Sitting of 5 December 1944

Preamble
The House met at Eleven o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SCOTLAND

    Wool Marketing (Committee)
    Major Kimballasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is yet in a position to make any statement with regard to the recommendation of the Scottish Hill Sheep Farming Committee that steps should be taken to establish a marketing organisation for Scottish wool.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): I have considered this recommendation in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. The question of a marketing organisation for Scottish wool raises issues affecting Great Britain as a whole and in view of the special features of this particular industry my right hon. Friend and I have decided to set up a small independent committee of which my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) has agreed to act as Chairman, to advise us on the major questions arising. The terms of the remit are rather long, and with my hon. Friend's permission I am circulating them together with the names of the members of the Committee in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Major Kimball: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a committee of representatives of wool producers has already been set up by the producers and has had many meetings, and is in favour of a Wool Marketing Board for Scotland? Will he give an assurance that that committee will be able to give full evidence
    324
    before the new Committee which is being set up under the chairmanship of the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove?
    Mr. Johnston: Most certainly. It is highly desirable that they should tender that evidence.
    The terms of reference are as follow:
    "To examine the pre-war arrangements for the marketing of wool by producers in Great Britain, and the changes introduced under war-time control; and having regard to the views and recommendations of the Committee on Hill Sheep Farming in Scotland, as set out in their Report of December, 1943, to the Secretary of State for Scotland, to consider whether the organisation of wool marketing after the war could be improved through the medium of a scheme under the Agricultural Marketing Acts, 1931–1933, or by any other means, and whether conditions and requirements in England, Wales and Scotland respectively are such as to necessitate separate and different arrangements in regard to wool marketing in any of these countries; and to report accordingly."
    The members of the Committee are:

    The right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot).

    The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. O. Evans).

    Mr. J. Bowman, District Secretary, Amalgamated Engineering Union.

    Mr. T. G. Henderson, Secretary, Scottish Milk Marketing Board.

    Sir Harold G. Howitt, D.S.O., M.A., F.C.A., J.P., Member of the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants.

    Teachers (Emergency Training Centres)
    Mr. Kenneth Lindsayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has taken any steps to set up emergency training centres for the training of teachers, or whether he proposes to utilise existing facilities for this purpose.
    Mr. T. Johnston: The National Committee for the Training of Teachers are satisfied, after full inquiry that the existing training centres are sufficient to provide for the training of the teachers required for prospective developments in Scottish Education, except as regards teachers of physical education. The Committee are at present endeavouring to obtain premises for the establishment of additional courses of physical education.
    Mr. Lindsay: Could my right hon. Friend say whether any steps have been taken to get into touch now with men and women in the Forces, with a view to prospective training?
    Mr. Johnston: Perhaps my hon. Friend will be good enough to put down that question, or allow me to write to him on the subject. I am not in a position to say now.

    Camp Schools
    Mr. Lindsayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of the camp schools are still in operation; what percentage of the accommodation is filled; and on what basis children are selected to attend them.
    Mr. T. Johnston: Four camp schools are still in operation and approximately 42 per cent. of the accommodation is occupied. Children still remaining in the camps were sent there under evacuation scheme arrangements and those who can return home will do so at the end of this month. I am at present in consultation with the three large local authorities who have had most experience in the use of these camps as to their future possible use.
    Mr. Lindsay: While I am glad to know that my right hon. Friend is in touch, is it not pretty serious when one of the camps has closed down and less than half are full? Will he use this golden opportunity to start some public boarding schools in Scotland?
    Mr. Johnston: That hardly arises out of the particular Question on the Order Paper. I think my hon. Friend would be well advised, knowing the difficulties of the matter, to allow the negotiations presently in progress to proceed.

