way.
In connexion with this question of rebuilding, the noble Lord has extended his speech rather beyond the Motion on the Paper, and has given a very complete review of many aspects of what we call planning. He has referred to the problems raised by the Barlow Report, and to considerations relating to the national planning of industry. It is unfortunately true that not only is there a great opportunity for replanning, due to the damage which has been done by bombs in our cities, but there is also a great necessity for the replanning of industry, due to the development which has happened during the war for meeting

639
war needs. A great many changes have taken place in the location and organization of industry in this country, due to the necessity of making certain products for war requirements. It is unfortunately true that, in meeting this necessity, no real consideration has been given to the local problems involved, or understanding shown of the necessity to see that industry in various parts of the country is properly adjusted. We can accept that as a fact and as having been necessary, but we must also, I think, accept the necessity that the Government must see that such conditions are put right afterwards.
This is very pertinent to the question of planning by local authorities, because even in regard to housing it is quite impossible for any local authority to decide how many houses to build and where to build them until they are satisfied, to some extent at any rate, as to where people are going to work and whether or not they are going to find continuous employment in that district. Similarly, with regard to transport, roads, education, health and so on, these considerations apply, and it seems to me that this question of the national planning of industry is at the bottom of all activities connected with rebuilding. I do not quite agree with the distinction which is made between saying that the planning of industry should be based on the Special Areas and saying that it should be based on the country as a whole, because to my mind the problem is identical in its nature whether it is approached in the one way or the other. I take the view that when looking forward we must accept the principle that the object should be that work should be in some way guided to those parts of the country where the people live. Whether it is approached as a problem concerning the Special Areas or as a problem affecting the whole country, it seems to me that the operation will be very much the same.
There is a danger, I think, that too much talk and thought about planning may lead to delay in action, while too little, on the other hand, may lead to doing something wrong. It is in practice extremely difficult to find the right level between the two and to choose the right method of approach to the problem. When the question of the national planning of the location of industry is con-
640
sidered, there are, in addition to the question of population, to which I have referred, such matters to be considered as natural resources, transport, communication, imports and exports, and the types of manufacture to be concentrated on in the various trades. Those factors seem to me to demand consideration for each trade as applied to the country as a whole, and with proper notice taken of international arrangements. Nevertheless, in each trade, whatever is decided as to the method of manufacture or the objects of any process which may be carried out, there is no escape from the conclusion that the place where the work is done, and the way in which the work is done, do have in the end a tremendous effect on the lives of the people who live there. For that reason I do not see how any national consideration of the planning of industry can depart from the view that the local considerations must in the end be the guide as to exactly how the problem is to be solved.
The housing question is an extremely good example. There are a number of places in some of the older coal-mining areas which have extremely bad housing, which requires rebuilding. Under the present law a rural district council can only build under the Slum Clearance and Overcrowding Act in its own particular area, though it seems to be pretty clear that in such an area there is no more work. It is not possible according to that Act to make any local adjustments, and to try to concentrate population in local centres where it is possible in fact to hope that varieties of industrial employment can be provided. Things of that sort show that there is a need for a close contact between those responsible for administration by local authorities, and those who are or who will be responsible for thinking where industrial activities should be guided to.
On the question of the Barlow Report the conclusions which the noble Lord has quoted are, I think, pretty clear as to policy, but the actual recommendations made in that Report were rather more obscure. There was a general intention that the method of control of the location of industry should be by a definite prohibition of certain areas, rather than by specific instructions that any industry should start in any other area, but there

641
was some hesitation about the recommendation on that point. In fact, the Report mainly concerned itself with a scheme for preventing the further growth of the London industrial area. One can say that more areas than one would have to be included, and it is widely held that some such system of negative prohibition is in fact that which it may be hoped can over a period of time become effective. I believe that if it is worked in a reasonable and practical way it is one which industry would accept. And in saying that I believe that the machinery by which it should be worked will have a very great deal to do with the success of any such experiment. Whatever Government Department it may be that is responsible for the carrying out of policy in this direction it seems to me essential that the working part of the machinery should be effectively centralized, and the Department should be advised and guided by well-informed people having connexions with local industry, so that there may be a real contact between the machinery and the people who will be affected by it.
Without wishing to suggest that we must plan everything before we can do anything, I do suggest that the first thing to be thought of is how and where people are to work, and then you can plan how they are to live and be educated and looked after, and so on. I say most emphatically that, although one cannot expect at this stage of the war, or indeed probably at any stage of the war, that any actual work can be done in the shape of erection of buildings or whatever is required, I do think that it is more than time that the problem should be considered. Not only should the Government decide how they are going to face up to it, but they should begin to do so, and it should also be widely known that that is being done. I believe that there is anxiety among people of all classes as to what is going to be the future of employment, where they may expect to find homes and work. In order that they should be assured on these points, it is not enough to make a general statement, but there should be some sort of demonstration of the fact that the problem is being seriously considered. I repeat, I do not for a moment suggest that one may hope that any actual work in the way of building and so on can be done now, but I do believe that that psychological side
642
of it is of the very greatest importance. I want to support the noble Lord's Motion.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I rise to support the Motion which was submitted to your Lordships' House in a most impressive speech by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh. Under the latitud-inarian procedure of your Lordships' House the mover of the Motion was able to traverse many fields of related policy, including consideration of certain aspects of the County of London plan. I should like to express my appreciation of the kindly references which he made to that plan. I shall not follow him into a discussion of the vexed and complicated question of densities. Already there is outside your Lordships' House a pretty vociferous public debate going on, and I would not, here at all events, wish to intervene in that debate. There are many matters other than and including density which will fall to be considered by the London County Council in connexion with the County of London plan, and Lord Balfour can rest assured that his views and the views of others on density will receive appropriate consideration.
The Motion before your Lordships' House deals substantially with the two points on which I submitted a Motion here on September 22, and I propose to confine myself to the need for speedy action on the part of the Government, not only in connexion with implementing their declarations as to the 1939 ceiling and as to the acquisition of reconstruction areas as units, but also with regard to other amendments of the law which are essential if the procedure of acquisition by local authorities is to be simplified and made more expeditious. It is, I think, fair to say that not only did the Government declare through their accredited Minister at the time that they accepted the 1939 ceiling and also the principle that reconstruction areas could be acquired as a whole, but they declared through the mouth of the noble Lord, Lord Reith, that local planning authorities must have their powers strengthened now. "Now" relates to July 17, 1941. Apart from the Interim Development Act, which deals only with interim procedure, there has been no strengthening of the powers of the local planning authorities. The object of the Motion before your Lordships' House is, I gather, to press again that this procrastination,

643
so beloved of my noble friend Lord Snell, shall be put an end to, and that local authorities shall be given the powers they were promised by the Government 28 months ago.
I was interested and gratified at the reference by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh to the problem of housing. I doubt whether it is recognized generally in this country what a very grave and serious situation will face the country as regards housing after the war. It is so grave as almost to forbid thinking about. For over four years there has been no building of dwellings, for over four years there has practically been no maintenance and repair work done, for at least three years there has been serious overcrowding of many dwellings in cities, in urban areas, and indeed in some rural districts as well. Nothing so destroys a dwelling as overcrowding. If you put two families into a dwelling designed to accommodate one, you have started on the road to making that dwelling a slum. Accordingly we shall be faced with the accumulated arrears flowing from the absence of building new accommodation, the failure to maintain and repair, and the existing and increasing deterioration resulting from overcrowding of hundreds of thousands of dwellings throughout the country. The problem that will face the country is one which is properly described as immense.
There will be no real hope of building a hundred thousand dwellings in the first year after the war, as contemplated by the Minister of Health, unless planning and housing authorities are given now the powers that will enable them to prepare, so that the moment the word "Go" is uttered, they can set the machine in motion. If on the footing that, under the pressure of returning population to the cities, under the pressure of the increasing number of families, although not necessarily an increasing number of children, local authorities are left to provide any sort of housing accommodation without plan, without careful consideration, then their efforts will defeat proper planning for the next generation. These are the considerations which lead local authorities up and down the country to deplore the failure of the Government to implement its undertakings. Those of us who listened to the reply of my noble friend Lord Snell on September 22 were somewhat disturbed
644
by its nature. Our misgivings were in no sense allayed or diminished when we had an opportunity of carefully reading in the Official Report what he had said, because from that it was seen that the Government did not properly consider the implications of their declarations made two years ago. We admit the difficulty which my noble friend Lord Snell mentioned as to the landowner whose land is required for public services being at a disadvantage compared with the landowner whose land is not required, but surely that was in the mind of the Government when the declaration was made. I cannot believe that the Government were so unwise as to permit this declaration to be made without being fully seized of what it meant.
Lord Snell went on to say that property has been acquired under the necessity of war-time activity at scarcity values. That is undoubtedly the case, but every day that passes without this power being given increases the risk of this acquisition at scarcity value levels. People in the rural districts, who know the situation, inform me that the amount of speculation going on in rural land is entitled to the description of "scandalous." Every day that passes without the Government implementing this declaration, makes the situation worse and increases the difficulties. My noble friend Lord Snell went on to say that, after all, local authorities know they can go ahead with their planning, and that they know also that the prices which will prevail will not be above the 1939 ceiling. No self-respecting responsible local authority can go on and enter into commitments on the faith of that Ministerial declaration, which has no force of law and no force of protection for them. It is the case, as those concerned with planning know only too well, that local authorities are prevented from getting ahead with their planning because of the uncertainty with regard to what their powers will be. My noble friend Lord Snell went on to say, furthermore, that local authorities can proceed with the preparatory work for reconstruction with full confidence that legislation will be introduced which will enable them to enter into possession of such land as may be required by them for the purpose of reconstruction. There again, I submit to your Lordships, no local authority can proceed to acquire land on that basis. Many local authorities, not unnaturally,