    Building Industry (Recruitment)
    Mr. Lindsayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the first boys to complete the two-year pre-apprenticeship scheme to the building industry came from Ayrshire schools and that considerable difficulty was experienced in absorbing these boys into apprenticeship; and what steps he is taking to see that this scheme throughout Scotland provides a genuine transition from education to industry.
    Mr. T. Johnston: Of the 16 boys who completed a two-year pre-apprenticeship course for the building industry at Ayr at the end of last session 12 had been absorbed into the industry by the autumn, and 2 into other employment, leaving 2 unplaced. With regard to the second part of the Question, a scheme has been drawn
    326
    up by the Ministry of Works and the Ministry of Labour and National Service in consultation with the Health Departments as a temporary measure to overcome present difficulties in the way of recruiting and employing apprentices. The scheme aims at providing building work for the practical training of apprentices under craft instructors employed by building firms of standing. If boys have to be chosen from among a number of applicants, those completing pre-apprenticeship courses will receive prior consideration. Particulars of the scheme are given in a recent Circular issued by the Department of Health for Scotland, a copy of which I am sending to the hon. Member.

    Highlands and Islands (Medical Service)
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the special conditions in the Outer Hebrides, with regard to transport and communications and geographical factors, will be borne in mind in the framing of health legislation affecting Scotland; and if he can make a statement as to what conclusions have been come to regarding the Highlands and Islands medical service.
    Mr. T. Johnston: I am at present discussing with the various interests concerned the shape of the proposed new National Health Service generally and until those consultations are further advanced I am not in a position to make any statement about the Highlands and Islands medical service. The remarkable success which has attended that service and the other conditions to which my hon. Friend refers will be carefully borne in mind.
    Mr. MacMillan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a good deal of anxiety among medical men concerned and others that the special place accorded to the Highlands and Islands medical service may not be continued under the national service? Can he give an assurance on the matter?
    Mr. Johnston: I do not know any cause for that apprehension and anxiety. I have done by best to dispel it in the course of consultations.
    Mr. McKinlay: Could we have a guarantee that the administration of this scheme will not be transferred to London?
    Mr. Johnston: I think the answer is in the affirmative.

    Rural Housing (Western Isles)
    Mr. M. MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered proposals or representations from the county councils of Ross and Cromarty and Inverness for rural house-building reconstruction and improvement in the Western Isles; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. T. Johnston: I have received no proposals or representations such as are referred to in the Question but if the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars I shall have inquiry made.
    Mr. MacMillan: Will my right hon. Friend consider jogging these two county councils, who have such a bad past record in regard to housing, to get a move on, in view of the approaching end of the war?
    Mr. Johnston: The Question on the Order Paper is whether I have considered proposals or representations from these councils. I have not had any. Circulars have been sent to all county councils.
    Sir Herbert Williams: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it desirable that Scottish county councils should be jogged from London?
    Mr. MacMillan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that could very well be done from the Scottish Office in Edinburgh?

    Hydro-Electric Equipment (Scottish Firms)
    Mr. M. MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied that the needs of the hydro-electrical schemes in the Highlands for electrical equipment and supplies for the various works can be adequately met by Scottish firms; and whether they are receiving priority in the placing of orders for these supplies.
    Mr. T. Johnston: No constructional schemes have yet been laid before Parliament but the Board will naturally make every effort as and when schemes come into operation to have their requirements in equipment and supplies met so far as possible from Scots firms.
    Mr. Gallacher: Would the Secretary of State not consider laying it down as part of the scheme that the fitments should come from Scotland, because we have
    328
    had so many cases, where Scottish industry is concerned, in which the work has been done in England?
    Mr. Johnston: There are obviously parts of the equipment of which, under present conditions, it is impossible to obtain supplies from Scottish firms, and we do not want to hold up the scheme.