645
are reluctant to publish their plans because of the uncertainty which exists both as to the price they will have to pay for land and as to the powers they will have of getting possession.
It is not only that we press the Government to pass into legislation the two acceptances of principle of July, 1941, but also that they should simplify by legislation the existing procedure of acquisition and compensation. For instance, as the Motion says, the local authorities ask that they should be empowered to enter into possession before the question of compensation is finally settled. That may seem, as my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh said, a rather thorough-going proposal. It is; but it is because the local authorities have to face a thorough-going situation. Those of us who have, in peace-time, been concerned with planning and the acquisition of property, know that it takes from one month to twenty-four months before a local authority can get possession under existing legislation. That largely results from the circumstance that before possession can be obtained settlement has to be made for compensation among what may amount to a multitude of owners even in respect of a relatively-speaking small site in a big city or in a built-up urban area. Under war-time conditions, if the Government need a property they requisition and enter into possession before (a) they stipulate the rent they will pay, or (b) if they propose to acquire, the price they will pay. Whilst I would not suggest as a normal procedure that what is necessary in wartime can be found to be desirable in peacetime, I do suggest that the problems facing the country in connexion with planning are such as warrant that kind of power being given to local authorities as regards acquisition and entering into possession.
There is also the recommendation of the Uthwatt Committee that the existing powers of acquisition should be largely extended. They are at present, as my noble friend Lord Ridley said, limited to specific and declared purposes, and that limitation is very restrictive upon local authorities who may not have a particular purpose in mind at any particular moment in respect of a site which is adjoining a site that they must acquire, and therefore they cannot acquire that adjoining site though they know that it
646
would be desirable to have it if there is to be wise long-term planning of the area in question. Accordingly, the Uthwatt Committee recommended that local authorities should be given power to purchase for general planning purposes; that they should be given power to acquire in advance of requirements (which they cannot now do unless they have special powers of private legislation); that they should be given the power to acquire land for reinstatement of displaced industry or displaced other buildings, displacement flowing from the necessity of planning; and that they should also be empowered to acquire for the purposes of recoupment —that is to say, to acquire more land than may be essential to the carrying out of particular projects in order that by developing adjacent land some contribution by way of recoupment to the cost may be secured.
Moreover, the Uthwatt Committee also recommended that there should be a simplification of the methods of assessing compensation. Let us not imagine that the mere enactment that local authorities can acquire land at a price based on the standard of March, 1939, is going to solve all the problems of compensation or all the problems of proper and fair price which the public should pay for land. It would be most unwise to assume that such an abundant benefit would flow from any such enactment. The Uthwatt Committee were sensible of that and made recommendations designed to simplify the procedure of assessment of compensation, and also the assessment of compensation for what is technically known as injurious affection—namely, injury which it is established or is assumed is done to the property owner because the local authority has carried out a scheme of redevelopment or of replanning. Those recommendations, it seems to me, involve no highly controversial issues from the discussion of which the Government seem to have forbidden themselves, but are proposals for improving the machinery essential for planning.
It is now fourteen months since the Final Report of the Uthwatt Committee was published. There have been seven Ministers up to the moment concerned with planning. Only abundant charity prevents one making reference to seven maids and seven mops, but there have been seven Ministers who have all in turn (some of them, maybe, out of

647
turn), made wise and sometimes encouraging declarations, but nothing more except the Interim Development Act. There are many things that local authorities can do but they really cannot live on declarations. They cannot discharge their duties merely by reading or listening to Ministerial declarations. They must be given the powers that are necessary for their purposes.
And I would, in conclusion, say that not only is it essential for the local authorities to have these powers, it is essential for industry that they should have them, and I was gratified to hear Lord Ridley's remarks in that connexion. Immediately hostilities cease, it may be immediately they cease in Europe, there will be an avalanche of applications from private owners of dwellings, blocks of flats, shops, and factories, all of them wanting to know what they can do in regard to their own premises which may have been destroyed or damaged, which they may need to enlarge, which they may need to improve, and they will ask the local authorities what they can do. Well, unless we know ourselves what they are to be permitted to do, we shall be unable to answer those questions. Every planning authority will be overwhelmed with such applications and it will be necessary, if those applications are to be dealt with without considerable delay, that local authorities should know some months in advance what their own powers of planning and of planning control will be, otherwise you will be putting a barrier in the way of the resumption of normal peace-time activities.
Not unnaturally it will be the desire of every one of us to get back as soon as possible on to the road and into the ways of peace. That will express itself in urgency, in impatience at any frustration or obstruction. In my view, unless planning powers are conferred in advance, and local authorities, private individuals, industrialists and business men, know in advance what they can do, the pressure will be so great that no regulation will be possible and we shall have worse consequences after this war than we suffered after the last. There will be patchwork development, there will be higgledypiggledy development, there will be uncontrolled development—each being permitted to do as he pleases. If that occurs it will
648
be a great reproach upon us and it will make any effective planning quite impossible for over a generation.
I hope that to-day the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government can give us something more comforting than an essay upon the values of delay. I hope, for instance, he is now able to give us the information which I will not say he promised but which he indicated he might be able to give with regard to the Scott Report. The noble Lord will remember that in his speech on September 22 he said:
"A draft Government statement on the Scott Report is now under immediate consideration and the Government will be ready to make a statement about that matter, I hope, within the next two or three weeks."
Six weeks have gone by. So far as I know there has been no Government statement. I hope that my noble friend Lord Snell can make that statement to-day. If he cannot I am bound to say it is another condemnation of the Government. It is an indication that the Government do not yet realize the urgency of this matter and the importance which local authorities attach to it. Though it was, of course, encouraging to hear the Prime Minister yesterday refer to food, work and homes, the problems of food, work and homes are not solved by declarations even when they be made by our great Prime Minister. They can only be solved by preparation, by planning, and as regards homes the most important thing the Government can do is to give immediately adequate powers to local authorities to get on with that planning.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, we have listened to a speech from the noble Lord, Lord Latham, who is without doubt the acknowledged authority on these matters, unless perhaps my noble friend Lord Snell can claim prior place. I am sure we were all touched by his answer to the question of the Walrus. The answer was "He shed a bitter tear." I speak on the assumption that Lord Snell will wipe away that tear. The speech of the Prime Minister yesterday took the bottom out of the speeches that anybody proposed to make on this subject excepting the mover of the Motion, Lord Balfour, who made a speech so good that I was going to say it was the best ever heard in this world or the next, but perhaps I had better say in this House or in

649
another place. We have had surprising unanimity so far when we find a Conservative Peer moving a Motion urging the solution of this problem of how to combine progress with an ordered way of solving the problem of the land on which the homes of the people must stand, supported by another Conservative Peer, supported by the Leader of the London County Council who, although he is non-Party in this matter, is believed to have Socialist tendencies, and supported by all of us on these Benches, including my noble friend the Marquess of Crewe, who unfortunately is laid by with a cold but who begged me yesterday to say on his behalf how heartily he supports the Motion moved by Lord Balfour.
This unanimity only shows how far we have gone towards solving this tremendous problem, the magnitude of which, as Lord Latham said, one can hardly exaggerate. Like so many of your Lordships, I have been through two wars and I remember vividly what we thought then. The one thing we wanted was to get back to our homes, and if we had not got a home we wanted to have one built. So it is to-day. Therefore it is a good thing that in this House we should devote a non-Party sitting to discussing how we can get on with the job. I am assuming from what the Prime Minister said yesterday that the Government will accept in principle this Motion, that they will say—possibly without committing themselves to the particular terms of the Uthwatt Report—that they now boldly proclaim that they will give authority to local councils to go ahead with the acquisition of land for the purpose of housing. I presume they will add that a Central Planning Authority shall be set up at once so that local authorities may consult with that authority and may make arrangements to acquire land at a price which will not exceed £x settled by arbitration on the lines of the Uthwatt Report. If that be so none will be more gratified than those who sit on these Benches and none will more heartily support the Government in that matter.
If I am right in my assumption perhaps I may be permitted to say a few things about the Central Planning Authority. I think that my noble friend Lord Addison, who in days past had more to do with such matters than any other Minister, will be with me when I say that it would be a
650
mistake to allow local authorities to go ahead and do everything they like in their own way. Opposed as I am to centralization, I am sure that in this matter there must be a central authority. I speak especially for two great local authorities, Portsmouth and Southampton, who, like other local authorities, are anxious to get ahead and wish to make all their plans. But I do not think even such enlightened local authorities should be allowed to have it all their own way.
There are three things the Central Planning Authority must insist on. One of them by noble friend Lord Crewe begged me especially to stress. He said, "Through all my fifty years of public life I have seen, not only in my capacity as a politician but as a country dweller in the neighbourhood of big towns, that there is a danger that local authorities, however well meaning, will be tempted to cover the whole area they acquire compulsorily with buildings irrespective of certain elementary duties which they ought to bear in mind. One thing which does not sound so important for the moment, but which becomes of vital importance as time goes on, is the provision of open spaces in the plan and the maintenance of open spaces that already exist." If I may dwell on that point for one moment it is to say that the need for open spaces and playgrounds is known to be more urgent than it was before. In the debate in your Lordships' House yesterday it was the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, I think, who pointed out the terrible state of children evacuated from the big towns. A fact which I have learnt from the Women's Voluntary Services is that all the cases of children so extremely ill-cared for that they shocked the people amongst whom they came in the rural areas were from the congested areas with no open spaces. Light and air while the children are playing about have an extraordinary effect upon children. If you take a view of the whole of this country—so the Women's Voluntary Services expert told me—and wish to find where the greatest numbers of what are called verminous children are to be found, without exception you will find them in those areas, marked on certain maps which we know of, where there are practically no open spaces. Therefore, I believe that that is a matter with which a Central Planning Authority should insist upon dealing.

651
The second point which I would ask my noble friend Lord Snell to bear in mind, and perhaps to bring to the notice of others, relates to what I think is the greatest essential of all—water. Over and over again in the past, developments have taken place which have only had the result of driving more and more people from the country into the towns—the very thing you want to avoid. And why has this occurred? Looking over this Uthwatt Report, which I have here, I see hardly a reference to it, but I think that what happens is this. The local authority of a town proceeds to develop its water supply in order to supply the urban area which it has created, and in so doing it robs the surrounding country of water. The result is the exact opposite of what it was hoped to achieve. You house a number of people in your urban area, and you deliberately attract others into it whom you had hoped would stay outside. By the very fact that you rob the surrounding country of water by your scheme of developing the water supply, deepening wells and so forth, you draw people from this desiccated area into your town. I have no doubt that my noble friend on the Front Bench could quote many instances. I can give him some. That is the second point which I ask Lord Snell to make a note of with a view to some action being taken.
Water experts have told me that enough water falls on this country to provide for the needs of a population six times as large as the present population, at a very moderate expense. A water power expert from Sweden, who knows about these things, said it seemed to him most extraordinary that here in England we have vast areas which are almost deprived of water, so that it is called a drought when there has been no rain for 27 days—that, I think, is the period. Then people all over the country can be seen going about in carts and carrying pails to fetch water, to their infinite discomfort and very likely to the jeopardy of their health; yet all the time, as the Swedish expert pointed out, by the expenditure of a very small amount, you could make a water grid for the whole country in the same way that you have made a water grid in connexion with the development of electrical power. A water grid such as this would serve the whole country, and would give people living in the country a much better chance than they have now. Will my noble
652
friend Lord Snell lay before the appropriate authority this plea, that in planning water will not be forgotten, so that something which is now obviously wrong may soon be put right.
The third point is one on which I again consulted a great expert. It is a point of enormous importance. If we are to provide these homes, to which reference has been made, and which the Prime Minister dramatically promised in his speech yesterday, we must somehow ensure that building materials shall not rise in price when the war ends and the demand becomes insistent and, as Lord Latham I think said, gigantic. The controls which are exercised over food, materials and other things now must be maintained at all hazards, and measures must be taken by the Government, not only by way of control, but also, I think, by the deliberate importation—even at the risk of people going a little hungry—of building materials, so that homes can be provided at a cost in materials which will make many things possible which would otherwise be impossible. The controversy about whether you should have State enterprise or private enterprise for housing has now, like so many controversies, vanished in the stress of war. I think that everybody is agreed that we want both forms of enterprise. We all see the vast importance of builders, small as well as big, coming in to help. You cannot leave it to the State to decree the building of houses. I was told only yesterday by a great man— whose name I will give to my noble friend, because it carries considerable weight— that if the building trade as a whole were assured by the Government that prices would be stabilized so far as it would be possible to stabilize them, hardly any housing problem would arise. It would be found, he said, that the building trade had got their plans made for complete co-operation with the local authorities throughout the country. In the presence of danger there is no doubt that there will be complete co-operation.
There is one final point which I know that one or two of my friends here have in mind. In this Motion there is a reference to the danger of inflation of values. "Quite," say some of my friends, "that is a danger, but what about the standard of value of 1939? What about the inflation of the pound? Will that not make all these owners shy off and say

653
'You cannot expect us to acquiesce in arrangements by which we may be bought up at a price which we never thought was fair?'" I believe there is a complete answer to that. We have the declaration of the Government, including the striking declaration of the Prime Minister himself, that every possible step will be taken to see that there is no inflation. I will go further, and say that we have it in our power ourselves to see that there is not if we say unanimously "We will not throw our money away," and if we take all the steps that the pundits tell us are necessary in order to avoid inflation. In that case inflation will not come about, and in any event we all stand together. There is no risk in saying that it is a question of an arbitrated value based on 1939, because the whole principle which the Government have adopted is that it shall be based on an arbitration taking everything into consideration. On the whole, therefore, I think that it is a sound plan, and my noble friends and I cordially support the noble Lord's Motion. I would beg the noble Lord, however, to bear in mind the three particular points which I have ventured to bring before the House, in the hope that they will make easier still the rehabilitation of the countryside and the building of houses for the people.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, the interesting debate to which we have had the pleasure of listening ranges over a very large area, and there is hardly anything that we cannot discuss on the Motion of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh. Accordingly, anyone who wishes to compress his remarks within a reasonable time is bound to limit what he says to particular points. I should like, however, to begin by saying that I agree completely and whole-heartedly with what my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh has said with reference to the necessity of planning, and how important it is when for so many years since 1066 we have gone on almost without any planning at all, that after the present war the rebuilding and reconstruction of the country should be in accordance with sound planning. I should also like to say that I am whole-heartedly in agreement with my noble friend Lord Latham that probably the most important thing to be done when the war comes to an end is to deal with the vital question of
654
housing, and to put our people into decent houses in which they can live without overcrowding.
My only object to-day, however, is to point out certain dangers into which I think the Government may easily run in connexion with the Uthwatt Report. I admire, although I do not entirely agree with, the analogy of the racehorse used by Lord Balfour of Burleigh—the racehorse on a prepared race-track without, as I understand it, any hurdles. For my part, if I were to describe the position of the Government it would be rather as that of a seaman conducting a ship in stormy weather through seas which were infested with both visible and submerged reefs. I can imagine no problem much more difficult and complex than that which the Government have to solve in connexion with the legislation necessary for the purposes referred to in the Barlow, the Scott and the Uthwatt Reports. I think that perhaps, although I hope that I shall not be accused of vanity, people who have spent their lives in the law, like the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack and myself, are better able to appreciate the enormous complexity of the problems that these Reports involve than those happy laymen who have not spent their time reading law books, writing opinions and listening to and fighting cases. That may be my excuse, at any rate, for occupying your Lordships' time—not, I hope, for a very long period—in dealing with the matters of which I am going to speak.
I want to refer to the position and to stand up for the rights of the ordinary citizens of this country. Other people who know more about it than I do, have dealt with the position taken up by local authorities, by the Government (whose position will be explained as well as possible by my noble friend Lord Snell), and by those who are thinking particularly of how the planner can get his plans put into operation as soon and as quickly as possible. I wish to say in the first place that I do not think that any very great complaint is to be made against the Government up to the present time, in the midst of a great war, in regard to preparing the legislation which will soon be put before us; but I do wish to point out that I do not think that the country as a whole realizes what the Uthwatt Report means in reference to the machinery which is going to take away from hundreds of

655
thousands of people in the end the property which they now own. Speaking on behalf of the ordinary citizens of this country, I do hope—and I believe it is probable—that the Government will introduce some safeguards for them which are not at present to be found in the Uthwatt Report.
First of all, let us see how it is done. You begin by the acquiring authority drawing up an order in the required form, describing the land to which the order is intended to apply by reference to a map. That map will be described as an "acquisition map." What do your Lordships expect will be done with it? It is going to be lodged with the Minister, who is being asked to approve the map, and it has not necessarily to be the subject of any local inquiry. The Uthwatt Report suggests that no local inquiry should take place. It is not to be served on, or notified to, the tens of thousands of persons whose houses are going to be taken away. It is, however, going to be advertised locally. The Minister can then approve the map, if he does not think fit to order a special inquiry. He need not, apparently, consult anybody locally. The fee simple in all the land specified then vests in the acquiring authority at the date specified in the order. From first to last the people whose houses are being taken away from them, for a compensation to be ultimately ascertained and paid, may never have heard that there is any such step contemplated by the local authority or acquiring authority at all. To carry still further this extraordinary method, notice of the approval of the order by the Minister and of its effects will then again be advertised locally, and individual notice will be served in so far as can be done from the intormation in the possession of the acquiring authority and, where necessary, by posting notices on the site.
Let me say a word about local advertisement. Do people really suppose that ordinary citizens throughout the land necessarily read the local paper for the purpose of seeing whether their property is going to be taken away from them? I am sure there are many of your Lordships who never see, or never attentively study, the local advertisements in the local newspaper. I live in London mostly and I have a humble property in Sussex. I do not ever see the local newspaper in which the acquiring authority
656
would advertise the intention to act upon the acquisition map and the order put before the Minister. For all I know, the whole thing would be carried through without my being aware of it in the least. But, after all, we are not considering here for the most part the position of persons with some means who may have a couple of properties in different parts of the country. I am thinking of the poor people with cottages or with houses in narrow streets all over the country, and I absolutely deny that those people would know, according to the machinery in the Uthwatt Report, unless amended, that their property was going to be taken away from them. Still less would people know who own individual cottages, perhaps two or three miles from the centre of the nearest town, which may all be included in some planning resolution.
I confess I think the machinery suggested ought to be very largely improved. When I came to the Bar a great many years ago there was a lot of acquisition of land going on. It was done, as some of your Lordships will remember, under the Lands Clauses Act, 1845. It was not very unreasonable, but it was rather slow and a little expensive, because the compensation had generally to be ascertained by a jury. That took a good deal of time, because you had to muster your jury together. Great improvements have been made gradually, and in the end by the Act having the somewhat cumbrous title of Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919. I think it is a very fair Act. It is fair to the person whose property is taken, and it provides for reasonable compensation with a minimum of delay. But I am not going to say that that Act is not capable of improvement. It is.
What I urge the Government to ensure is that, if it is intended to take large areas of property for the purposes of planning, such purposes as Lord Balfour of Burleigh visualises in his Motion, every person who can be reached whose property is going to be taken should have some notice that that is to be done. It is mainly a matter of a certain number of 2½d. stamps and a printed piece of paper. With regard to the plan itself, it is only necessary that the local advertisement should be supplemented by posters saying that the plan is to be seen in the town hall or some other place in the neighbourhood, or the nearest village, so that everybody can see