    Hill Sheep Farming
    Mr. Snaddenasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how far arrangements have been made to implement the major recommendations of the committee on the reorganisation of the hill sheep industry.
    Mr. T. Johnston: I am glad to be able to say that recent discussions with the various interests concerned have shown a large measure of agreement with the major recommendations of the Committee's Report, particularly with those bearing on the rehabilitation of hill sheep farms, and I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, as to action which might usefully be taken. I may also refer the hon. Member to the reply I have given to-day to a Question on the issue of wool marketing.
    Major McCallum: Is the Secretary of State aware of the great anxiety and worry that are caused to hill sheep farmers throughout Scotland and would-be tenants of hill sheep farms, owing to the uncertainty of action or no action on this Report?
    Mr. Johnston: There is no justification whatever for any anxiety as to non-action in the matter. We set up the Committee; we have done everything we can to stimulate agreement by the various interests in the matter, and I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that action will be taken.

  COAL INDUSTRY

    Samuel Commission (Recommendations)
    Mr. Alexander Walkdenasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether effect has been given to all the recommendations for improving the coalmining industry contained in the Report thereon of the Royal Commission presided over by Viscount Samuel, which was issued in 1026 [Cmd. 2600].
    The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George): It is not practicable within the limits of Question and Answer to give details, but broadly speaking effect has already been given to most of the Commission's recommendations.
    Mr. Walkden: Is the Minister aware that scarcely anything has been done in the matter of amalgamation in the last 18 years?
    Major Lloyd George: The Coal Commission which, under Part II of the Act, was charged with the duties of amalgamation, as I said in reply to a Question some days ago, decided in its first Report not to proceed with the matter during the war.
    Mr. Walkden: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman sure that everything possible has been done that should have been done in the last 18 years?
    Major Lloyd George: I am glad to say that my responsibility does not go quite so far back as that.
    Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Will the Minister pay particular attention to the recommendation of the Samuel Commission which says:
    "We come reluctantly and unanimously to the conclusion that the costs of production with the present hours and wages are greater than the industry can bear."

    Domestic Supplies
    Mr. Walter Edwardsasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware that the supplies of coal to the metropolitan borough of Stepney are much below the allocation allowed by his Ministry; and if he will state the steps proposed to be taken to ensure that persons in badly-bombed areas will be assured of domestic fuel supplies.
    Major Lloyd George: The four coal depots in Stepney were affected by a recent railway embargo during one week in November, and merchants' receipts during that month were slightly below their allocation. The deficiency was only six per cent., and this has subsequently been offset by the despatch of extra coal to these depots from Government stock. Adequate reserve stocks are held by the merchants at these depots. The allocation of supplies to the London region takes account of the special needs of occupiers of bombed premises, and merchants and
    330
    local fuel overseers will give special consideration to the needs of such consumers. In this connection, I would refer particularly to the provision made for such consumers in the Priority Deliveries Scheme, which I announced on 6th November.
    Mr. Edwards: How is it that, when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has made a scheme for priority customers, in the borough of Stepney alone for the past four weeks there have been for the merchants 750 tons below their allocation? Is he not aware that the number of registered customers has increased, and that if we are to carry on as in the past four weeks there will obviously be a shortage of coal in Stepney?
    Major Lloyd George: I can assure my hon. Friend that that is not so. The cause of the shortage was an embargo between 14th and 20th November. The actual stocks held at this moment are equal to four weeks' supply. We have also arranged for withdrawals from Government stocks to get over any difficulty in previous allocations.
    Mr. Edwards: In view of the fact that my information is different from that of my right hon. and gallant Friend, and in view of the importance of the subject, I have no alternative but to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Burkeasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if the regional and group production directors have taken any steps to improve the quality of coal supplies in the Burnley area so that householders may get more coal and less stone per cwt.
    Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir. Steps have been taken to impress on all colliery managements in the Burnley area the importance of keeping to a minimum the quantity of dirt in the coal produced, both by avoiding the excessive filling of dirt below ground and by eliminating it, by picking, washing, etc., on the surface.
    Mr. Burke: May I take it that we can expect a very considerable improvement?
    Major Lloyd George: I sincerely hope so.
    Sir Percy Harris: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that a very large percentage of the coal being distributed in London contains large lumps of stone,