657
what land it is proposed to take over. These things will not cause delay, and the additional expense they will occasion is absolutely trivial compared with the vital importance that an Englishman's or a Scotsman's home should not be taken away from him without his knowing that that is going to be done, and his having some chance of making known to the Government authority or in some other way that what is proposed is quite unreasonable and is perfectly unnecessary in the interests of the State.
I quite agree that ultimately the Minister must decide. I do not agree that he should decide in vacuo so to speak, after the plan has been made out by some no doubt well-intentioned servant of the acquiring authority, even though the Minister may have the assistance of a staff of Government servants who know nothing about the locality and who have had no opportunity really of judging as to the vital necessity of the proposed plan which comes from some local body in the provinces of England or Scotland. We have had lots of opportunities for seeing in London how far plans meet with general approval. There was one that we saw put forward by the most eminent architects in the land, which many of us saw at Burlington House a year ago or some months ago, and it was an excellent plan, but it met, as far as I know, with almost universal disapproval. The London County Council have put forward another, which I think has received very general approval, but as to which the County Council know perfectly well there are points which are full of materials for objection and criticism. I know from the statement they sent out that they do not in the least suggest that their plan should not be the subject of further consideration when criticism has been publicly expressed. That is a reasonable way of going to work. That has come quite naturally. They thought it a fair way to deal with the matter. But according to the Uthwatt Report, unless it is supplemented, there will be no opportunity whatever in the neighbourhood of discussing the validity and the propriety of a particular plan. And, as I say, as things stand it goes to the Minister without his having any opportunity of knowing the objection of the persons who are interested, because many of them will not ever have heard of it.
658
It will be said that notice to everybody is often impossible. Any reasonable man knows that. I am not going to suggest that plans should be held up because there are some people whom you cannot reach by personal notice and a 2½d. stamp. That is not my idea. My idea is that you should send notice to everybody you can reach. You should send notice even if it is to one of the one million or two million people in services abroad, who can yet be reached, as I know very well, by writing a letter addressed in London to the proper military authority, who sees that the letter is sent on. What I am afraid of is this —because it is perfectly possible—that a poor old woman who does not read the newspapers or an infant who is too young to read them and perhaps has trustees looking after him, or a serving soldier or someone who is engaged in maritime pursuits, may find that a house has been taken over by the acquiring authority, that it has become the property of the acquiring authority, or that it has been pulled down and there is just a vacant site, without the owner ever having heard a single word of the authority's intention to take the property. You will say that that will not happen very often. I agree, but it should never happen at all if you can help it. That it is a thing that will happen in a number of cases you will see from an examination of the Uthwatt Report, unless indeed it is supplemented in some way by the sort of regulations which I would suggest. You will see that on page 68 of the Report, paragraph 168.
The only thing which I should add to complete my story of these people who may come and find their houses have been taken away is that the Uthwatt Committee propose that after the Minister has approved the acquisition map, notice of the approval and of the effect of the order should be given to persons having interests in the properties affected, by public advertisement and by separate service, so far as it can be done, from information in the possession of the acquiring authority. There is nothing in that suggestion to show that the acquiring authority has got to obtain the information. They can shut their eyes as to whom the property belongs. Why should they find out? They are not interested to do so at that stage at all.
It seems to me to be a wide and disastrous departure from the practice of our Legislature for hundreds of years that

659
when that notice is given—and it is the only notice which the Uthwatt Report requires—the thing is already done, the property is gone, because the map has been approved. You may say what you like, but it does seem to me very extraordinary that this vast number of people may have their property taken away from them without their having any opportunity of objecting, without the assent of the House of Commons or of this House, and without any precaution against the planner having made the most disastrous mistakes, such as may very easily be made in such a case, and the Minister having acted without any local information whatsoever.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I ask the noble and learned Viscount, when he talks about property, is he only referring to land or to buildings on the land as well?
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Both. I am much obliged to my noble friend for having asked the question. This applies to all land, whether there are buildings on it or not, to developed or undeveloped land. The main point that is material to the present moment is this. When the "blitzed" areas are being reconstructed, the Report justly says that the adjoining district must necessarily be the subject of reconstruction at the same time, because you cannot merely take the bits that have been knocked down—you have to take all the adjoining houses as well. If you look at paragraph 145 on page 61 of the Uthwatt Report you will see this recommendation in black letters:
"We therefore recommend that for the purpose of securing necessary redevelopment, the planning authorities should be given the power to purchase the whole of such areas"—
that is, all the adjoining areas. These houses will have to be pulled down for the purpose of reconstruction of the whole area. The Hun has knocked some of them down, the rest of them will be knocked down in the interests of the community by the acquiring authority.
The injustice of that, unless it is supplemented by other clauses which can easily be devised, is rendered still more monstrous if you consider the clause which, without any mitigation, without any provision for the safety of the citizen, enables the acquiring authority to walk into the houses which are not yet pulled down, whether they have paid or ascertained the compensation payable in
660
respect of these houses or not. I need not refer your Lordships to the clause in question, because two or three of your Lordships have already referred to it. You say it is necessary. It may be necessary, but just consider the result of it Consider the man who has, after years of hard work, acquired £1,000 and built himself a little house somewhere, perhaps with the assistance of a building society. He is told that that house is going to be or has been taken over by the acquiring authority, and that they have not had time yet to fix the compensation, but hope it will be fixed in the course of the next year. That may be the only property— that and the sticks of furniture inside the house—which he has got. People of that sort sometimes have a lodger, and with the assistance of the lodger and his rent and of such work as they are still able to do, they can carry on. If you go and say you are going to turn them out, and their compensation is to be ascertained months or possibly years later—I do not know; it depends on how big the scheme is—you may just as well tell them to go and starve.
That is not the way anybody can govern this country. It is absolutely impossible, it is incredible. Yet there is nothing in the Uthwatt Report—and, I say it with regret, nothing in what any of your Lordships have said, except something that fell from my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh—to point out that up to this time you have never been able to take a man's property without paying him for it, with the one qualification I shall mention in a moment. It is absolutely essential that you should pay the person whom you understand to be the owner of the property, and whom you are treating as such, compensation in the meantime in the nature of subsistence allowance or rent, or whatever you choose to call it, until the moment when you have ascertained the compensation and there is a capital sum which can be paid. Unless you do that the confusion, the agitation, and the indignation in the country will be such that you simply will not be able to go on with your scheme. I cannot understand those—I am not saying this of your Lordships generally, but of some people—who think so little of the poor people with small dwellings, small properties, all over the country, who are to be treated as if you can take over their property, which is probably the only property they have got, without

661
ascertaining compensation, and leaving it over for I do not know how long before compensation is ascertained and paid.
It is quite true that you cannot always find the true owners. Then you have to deal with that in some such way as the law has always treated the question of recovering property when you cannot ascertain the owner. You have to get from some authority that you set up means to effect substituted service on these people. I am not saying what exact machinery should be followed; I am saying that something of that sort can be done if you start with a perfectly general rule that you must tell everybody whose property you are to take that you are going to take it, provided you can ascertain to whom it belongs. With regard to the rest, you might easily draft a clause which will enable you to effect substituted service by advertisement or otherwise on the people who are concerned.
I hope I have not said anything on those two points which is unnecessary or a waste of time. I am anxious for expedition. None of the things; I suggest is going to slow up the procedure in these respects at all. I am only pointing out that you must strain every nerve to prevent its being said that in this country the Englishman's home, which should be his castle, can be taken away from him lock, stock and barrel (which is a confusion of metaphors) without first allowing him to know that there is any idea of doing it. There should be machinery for letting the people in the district know what is going to be done to their village and to the adjoining property. Every effort should be made to let owners have notice of an intention to deal with their property, and every step possible should be taken to prevent the terrible injustice resulting from walking into a man's property without being able at that time to pay him compensation and without taking any step to alleviate the terrible consequences in the meantime.
Those are the two things I chiefly wanted to refer to, but there is something I should like to say with regard to the Barlow Report, to which my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh and another noble Lord have referred. I want to remind your Lordships of this. The Barlow Report, which I hope is going to be adopted, suggests the setting up, as you know, of a Central Authority national in
662
scope and character. Lord Balfour referred to some of the things which it was going to do but he did not refer to those which I regard as of great importance. In sub-paragraph 7 of paragraph 428 you will find this at page 203:
"The Central Authority should have the right to inspect all existing and future planning schemes under current town and country planning legislation, whether regional or local, and to consider, where necessary, in co-operation with the Government Departments concerned the modification or correlation of existing or future plans in the national interest."
This is absolutely vital in relation to the question of distribution of industrial properties (the location of industry, I think, is the common phrase). I hope that will be done. It will take a little time, but it is necessary in order that you may be sure that the scheme is going to be in the end a good one and is not, in some respects, likely to do as much harm to industry as it does good to the ordinary population.
Those are the things which I thought it not unreasonable to put before your Lordships and I conclude, as I began, by saying that I am all in favour, now that the Government have had an opportunity of considering the really stormy seas on which they are to voyage, of their giving us a chart and telling us how we are to conduct our steps and proceedings in the future. But in saying that I do very much hope that they will pay the utmost attention to the necessity of treating the populations who will be affected with the greatest care and consideration for their interests, and I express the hope that if that is done this Motion will have achieved a very useful result.
THE LORD BISHOP OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will give me your indulgence in addressing your Lordships' House for the first time. At this late hour I will promise to be brief, but I feel it would be a great pity if no word were said from the Bench of Bishops here in support of the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and expressing our sense of the urgency of the whole matter. It may not have escaped your Lordships' minds that the debate in this House yesterday, and the one to-day, are really two parts of one and the same question. If, as you agreed yesterday, no country has a greater asset than its youth, as the noble Lord said in