    331
    which are quiet useless for heating purposes and are extremely heavy?
    Major Lloyd George: I shall be glad to have my right hon. Friend's information. I appreciate that there has been some deterioration, although, with exceptions, not more than one would expect during the war, because all the picking belts, where stones are removed, are very short of labour. If our coal officers are given information of cases which are unjustified, we will pursue them.
    Mr. Thorne: Is the Minister aware that the quality of the coal we are getting in London is very bad? In fact, the coal I am getting will not burn without being mixed with wood.
    Sir Wavell Wakefield: Why is the best coal going to Italy? Could not the best coal be kept here, and the stone be sent to Italy?
    Major Lloyd George: I can assure my hon. Friend that that is entirely contrary to the facts. There is no question of the best coal going out of the country.

    Joint Resources Board Report
    Mr. A. Edwardsasked the Minister of Fuel and Power why the confidential report on the coal industry is not made available to those able to benefit by it; how the news of its existence was allowed to leak out; and if any reports of this nature are in existence with reference to other industries.
    Major Lloyd George: On the first two parts of the Question, I have nothing to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 14th November. As regards the last part of the Question, I am informed that there are no other comparable reports.
    Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Is it not a fact that very misleading statements, particularly a recent answer by the Home Secretary, as to the cost of coal production of this country and in the United States are being made, those statements being based on a dollar-sterling rate of exchange which is at least double the real rate? Therefore, the American costs given should be at least doubled.

  PETROL ALLOWANCE
  Mr. G. Straussasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, in view of the
  332
  serious shortage of taxi-cabs in London, he will make a moderate concession in the petrol allowance for taxi-cabs.
  Major Lloyd George: When relaxation of the petrol rationing scheme becomes practicable, the position as regards taxi-cabs will be considered; but as I have already stated in reply to similar Questions, supply and other factors do not at present make it possible to relax the scheme.
  Mr. Strauss: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the present petrol allowance permits taxis to be used only for a limited number of hours a day, which causes considerable inconvenience, especially at railway stations? Is it not possible for some moderate concession to be made, even now, to ease the situation?
  Major Lloyd George: I cannot add anything to what I have said. As I said, as soon as it is practicable we will do everything we can to put these schemes into operation, but at present it is not possible. I have pointed out that, because of the special position in London, taxi-cabs receive a higher allowance there than in the provinces.
  Sir Herbert Williams: Is the Minister satisfied that every military vehicle in London is making necessary journeys?
  Major Lloyd George: I cannot say.
  Mr. A. Edwards: Is the Minister aware that most of the taxis in London are being used for sightseeing?
  Mr. John Dugdaleasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will consider the issue of petrol coupons to anyone volunteering to take back to their homes men in the Forces on leave whose trains arrive after the last omnibus has gone.
  Major Lloyd George: In view of the changed situation regarding leave for the Armed Forces in the New Year, I am in consultation with the appropriate Departments on this matter, but my hon. Friend will appreciate that the petrol supply situation must remain an important factor in reaching a decision.
  Mr. Dugdale: When may we expect the results of those conversations to be announced?
  Major Lloyd George: Fairly soon.

  EIRE (GERMAN AND JAPANESE NATIONALS)
  Mr. Alexander Walkdenasked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs how many German and Japanese subjects, respectively, are now resident in Eire.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Emrys-Evans): According to figures supplied by the Eire authorities, the information is as follows: The official staff of the German Legation is composed of six persons, together with three typists. The total number of Germans registered under the Eire Aliens Order is 284, of whom 136 are refugees. In addition, there are 223 Germans who are interned. The figure as regards Japanese is three persons, all of whom are connected with the Japanese Consulate.

  DOMINIONS (POST-WAR MIGRATION)
  Sir Geoffrey Shakespeareasked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is aware that there is a widespread belief in the Union of South Africa that His Majesty's Government are likely to discourage emigration after the war; and what is the attitude of His Majesty's Government in this respect.
  Mr. Emrys-Evans: I am not clear how the misapprehension to which my hon. Friend's Question refers, arose. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have made it clear to His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions, and have stated publicly in Parliament on more than one occasion, that, notwithstanding the trend of population in this country, they are for their part very ready to co-operate with Dominion Governments in schemes for assisted migration after the war, both as regards men and women demobilised from the Forces and as regards other suitable migrants. The matter is at present under discussion with Dominion Governments.
  Sir H. Williams: Is this policy known as the flight from Beveridge?

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Ex-Service Men (Retail Shops)
    Captain Stricklandasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he
    334
    will take any necessary steps to secure that no new shops shall be allowed to be opened within a reasonable radius of a similar shop occupied at the time of his or her call-up for military service by a unit of His Majesty's Forces until due notice has been served on that person if still living, so as to ascertain whether it is the intention of that unit to return to or reopen that shop, in which case no such newcomer shall be permitted to open within a specified time.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): The procedure suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend would, I fear, lead to great delay. But every ex-trader on the Board of Trade Register will be entitled to reopen his shop after the war, and, meanwhile, licences to open new shops are only granted where these are required to meet the public need or to enable men disabled in the war to establish themselves in business.
    Sir Joseph Lamb: In that case, would it not be possible for the man who has received a licence to obtain the whole of the goodwill?
    Mr. Dalton: I have given special instructions to our local committees who advise me on these matters that they are to take account of the interests of any traders who are on the Board of Trade Register; but my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion would involve great delay, because it would mean in some cases communicating with men in Burma before we could do anything.
    Mr. Bowles: Is there a similar committee to advise my right hon. Friend so far as the London area is concerned?
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, we have a committee for London.
    Captain Strickland: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that these men stationed overseas will have less chance of coming back and opening their shops unless some protection is given?
    Mr. Dalton: We shall not allow any competition with those men unless the committee holds that there is an urgent need among the local population.
    Mrs. Tate: What was the percentage of small traders on the Register in 1939?
    Mr. Dalton: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that question down.

    South Africa and Southern Rhodesia
    Sir Geoffrey Shakespeareasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that no facilities are given to British exporters to the markets of the Union of South Africa and Southern Rhodesia, in both of which markets are being captured by other countries; and if he will provide these.
    Mr. Dalton: Our exports to South Africa and Southern Rhodesia have fallen, owing to war conditions, but by a smaller percentage than our total export trade. I hope to be able to make a statement on export trade in the course of the Debate to-morrow.
    Sir G. Shakespeare: Is my right hon. Friend aware that unless action is taken quickly these markets will be lost to us permanently?
    Sir Patrick Hannon: Is there any truth in the allegation that, at the instance of the Department of Overseas Trade, contracts offered to this country are from time to time passed to the United States?
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir, I do not think there is any ground for such a statement.

    Toys (Price)
    Mr. G. Straussasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps to stop the present widespread profiteering in toys.
    Mr. W. J. Brownasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any statement to make on the subject of the price and quality of Christmas toys.
    Mr. Dalton: The prices of toys have been controlled, since April, 1943. There have been a number of prosecutions for overcharging, and I will gladly look into any cases which are brought to my notice. I have asked local price regulation committees to give special attention to this matter during the Christmas season. As regards quality, the range of available materials is very limited, and much ingenuity is being shown by toy makers.
    Mr. Strauss: Is the Minister aware that, in practically every toyshop, fantastic prices are being asked for rubbishy articles, and that this is seriously penalising the children of the country, many of whom will be unable to have any Christmas presents at all this Christmas?
    Mr. Dalton: I have taken special steps to increase the quota, and this will increase the supplies of toys available. The public ought not to buy rubbish, but should make complaint in the proper quarter.
    Mr. W. J. Brown: Is the Minister aware that the hon. Member for Rugby, who is not too well blessed with this world's goods, was charged 9s. at the Army and Navy Stores recently for a box of wooden squares covered with rough paint, and will he take steps to see that justice is done?
    Mr. Buchanan: Is the Minister also aware that this matter affects the children of serving men abroad, as it is impossible for the mothers of these children to buy toys, and that these women are much too worried already to complain about the matter; and will he not instruct his officers to make complaints, instead of leaving it to the poor women to do so?
    Mr. Dalton: We do our best in the matter, but the governing factor is the shortage of materials. I have done my best to increase the supply of toys; I have made Orders from time to time regulating the prices to be charged for them, and I look to the public to co-operate in bringing cases of overcharging to the right authorities so that we can deal with them. There have been no fewer than 45 prosecutions for overcharging.
    Mr. John Dugdale: May we know what penalties were inflicted in the cases where the prosecutions were successful?
    Mr. Dalton: Not without notice.