663
his introductory speech, then the homes of our youths are of first importance. I could enlarge on that but I do not want to do so at this hour. I am afraid it is only too true, as the noble Lord, Lord Latham, said with some knowledge of country parishes, that the condition of overcrowding is really practically the beginning of slums and is, as he suggested, invading the country also. Of great importance, too, is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, about the access of the youth of the country to playing fields and country spaces. One has a picture, living as I do outside London and constantly coming in and out of it, of what might be a new planned area in the future, but I must not enlarge on that now.
I also rose at the request of two right reverend Prelates who cannot be here to-day, the Bishop of Winchester and, still more, the Bishop of London, both of whom are very much concerned in the future of the building of churches, particularly in the "blitzed" areas. The Bishop of Winchester is especially concerned because of some recent experiences in a place familiar to your Lordships, while the Bishop of London is Chairman of a Committee which is acting on behalf of all the churches in dealing with the various Ministries regarding the whole situation arising out of war damage. I think we all agree that the whole material, moral and spiritual improvement of our people is of such importance that there should be introduced in the new planned areas sites that will be available for churches and chapels.
I am speaking not only on behalf of the Church of England but on behalf of all the Churches. And here comes in a practical difficulty. I ventured privately to speak to the noble Lord who is to answer in this debate, and I think I can put quite shortly the point I made to him. A local authority can, as the law now stands, acquire land by compulsory purchase only for its own needs, and the provision of churches and chapels cannot be described as for a local authority's own needs. A large authority in the South of England, very familiar to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has, I believe, raised this very point as to whether they should not be allowed to buy land or should not be given the authority to buy land in order that a church might be
664
built in their area. They have been informed they cannot be given this authority. That particular situation will be further complicated if the Uthwatt Report leads, as I hope it will speedily, to legislation, because of the fact that on page 62, paragraph 147, it is stated:
"We recommend, therefore, that once any interest in land has passed into public ownership it should be disposed of by way of lease only and not by way of sale. …"
I am sure that is a good provision, but it is no good saying to a religious communion that they may have land for a certain time.
In the case of the Church of England it would not be possible to build a consecrated church because you can only consecrate a church on freehold land. I believe the same is true of the Roman Catholic Church. On wider grounds, you cannot expect people to put up a fine building with the knowledge that they may lose the land before long. It is not common sense. What would Help would be to include in any legislation that comes out of the consideration of this matter, power to local authorities to buy sites for churches or power to sell land for the erection of churches or chapels. Obviously there would have to be some provision for pre-emption. I understand from the Bishop of London that the Ministry of Works have been most sympathetic, but he asked me to call your Lordships' attention to the matter. I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Snell, deals with the many questions which have been put to him he will be able to give a word of assurance that will help us to do our very best to get churches and chapels on the right sites and so make a vital contribution to the welfare of the whole community.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I am sure we have all listened with great pleasure to the speech which has just been made by the right reverend Prelate. May I venture to hope that we shall often hear him dealing in your Lordships' House with similar questions in the future? As regards the particular problem which he has brought to your Lordships' notice, I would only venture to say that the National Council of Social Service was invited to deal with much the same problem some years ago when it was seen that community centres must be established outside some of the largely populated cities. It was found unfortunately

665
that in these detached satellite towns, as I think they may be called, it was difficult to establish the social element because the houses were used entirely by people who went into the city for their employment and had no community interest whatever in the new housing areas. I think it was universally acknowledged that one great drawback was that there was no proper provision for churches, chapels and other buildings which would form the centre of community and social life.
May I say with what delight I listened to the brilliant speech with which my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh opened this debate? I was very glad to hear my noble friend Lord Mottistone draw particular attention to its very clear, well-informed and convincing nature. May I add, by the way, with regard to Lord Mottistone's speech, that I always listen with delight to that evergreen statesman whose wonderful vitality, mental vivacity and clarity of speech always fill me with unbounded admiration? He drew particular attention to the fact that this issue is apparently in your Lordships' House a non-Party issue. So it is, as far as the problem we are here debating to-day is concerned, but I am afraid there would not be the same degree of unanimity if we went in detail into the problems raised by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham. We are not to-day discussing the Uthwatt Report in all its provisions and implications, but it must be clearly understood, so far as public opinion in the rural areas can be gauged, that the Uthwatt scheme for the acquisition of so-called development values is regarded as being in the nature of a sledge-hammer to crack a nut. Where purely rural areas are concerned, and they represent nine-tenths of the whole surface of the country, it is difficult to see what these development values are likely to be. It does on the face of it appear to be an immense machine in order to solve a problem which has mainly to do with a very much narrower area.
I really rose to draw your Lordships' attention to the feeling of at any rate one important local authority in this country— I refer to the Gloucestershire County Council—about the dilatory action, or lack of action, on the part of the Ministry of Planning. Gloucestershire, I am glad to be able to say, is regarded, and probably justly regarded, as a
666
great pioneer in the matter of planning. In fact our very excellent planning officer, Mr. Gordon Payne, has been travelling in various counties by invitation of their county councils explaining what Gloucestershire is doing. I would only say in passing that the problem in Gloucestershire is accentuated by the fact that the Forest of Dean coal-mining industry is on the verge of disappearance. In a few years there will be no colliery industry in the Forest of Dean and that industry will have to be replaced as rapidly as possible by work of a different character for those who will be thrown out of employment. That is the main inducing factor as far as the Gloucestershire County Council is concerned in getting on as rapidly as possible with a planning programme. Another point to be taken into account is the recognized extreme scenic beauty of the county —it is acknowledged that it has a variety of scenic beauty probably not excelled in any other county in England and Wales —and there is also the fact that the Minister of Planning is a resident within the county and Parliamentary representative for one of its Divisions.
At an ad hoc meeting of the Gloucestershire County Council, which was very fully attended, on September 29, the following resolution was unanimously passed:
"That in order to facilitate and accelerate the planning activities of local authorities His Majesty's Government be respectfully requested to formulate and make known as soon as is practicable the essential features of the national planning scheme and also to introduce without delay legislation to check speculation in land values to the detriment of the public interest."
Bearing in mind the large schemes which are being put forward by the planning committee of the Gloucestershire County Council, to which I will make a short reference presently, the greatest handicap to them is the fact that they do not know exactly what is the general national plan of the Ministry of Planning, and, naturally, they do not want to formulate a plan in regard to roads and houses, or water supply, or a central hospital, or higher standard central schools—all of which are matters now under their consideration— without being certain that their proposals would fit into the national plan. Therefore, they ask the Government as soon as possible to formulate and make known the essential features of a national plan so that they may not put forward proposals which are in any way repugnant to the Government plan.

667
Now I wish particularly to refer to this question of housing, and I shall do so quite shortly. Rightly or wrongly, it seems to be the expectation and hope of the Ministry of Health that entirely new centres of community life will be established in what are presently purely rural areas. In that connexion there is contemplated—I do not express any personal opinion about it—the establishment in my own county of a future town of something like 10,000 inhabitants in a purely rural area on the borders of Worcestershire, and another smaller centre of community life to the north of Bristol, not far from the Wiltshire border. Furthermore, we are told that there are going to be two great through traffic roads. We are not quite sure whether the cost of them is going to fall to some extent on the local ratepayers, or whether it is going to fall entirely on the taxpayers. One of these two great roads—both of them, I may say, are really quite necessary—will run from near Tewkesbury in the north of the county, by-passing Gloucester and Cheltenham, to Bristol. The other traffic road will, I believe, pass near my home from South Wales to Birmingham or to London. I only mention these things because they are to-day actual proposals upon which we have got to express a definite opinion, but we cannot do it if we do not know to what extent the Government policy and the county policy are in accord.
The only other matter which I wish to ask about before I sit down is the matter of what are called ceiling prices. I raise this question particularly because I wish again to urge—and not for the first time in this House—that it is most essential, at an early date, to pass through Parliament an Act—I think that a single clause Bill would be effective for the purpose— to prevent pure speculation in land that is either wanted for the farming community or may be wanted hereafter for development purposes. I do not know whether your Lordships noticed it, but there was a very interesting letter in The Times newspaper about ten days ago from Sir William Dampier, a very eminent economist of Cambridge University. He drew attention to the fact that money after all is a mere token, and to the question whether the value of any property or land at the 31st March, 1939, expressed in terms of
668
pounds, shillings and pence, was the fair value to give hereafter for that land; whether, in fact, the purchasing value of the money at that time ought not to be compared with the purchasing value of the price when eventually it comes to be paid. My only comment in passing upon that is this. We all know that money varies in value and that land, like most other commodities, varies in monetary value from time to time, but I cannot help thinking that it will be an extra incentive to the speculator to speculate if any such alteration is made.
However that may be, there is speculation going on in land to-day, particularly in agricultural land, on a considerable scale, and that speculation ought surely to be checked, and checked as soon as possible. It is not only affecting the local authorities in their difficulties of acquiring land, and of making up their minds presently to acquire land that may be wanted for development hereafter, but it is operating also to the detriment of experienced farmers. When estates are broken up—as happened after the last war—farmers, many of them excellent and experienced farmers who, of course, know their own farms much better than other farms which they might acquire hereafter, are naturally reluctant—apart from the fact that the speculator is operating at almost all farm sales to acquire farms, at what are nowadays relatively high values, if they are likely to cease to be used for agricultural purposes hereafter, under some scheme of development which may be put in hand by the local authority.
These are only a few of the difficulties that are arising in practice. I felt bound to draw attention to them in this debate in the House to-day, because they are in fact the sort of problems which a very active county council is up against at the present time through these two factors, the, factor that speculation is rife and at present unchecked, and the factor of their entire ignorance as to whether their proposals will fit in with the Government plan. Finally, I only wish to ask how are you going eventually to arrive at values based on those of the 31st March, 1939? Surely it is going to be an extraordinarily difficult and complicated process, particularly as in many cases mortgages have been executed on these properties—possibly to the extent of two thirds

669
or more of the amount paid for the land? It looks like a fearful tangle to unravel, and how it will come to be unravelled I cannot imagine. I should imagine that there will be a good deal of difference of opinion as to the fairness of it when the process come to be put into operation.
House adjourned during pleasure, and resumed by Viscount MAUGHAM.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, the noble Viscount who has just sat clown has spoken on behalf of, and as representing, what he describes as a. progressive county council. I should like to follow him as representing a progressive county borough council. The three Parties in the City of Plymouth did me the great honour yesterday of re-electing me for the fifth time as Lord Mayor. They did that, so far as I was able to ascertain from their speeches, not only for such work as I may have been able to do in the City of Plymouth, but because of the agitation which I have been trying to conduct on behalf of the bombed cities, and in fact of all cities that want the Government to implement their pledges. My noble friend Lord Mottistone referred to Lord Latham as being either a Socialist or non-Party. I started life as a Conservative, but in the last few months I have been going rapidly through Liberalism and Radicalism to Socialism, and there are times when the speeches which I near on this question make me feel that it may be only the Communist Party which will deal with it !
We are a little tired of being urged to go ahead and prepare blue-prints. What is the use of having blue-prints if we cannot get possession of the land? I consulted some of our officers the other day, the men who will have to carry out the replanning of Plymouth—the engineer and others. This is the sort of time-table which was put before me. It will be twelve months before sites can be acquired and reallocated, and another six to nine months before the roads and public services can be laid down, and then a further twelve months will be required for construction. That means that it will be two-and-a-half to three years before we can get our shopping centres re-erected. What is the use of talking about advertisements in the local Press and points of that sort? I should despair of this country if the demobilized soldiers were satisfied with that sort of pace !
670
My noble friend Lord Latham referred to the very acute housing shortage which exists. It was my privilege to be with Lord Addison at the Ministry of Health after the last war. We were forced, by the urge for housing and rehousing, to sanction the erection of houses before there was proper planning. One has only to travel round this country to see the permanent devastation which has resulted from housing being carried out without proper planning and control—permanent damage, which can never be put right. Are we going to be wise enough to avoid that happening again? The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, referred to the hardships of the person whose house might be taken if the Motion of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh were carried. I wish that I could take the noble and learned Viscount to some of our cities, and show him the "blitzed" and blighted portions of those cities. Where they have been "blitzed" there are no houses at all, and where they have been blighted the houses ought to be pulled down. Our experience—and I think that I gave your Lordships this illustration the last time I took part in a discussion in this House—is that before the war it was fifteen months after the Plymouth Council had passed a resolution to deal with slum clearance before they could enter into the first house. We cannot deal with these important problems at that sort of pace. The noble and learned Viscount referred to widows and orphans. If the sort of pace which he seems to visualize were to persist, there would be widows and orphans, but they would be the widows and orphans of Ministers and of Members of these two Houses !
It fills me with despair when I hear speeches of that sort made, so completely removed from reality. One day last summer we had an important conference in Plymouth with the representative of the noble Lord, Lord Portal. It was agreed by everybody that with all the operatives which the Ministry could lend us, together with all the labour which we could provide, there was eighteen months' solid work ahead of us in repairing houses which had been damaged. That night we were bombed again. I shall probably not be in order in indicating the number of houses which have been wiped out, seriously damaged or in need of repair, but it runs into thousands. What is the

671
good of talking to us about these old fashioned procedures? When one listens to speeches like that, one is listening to someone who is completely removed from reality. I do hope that in this House and in another place we shall become more realistic.
The noble Lord, Lord Snell, is going to reply for the Government to-day. I hope that he is not going to be satisfied with indicating that the Government promise to do something; I hope that he is going to be able to tell us when they intend to introduce the Bill. All this began in February, 1941, when the noble Lord, Lord Reith, gave us two promises. He gave us another in July, 1941. Lord Portal gave us another promise on April 21, 1942, and the present Minister has given us promises on March 17, 1943, June 24, July 15, September 21, and October 7, and I believe another one since then. This is the most promising Government that I have ever seen ! But we want not promises but performances. We cannot get ahead with promises.
There has been some talk about land values and the ceiling of March, 1939. I think it just as well to record the fact that the 1939 values represent a period of prosperity. Those figures were high, and they have been kept high in the cities because of the scarcity of vacant sites. When we are dealing with the future, I think we shall be dealing with a condition when probably we shall be able to have higher buildings, because there will not be the same infringement of rights of light, and because more land may be available. The Government should take those facts into consideration when fixing the ceiling of values. When the Government have spoken about 1939, however, they have qualified it by certain provisos. It is no use urging local authorities to buy land unless they know on what terms they will have to buy, and what these provisos are. In Plymouth, our rate income has been reduced by something like 20 per cent. We can acquire land only if we get a grant and we want to know on what terms we are going to get that grant. It is no use telling us to start preparing plans; it is no use our telling the shopkeepers to employ an architect unless we can tell them in what part of the town the shopping centre will be, and whether the narrow and crowded streets will be straightened and widened.
672
I should like to assure my noble friend Lord Mottistone that local authorities are not as reactionary as he seemed to indicate. If the Government give us the necessary power and money, we certainly visualize having plenty of open spaces, but that is contingent on what the Government do. Local authorities are very anxious to go ahead. There are three great measures, apart from smaller Bills, which the country is eagerly expecting: a measure dealing with education, a measure dealing with town and country planning, and a measure dealing with social security. As an old House of Commons man, I look at the days which are available, I look at the days which have to be allotted to Supply, and I wonder whether the Government are going to be able to carry out their promises.
I will only say that if they do not do so there really will be a very strong feeling in the country—and quite rightly. The Association of Municipal Corporations recently set up a Special Committee representing bombed cities. That Special Committee passed a resolution urging the Government to bring in legislation immediately on the lines of the Motion of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh. That is a most influential body, representing all our great local authorities. It is no good giving us another pledge. The only security we can have is an Act on the Statute Book. We shall only be able to take action after that Act has been passed. I hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord Snell, when he replies, will not merely tell us again what the Government hope to do, but will be able to give us a solid date on which they mean to introduce this Bill.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I have had an opportunity recently of finding out what various people interested in the provision of houses all over the country think about the present position, and it is only because I have had that rather good opportunity that I venture to address your Lordships now. Everywhere it is realized how very urgent this question of the provision of new houses is going to be the moment hostilities cease. There is a very strong feeling that legislation should be introduced now, and that all kinds of preparations should be made as soon as possible, in order that the actual construction of new houses may start the moment that hostilities end.

673
I want also to mention a subject which has not been referred to to-day—private enterprise. I would like to draw your Lordships' attention to what was said by the Minister of Health as recently as October 8 when addressing a conference of the National Housing and Town Planning Council. He said:
"If we—private enterprise, local authorities and the Ministry of Health—all go forward together I have no doubt that we shall deliver the goods."
By "delivering the goods" the Minister at that moment was referring to the provision of the necessary three to four million houses which will be wanted after the war. It is not sufficiently realized by owners of house property or by landowners in various parts of the country that they are expected to play a big part in this. We have heard a great deal about the acquisition of land by local authorities and the preparation of schemes by local authorities; yet it was the private person who between the two wars supplied two-thirds of the houses that were built in this country, and you can depend upon it he will have to do it again. You will not get three or four million houses built by local authorities; you will have to depend to a great extent on private enterprise.
I suggest to the Government that private enterprise should be encouraged to prepare schemes if necessary, but anyhow to submit some kind of a. plan to the Central Planning Authority, or whoever may be the right person, in order that they may be amended and welded together with plans submitted by local authorities, to make one complete picture. The capacity of private enterprise in providing houses can be enormous. It depends on the amount of encouragement which it gets from the Government It is not even realized at the moment that private enterprise will be permitted to take part. If it receives some encouragement to submit plans for new houses that capacity will be increased enormously. I am not going to detain your Lordships, but I wanted to impress upon the Government that this is a moment of tremendous importance, and I have received the impression from all over the country in the last few weeks that this is the moment for the Government to come out with some definite declaration. Everybody is waiting for it, everybody is ready for it, and I believe that if such a declaration of policy were made within the next few weeks, the Gov-
674
ernment would receive the co-operation of people in this matter which they would not have received in normal times of peace. Nobody likes the complete Uthwatt Report, but something on those lines is required, any everybody is waiting to see what the Government are going to give us.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord who is going to reply for the Government wishes to speak in a short time, and I will not detain the House for more than three minutes. But I would ask the Government to pay attention to the very cogent speech made by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, and thereby avoid inflicting an altogether unmerited injustice upon the small property owner. Despite what I fear I can only characterize as the somewhat petulant outburst of the latest convert to the Communist Party, I think that if the very quick procedure advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, is put into effect without some safeguards undoubtedly what the noble and learned Viscount has described will come to pass. I have on many occasions had to go through the valuation roll in my own county, and I have often noticed what a very large proportion of the small property owners live outwith the county and in many cases outwith Scotland. Many of them do not belong to the local property owners' association and have sometimes no local factor or manager. Unless some steps are taken to warn them, it is quite certain that in many cases they will not know that their property is going to be taken over.
Although certain members of His Majesty's Government, including Mr. Herbert Morrison, seem to hope that we shall adopt in this country the very form of totalitarian government against which we are supposed to be fighting, it is my belief that that does not represent the views of most people in the country. The small man at the present time seems to be ground between the millstones of Government bureaucracy and great corporations, big business and trade unions, and I think that unless some steps are taken to safeguard his interest and to ensure that adequate personal notice is served on each small owner of property before his property is acquired, grave injustice will be done. Such a procedure would not