    Exports
    Mr. Manderasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the letter sent to him by the Wolverhampton Chamber of Commerce on the subject of export and post-armistice trade, he will now make a statement dealing with the points raised.
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. I hope to have an opportunity during to-morrow's Debate.
    Mr. Rostron Duckworthasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any British exports have up to the present shown an increase since the beginning of the year; and, if so, whether he can give the details.
    Mr. Dalton: Some British exports have increased and others decreased since the beginning of the year. I hope to publish, as soon as possible in the New Year, particulars for the whole of 1944, corresponding to those recently published for 1943 and earlier years.

    Children's Footwear
    Mr. Burkeasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that there is a shortage of children's gymnasium goloshes; and what steps are being taken to meet the demand.
    Mr. Dalton: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Hynd) on 7th November, of which I am sending him a copy.
    Mr. Burke: Is the Minister aware that there are manufacturers with stocks of these things, which are held up—I can give him the names—and that they are being badgered by education authorities, but cannot release them?
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. We have made provision, as I explained in my answer to the hon. Member for Attercliffe, for any education authority to get permits to enable them to obtain supplies. If my hon. Friend will give me particulars of any stocks held up, I will take steps to get them dispersed.
    Major McCallumasked the President of the Board of Trade if, when arranging the distribution of the new supply of children's Wellington boots to rural areas, he will ensure that the rural areas of the Scottish West Highlands and Islands are included in the distribution in view of the exceedingly wet climate there.
    Mr. Dribergasked the President of the Board of Trade how soon the new supplies of children's Wellington boots will be available in the shops; and approximately how many pairs of boots will be available in rural districts of the county of Essex.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Cookasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the shortage of rubber boots for Norfolk schoolchildren; and if he will take steps to improve the supply.
    Mr. Dalton: Some of these rubber boots should reach the shops before Christmas,
    338
    but I must repeat that the total supply is very small. I hope that each of the rural areas mentioned in these three Questions will receive its share.
    Major MacCallum: May I ask the Minister if, in view of the exceptionally wet weather in Scotland, he could allot a slightly bigger proportion to these areas?
    Mr. Dalton: I am afraid that on grounds of rainfall there would be many applicants.
    Mr. Driberg: Will there be, roughly, enough boots and shoes to go round and to provide one pair for each school child?
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. I explained in reply to an earlier Question, that the supply is very small indeed, and I am giving preference to rural areas for that reason.
    Mr. De Chair: Is the Minister aware that Italian prisoners of war are arriving in Norfolk wearing good rubber boots, and would it not be preferable that these boots should be given to British agricultural workers?
    Mr. Dalton: This is a Question about Wellington boots for children. In any case, the Italians are equipped, not by the Board of Trade, but by the War Office.
    Mr. Turtonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that there exists a shortage of children's boots, sizes nine and 12, in the North Riding of Yorkshire; and whether he will take the necessary steps to secure that an adequate quantity is made available to this county.
    Mr. Dalton: If my hon. Friend will let me know where this shortage is reported, I shall be glad to have local enquiries made.
    Mr. Turton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a shortage has occurred in the North Riding for the last 12 months, and that no action has been taken hitherto?
    Mr. Dalton: Perhaps my hon. Friend will tell me of individual areas in the North Riding.
    Mr. Thorne: Could the Minister give any reason why large sized boots, such as 10 and 11, are not being made? Why is it impossible for an hon. Member to buy a pair anywhere?
    Mr. Dalton: The matter of sizes is determined by the manufacturers. We are responsible for the total allocation of leather, and they seek to allocate it between the sizes to meet public needs.