675
hold up the operation of any plan at all. Very short notice need be given, but unless that is done I am quite sure that many of these small people will be put in a position which will be most unfortunate and which will not redound to the credit of the Government.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I believe that your Lordships will agree with me that we have been dealing with a subject of first-class importance which has produced some first-rate speeches. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, has given continuous attention for a long period of time to at least one aspect of the great question he has raised, and he may be sure that his criticisms and demands will not be ignored or undervalued, either by the Government or by myself. I promise that all the criticisms which have been made and all the suggestions and complaints we have heard will be considered with the closest attention. Perhaps I might be permitted, first of all, to answer one or two direct questions. First of all, there was a question asked by the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Guildford, respecting sites for churches and chapels in "blitzed" areas. I believe that a deputation has already been received by the appropriate Minister, and that the question is being considered and a decision will be reached upon it almost immediately. My noble friend Lord Mottistone asked for special attention to be given to the problems of water. That also will be considered. Personally, I have had a special affection for water all my life ! On the other hand, I have to regret to my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh that my knowledge of racehorses is not adequate to enable me to reply effectively to his observations.
This generous spirit of mine is, I believe, all on one side in this matter. We express our complete sympathy with the desires of the noble Lord and others who have spoken, but they respond with a tardy and very halting recognition of anything that has been done. The fact is that Ministers have to live in an ungrateful world. In regard to Government avowals on this matter, they have repeatedly and with emphasis assured Parliament and the nation that they accept the main principles of the Beveridge Report, and that the pledges they have given in relation to the recommendations
676
of the Uthwatt Committee will be fulfilled. Lord Astor, in a noble impatience, asked, "When are they going to be fulfilled?"
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear !
LORD SNELL: I very much sympathize with the questioner, but I cannot fix dates to events, and I can only say there will be no delay that can possibly be avoided. My noble friends, Lord Astor, Lord Latham, and Lord Balfour of Burleigh, are no believers in a postponed felicity, so they say, in effect, that Heaven can wait, but the time to be happy is now. I regret very much indeed that I am not able to satisfy their hunger for immediate and unlimited benefits, but I can say that the prospects are good—better perhaps than they believe—and that at no distant date we shall all be able to sit by the fleshpots of achievement and be satisfied. In regard to the Motion, it seems to be directed to two main points— the recommendation of the Uthwatt Report on the 1939 ceiling, and the need for early legislation empowering local authorities to acquire land for replanning and reconstruction on the lines suggested by the Uthwatt Committee. The speeches in support of the Motion have gone even wider than that comprehensive document. The Motion demands to know whether national planning is still the policy of His Majesty's Government. Then the question of decentralization of population and industry in relation to the Barlow Report has been raised, and also the question of finance.
Certain pledges have been given by the Government, and I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Latham has so little faith in Ministerial statements. He said that the statements which have been made have no force of law, and that no local authority could proceed on that basis. He was supported in that by my noble friend Lord Astor. A Government statement has been made—not a statement by a Minister, but a statement by the Government as a whole— which contained certain declarations and promises, and it is for Parliament to see that the Government keep their pledges even if they do not wish to do so themselves. With regard to the Scott Report, as to which my noble friend Lord Latham asked a question, I am able to say that an announcement respecting it will be available very early in the next Session.

677
The 1939 ceiling was accepted in principle on July 17, 1941. Lord Reith, speaking then on behalf of the Government, said:
"The Government accept this principle, and legislation to give effect to it will be introduced in due course. The detailed application of the principle requires consideration. Adjustments may be needed to meet particular cases, and the principle must be open to review if circumstances arise which make its application inequitable."
That undertaking has been frequently reaffirmed, but the terms of the Government's statement in accepting this principle recognized from the outset that there might be difficulties to be overcome in its derailed application. In this matter no one problem can be taken in isolation from the rest. There must be a coherent whole, and that partly accounts for the delay in the application of any particular principle. One of the problems involves finding the means to secure that the future mass development is not prejudiced by speculation and by profiteering. That is not a very easy problem to solve. The Government, however, hope to be in a position before long to make proposals which will meet certain difficulties which have become apparent during the consideration of this matter. My noble friend Lord Latham asked for speedy action on the part of the Government in regard to the 1939 ceiling and the amendments needed. In regard to that I will see that the criticism is very carefully considered. In this matter your Lordships should remember that my noble friend Lord Maugham admitted the complexity and difficulty of the subject and even made the generous avowal that no complaint against the Government can be made up to now. That voice of approval aroused in me appropriate emotions of gratitude.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I was alone.
LORD SNELL: But I will promise that the criticisms which he made on what, if he will allow me to say so, was the legal aspect, shall be carefully considered. The Government have been reluctant to act, before they knew where they could and where they ought to go. Everybody knows what is desirable. The Government can promise only what they decide is practicable and this wise caution is resented. I know no task more difficult than to have to confront impatient enthusiasts with difficult realities. I have become a kind of shock absorber for the
678
Government in these matters, and whenever my duties on this Bench have ended I think I shall seek employment as counsel for the defence anywhere. But there exists at the present time a readiness, even an eagerness, to accept dreams for facts, and those who put realities before ambitions and desires and fancies are very seldom applauded; yet in my experience the way of caution is often the surest way to success. Those who set out on a journey in a fog not infrequently return to the place from which they started.
In regard to the powers of acquisition and procedure, the Government have also accepted the recommendations of the Uthwatt Committee that the planning authorities should be able to acquire the whole of any reconstruction area, which should be developed as a whole, and that the procedure should be simple and speedy. Lord Latham, in his speech on the 22nd September, I think indicated that a Bill was already in print to give local authorities power to acquire land in reconstruction areas, but that referred only to "blitzed" areas to' which alone the Interim Uthwatt Report referred. The Final Report related to other areas needing reconstruction. Consideration has been necessary of the wider application of the powers of acquisition that are required. In fact in the intervening period a substantial amount of work has been done in adapting earlier drafts to the enlarged needs as they are now seen. I repeat that the problem cannot be dealt with in sections. It is necessary to consider the problem as a whole, so that a coherent body of legislation will result, and when once the Government know precisely what we want to do and when we can do it, it will then be a simple matter to select special objectives, to include the new aims, and to let some old ones lapse.
I repeat now what I was instructed to say on Lord Latham's Motion, that these intricate questions require the closest attention of the Government. For example, the question of whether in order to assist the development of reconstruction areas the State itself should undertake purchase is one that must be considered before the form of legislation can be decided. The Government recognize—I ask my noble friends to take notice of this—that the powers to acquire land in reconstruction areas must be available before the end of the war. It is therefore a question of balance of this urgency as

679
against the desirability of linking up with the wider issues of the plan. The Government will keep a careful watch on this matter, and it circumstances arise which would throw the balance in favour of immediate legislation, that course will be taken. Lord Balfour of Burleigh approached this problem partly, indeed mainly, from the standpoint of the necessity of local authorities acquiring land as quickly as possible so that the housing programme could be carried into effect without delay. The Government recognize that these powers must be available, but action on housing needs is not necessarily waiting on the powers to which the Motion refers; nor indeed on any planning legislation. Local authorities are at present reviewing their housing needs. They are concentrating upon such immediate work and as soon as they are authorized to do so they are proceeding with the acquisition of sites. The new powers to which the Motion refers will doubtless be of service to housing. I am not denying that, but that service will be greatly increased if they form part of a comprehensive system.
In regard to national planning, the Government accept the principle of national planning without qualification. The House was So assured by the Lord Chancellor on the 19th November last, when he said:
"I am not perhaps saying anything very new, but I am none the less stating what is important when I conclude by assuring your Lordships that that assumption"—
(the assumption that national planning is intended to be a reality and a permanent feature of the administration)—
"is the assumption on which Government policy is based."
The reason why the Ministry of Town and Country Planning was established was that it was intended to be the first step towards national planning. National planning does not, however, imply the imposition upon the people of a common plan applicable without variation to every district. Our country is happily made up of a variety of local conditions. There is difference of soil, of climate, of building tradition and of local culture, and this variety should be preserved. My noble friend Viscount Ridley, in what I thought an able and very balanced speech, acknowledged the difficulty and complexity of the problem and did not him-
680
self appear to have reached definite conclusions upon how it should be met.
In regard to the Barlow Report I am asked directly, do the Government accept the conclusion to the Report? Again it is not practicable for the Government to give an unqualified "Yes" in answer to that question. The proposals of the Report relate in great part to machinery as well as to the fundamental questions of policy, and the specific machinery suggested requires careful consideration and, it may be, qualification. The conclusions of the Barlow Commission were based upon pre-war conditions and they have necessarily been greatly modified by the changes due to the war, but steps have been taken to study afresh the situation. For example, industrial surveys have been put in hand and information on the social aspects has been collected. The Commission recommended that the objectives of national action should be, broadly speaking, continued redevelopment of congested urban areas, the decentralization of industry and population from crowded urban areas, the encouragement of a reasonable balance of industrial development and diversification throughout the country. The Commission also drew attention to the problem of the drift of industries and population to London and the Home Counties. Again the Government promised—as, reported in the Official Report of February 11, 1942—that this question would be reviewed and the suggestions would be studied.
My noble friend Lord Balfour made a considerable and I think a worthy point about the depopulation of the rural areas and the inflow into the towns. He spoke of the misery of the strap-hanger. These problems are not a British phenomena alone. There has been a movement of population in this sense over wider areas. The fact is that in the past we have failed to make our villages attractive. Young people, rightly or wrongly, yearn for light and life and movement, and the permanent black-out of our villages is something more than they can stand. I will not venture to be dogmatic with regard to remedies, but I agree with my noble friend that proper housing and development of social amenities are among the most important remedies. The complaint nowadays is that parents will not reproduce the population. There is a kind of

681
law of accommodation to circumstances which operates in the world. Parents were once scolded almost by everybody for producing large families and they now refrain from producing sufficient to keep the race strong. Families cannot be reared in the huts into which so many of our rural workers are thrust. In these places we are expected to breed an imperial people. Sometime; they are so overcrowded that children tumble over each other like puppies in a kennel, and as they grow older they are almost expelled in order to make room for younger children. I am not speaking from theory here, but of what I know and have known.
The Government desire that local plans should be made freely. In particular the Government would seek to secure that fresh development will be planned with due regard to the use that could be made of existing capital equipment and existing public services. They would wish to avoid the diversion of productively acquired land to other purposes if less productive land is available. The Government are in full sympathy with the desire of the Barlow Commission to bring about a better distribution of industry and population and their policy is to achieve this aim formulated in the light of new information that is now being assembled.
My noble friend asked what is the Government's attitude towards the financial aspect of these problems. The Government have accepted the view that the successful application of a policy of reconstruction is greatly dependent upon financial questions. For example, the Minister without Portfolio said on December 1, 1942:
"We shall be prepared to discuss with local authorities the extent to which, and the manner in which, assistance can be afforded by the taxpayer towards specific purposes forming part of the new plans in association with the assistance which is already given for such purposes as housing, schools or roads."
State purchase and leasing to local authorities will be closely studied as a method of assisting local authorities to bear the financial responsibility of an energetic and effective programme of town reconstruction.
I must not promise too much, because promises even more than your sins, in time find you out, but I am glad to be able to give a general and I hope sympathetic reply to the Motion which the noble Lord,
682
Lord Balfour, introduced. If I may strengthen what I have said by a quotation from the speech of the Prime Minister it will perhaps help both your Lordships and the subject under discussion. Speaking at the Mansion House yesterday, the Prime Minister said:
"I regard it as a definite part of the duty and responsibility of this National Government to have its plans perfected in a vast and practical scheme to make sure that in the years immediately following the war food, work and homes are found for all. … These plans must be prepared, and they must come into action, just like, when war breaks out, general mobilization is declared. They must come into action as soon as the victory is won."
Well now, I cannot go beyond any promise of the Prime Minister. That is a promise which the nation will understand will be honoured.
I can only say, in conclusion, if the pace is disappointing let critics remember that the pathway which we must tread has not been blazed. There is no ready-made infallible compass to guide us in this matter, and we can only follow the light of a few fixed stars. But for the most part we have to proceed by the slow process of trial and experiment. A Judge of the Supreme Court of America, Mr. Justice Ruttledge, said recently: "Democracy is a perpetual compromise." That we have to remember. There are those who are impatient to advance beyond knowledge, and their enthusiasm prompts them to criticize those who have the responsibility of decision. But you will remember that the Hebrews, in their journey through the wilderness, deprived my noble friends of any claim to originality in that respect. "And the whole congregation murmured against Moses and Aaron." We are not asking our noble friend to wait forty years, nor even forty months up to the present time. I have done my best to go as far as I can to satisfy my noble friends in respect of what they have asked, and, as a final attempt to win their approval, I have to say that the Government accept in principle the Motion which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, has moved.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I only wish to intervene for a few moments before my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh replies, in order to refer particularly to the remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Snell, in the earlier part of his statement, when he said that the Government had to face up to realities. My noble friend Viscount Astor has surely

683
pointed to one reality—the conditions in Plymouth as they exist to-day, the blotted-out condition which exists likewise in Coventry, and the conditions which exist in this town of London. Surely, if those are the conditions with which we are confronted, the noble Lord's speech to-day carries very little comfort either to the local authorities concerned, or to the unfortunate people who have been the subject of the "blitzing."
But there is another reality which the Government have to face. It is referred to in this Motion, and to-day a great deal has been said about it. I refer to the valuation of property to be taken over on the basis of the standard of value in 1939. Here I rather differ from my noble friend Lord Astor. I do not do so because I am against the principle, but because I do not think that it is a practicable idea. During recent years, as a result of the "blitz", there have been many dislocations of population. In addition, there have been many alterations and displacements of our industrial population in the country. There have also been established many centres for Government action. As a result of this, and especially of the loss of housing accommodation, a great deal of house property has been, and is, changing hands at very enhanced values.
If this were a purely speculative condition, I would be heartily in accord with what is suggested—namely, that we should go back to the 1939 value. But it is not speculative; it is due to a real need which has grown up. This need has forced people to buy houses at enhanced rates, and these houses have, from time to time, changed hands again because of the change of location of the individuals who have bought them. Again, many individuals in the wage-earning classes— if I may so call them—in this country are very much better off to-day than they were in 1939. A great many more are employed, and a great many are employed at very much higher wages. Consequently when their dwellings have been destroyed they have had no difficulty in paying higher rates for the dwellings that they have moved into. And so it has gone on. What will be the final effect of this? People will have bought dwellings, perhaps at prices amounting to two or three times the value of them in 1939, and then suddenly the Government, or the
684
local authority, will say to them: "We are going to take over these dwellings from you; we are going to pay you probably a half or a third of what you paid, and there is no redress available to you at all." I ask the Government to face up to that reality, because it is indeed a reality. The longer you wait, the longer you are without a policy, the greater that particular difficulty will grow.
There is one other point to which I wish to refer before I sit down. It is suggested—the noble Viscount, Lord Maugham, spoke on this point—that compensation is not necessarily paid before entry. Now there are masses of people in this country who, unless compensation is paid to them before entry, will not be able to find other suitable accommodation. I suggest to the noble Lord who replied for the Government that that is another matter which is a reality and which ought to be taken into consideration by the Government in dealing with this very serious matter.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble Lord for his kindly reply. I do not intend to take up more than a few moments of your Lordships' time, but I should like to refer very briefly to the remarks which fell from my noble and learned friend Lord Maugham, because I think the point of view which he put before your Lordships is a little exaggerated, if he will allow me to say so. He read a paragraph from the Uthwatt Report to your Lordships, but he did not read quite the whole of it. The recommendation to which he referred is contained in paragraph 168:
"(d) On the Central Planning Authority or the Minister approving the acquisition map, notice of the approval and of the effect of the Order approving it should be given to persons having interests in the properties affected by public advertisement and by separate service so far as can be done from information in the possession of the acquiring authority, and where necessary by posting notices on the sites."
I am afraid that the noble and learned Viscount has a very poor opinion of local authorities.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, I do not know why my noble friend objects to that. I read the whole of it, down to the end.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, there is another part which the

685
noble and learned Viscount did not read, and I am coming to it in a moment. He seems to have a very poor opinion of local authorities, because he seems to think that they are going deliberately to disregard people to whom they can get access by not serving notices on them. The part which he did not read comes later in the following paragraph:
"The effect of the Order approving the acquisition map should, put broadly, be that the fee simple absolute in the various properties should by reason of the Order, if the Older so provides, or, in other cases, by due notice given by the acquiring authority pursuant to some provision in the Order, vest in the acquiring authority as at the date specified in the Order"—
and this is what the noble and learned Viscount did not read—
"or at the date specified in the notice, as the case may be."
I imagine that in the ordinary case the notice will be subsequent to the Order.
I prophesied to your Lordships that we should hear of the widow. The widow was introduced into your Lordships' House in the guise of the mother of the noble and learned Viscount's maritime friend, who may go away for a year; but if a person is absent from his property for a year great public improvements cannot be held up because he cannot have notice served on him. My interpretation of the proposal of the Uthwatt Committee is simply that it is made in order to avoid delays due to the case where the property owner cannot be found. At any rate, I am certain that as long as the noble and learned Viscount is in your Lordships' House, your Lordships will never allow a Bill to go through which does not contain a provision to meet such an elementary requirement of justice as that.
I have to thank your Lordships for the many speeches which have been made in support of the Motion. I was a little apprehensive when my noble friend on the Front Bench began by saying that at no distant date we might sit by the flesh-
686
pots of achievement. If that was all we were going to be given, I was not going to be very pleased; but as he was good enough in the end to accept the Motion, although he said "in principle".—and I do not know what that means—I am grateful to him for his consideration.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, I rather resent the suggestion that my account of the Report was in any way inaccurate, but, as my noble friend took the precaution of borrowing my copy, I will say no more. This is perhaps not the appropriate time to deal with the question.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CHILDREN'S BOOTS.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Southwood, I beg to ask the question standing in his name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, in view of public anxiety, especially among housewives, about the poor quality of children's boots, both in manufacture and on the repairing side, whether it is possible to release adequate supplies of the right kind of leather to remedy this state of affairs.]
VISCOUNT CLIFDEN: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Portal, I have been asked to reply to the question put by my noble friend Lord Listowel in the absence of my noble friend Lord Southwood. The leather supply position continues to be difficult, but it has lately been possible to make available rather larger quantities of the better kinds of leather. The position, particularly in regard to children's boots, is under constant review, and steps have been and are being taken to improve the production and repair of children's boots in regard both to quality and to quantity.
House adjourned.