    Aluminium Ware Manufacture
    Mr. Burkeasked the President of the Board of Trade how many licences for the manufacture of aluminium ware have been granted recently and when may the public expect to find supplies in the shops.
    Mr. Dalton: Twenty-one firms have applied for licences and these are now being issued. Supplies will be small at first, but some aluminium hollow-ware should be in the shops early in the New Year.
    Mr. Burke: Is the Minister aware that a statement was made that there would be supplies of these goods immediately, and that only two firms have got licences so far?
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. That is not the case. There were only 39 firms who made hollow-ware in the country. All were written to and asked if they wanted licences; 21 replied and are getting licences.

    Russia (Negotiations)
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can make a statement on the negotiations that have taken place with representatives of the U.S.S.R. on trade between the two countries and on the consultations between representatives of various industries, firms and the Russian representatives.
    Mr. Dalton: I have at present nothing to add to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Leslie) on 16th November.
    Mr. Smith: Will my right hon. Friend say whether the discussions and consultations have been satisfactory?
    Mr. Dalton: They are going forward. There are great complications on both sides, and special considerations to be taken into account, but they are being pressed forward actively.

    International Cartels
    Mr. A. Edwardsasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is in a position to state in how many British
    340
    cartel agreements did German industry participate before the war; whether he can give a list of the industries; whether such agreements have been subject to examination by official quarters; and in how many cases was there a clause according to which, in the event of war, cartel arrangements will be resumed after the termination of hostilities.
    Mr. Dalton: A substantial number of such agreements is known to the Board of Trade, and I will consider the possibility of drawing up a list of the industries concerned. I know of no case where such an agreement contains a clause providing for resumption after the termination of hostilities.
    Sir Herbert Williamsasked the President of the Board of Trade why an exit permit was granted to Sir Clive Baillieu to attend the International Business Conference at Rye, New York; and whether the views of His Majesty's Government are in any way represented by the Report presented by him in favour of the continuation of international cartels.
    Mr. Dalton: Sir Clive Baillieu attended this Conference as one of a number of representatives of British trade organisations, in response to an invitation issued by various trade associations in the United States. Nothing said or done at the Conference in any way commits His Majesty's Government.
    Sir H. Williams: Is this gentleman connected with any firm that belongs to international cartels?
    Mr. Dalton: I could not say.

    Toilet Paper
    Sir H. Williamsasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the shortage of toilet paper; and if he can take steps to arrange for an increased output.
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. As I informed my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) on the 7th November, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Production has already increased the allocation of material for this purpose. Since then, a further substantial increase has been arranged, but it will take a little time for the additional supplies to reach the shops.
    Mr. Woodburn: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information to the effect that a great deal of this paper is being used for printing pamphlets and other documents?

    School Blouses and Shirts (Materials)
    Major Kimballasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the acute shortage of plain coloured or white spun silk or thin cotton materials suitable for school blouses and shirts; and what steps is he taking to increase the supplies of these types of materials.
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir, but if my hon. and gallant Friend will let me have details I shall be glad to investigate the matter.

    Wool Control
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in connection with the control of wool he will endeavour to simplify the procedure of his Department in the designation, classification and allocation of wool, with a view to enabling the trade to carry on their business more expeditiously.
    Mr. Dalton: It is not quite clear to me what my hon. Friend has in mind; but, if he will give me particulars, I shall be glad to look into them.
    Mr. De la Bère: Does the Minister appreciate that, in the opinion of the trade, most of their problems are due to the chaotic control of the Board of Trade?
    Mr. Dalton: When they meet me, they place the blame elsewhere.
    Mr. De la Bère: My right hon. Friend will hear more about it.

    British Inventions, Russia (Patent Protection)
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, since the U.S.S.R. is not a signatory of the Berne Convention, he will take steps to ensure patent protection of the specifications of British goods sent to the U.S.S.R., or advertised or described in official Russian technical journals.
    Mr. Dalton: Patent protection in the U.S.S.R. for British or other inventions is afforded by Soviet law.
    Sir W. Smithers: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that he is the President of the Board of Trade for Great Britain, and stand up for the rights of British traders?
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir, but no representations have reached me that any British trader is suffering in regard to this matter.

    Blankets and Sheets (Allocation)
    Mr. Storeyasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in allocating supplies of blankets and sheets, he will give preference to the development areas.
    Mr. Dalton: Preference is given, not to particular areas, but, as stated in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Summers) on the 7th November, to particular classes of people with special needs.
    Mr. Storey: Will the Minister remember that, in the development areas, the stocks were very low, owing to the depression, even before the war; and will he therefore give some preference to these areas?
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir, I know that only too well, but I repeat that preference is not given to areas as such, but to particular classes of persons, and, if there is a particular area with large numbers of such persons, that area will get more.
    Mr. Bowles: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I know persons who cannot get them? What is the position? How do they get them?
    Mr. Dalton: Would my hon. Friend be kind enough to read the rather full answer which I gave on 7th November, to which I have referred?

    Paper Supplies (Allocation)
    Mr. Erskine-Hillasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the purpose of the setting up of the Moberley Committee; and whether that Committee is to decide the type of book which it is proper to encourage by a grant of paper.
    Mr. Dalton: This Committee advises me on the use of the small reserve of paper set aside for books of special importance which publishers cannot produce from their own quotas. The Com-

    343
    mittee's recommendations are largely confined to reprints of standard scientific, educational and religious books.
    Mr. Erskine-Hill: However well the Committee may work, does not this imply an interference with what is published, upon which a great many are agreed; and in view of that fact, will the right hon. Gentleman, as and when extra supplies become available, see that both the pool and those particular cases of individuals receive the greater part of the extra supply?
    Mr. Dalton: My hon. and learned Friend has another Question which covers part of that point. This Committee consists of publishers who advise me what books of special importance could be published by publishers who have already exceeded their quota. I think it is a good Committee, and it has done very useful work. The total of paper supply in the reserve is only 8½ per cent. of the total allocated to books.
    Mr. Wootton-Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no need for all this shortage of paper and that we are burning an immense amount of straw, which could be utilised for making paper?
    Mr. Erskine-Hillasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the intended destination of the increase in the paper ration for the current licensing period; and if he intends increasing the quantity given to the pool.
    Mr. Dalton: Of the extra 1,433 tons for the current four-monthly period, 800 tons are for the Services Post-war Education Scheme, 433 tons go to increase the publishers' quotas from 40 to 42½ per cent. of pre-war usage and the remaining 200 tons are for the special reserve, on the use of which the Moberley Committee advise me.
    Mr. Erskine-Hill: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the members of the pool were consulted on the proportion which could be given, and if not, would it not be much better that they should have a larger proportion?
    Mr. Dalton: I think that the allocation is as fair as we can make it, in view of the great pressure that we get, for example, for the production of post-war
    344
    education books, the demand for which cannot be met by publishers from the ordinary permit.
    Mr. Graham White: Has the right hon. Gentleman been advised that, owing to an alteration in the regulation with regard to over makes, the addition to supplies of the recent allocation will be almost negligible; and is he aware that the suggestion that this is any effective contribution to meeting the demand for books is as sensible as trying to irrigate the Sahara with a watering-can?
    Mr. Dalton: The position is not as bad as the hon. Gentleman suggests, and I think that the new allocation will result in a general increase. I will gladly discuss the matter with him, as I know he has it very much in mind.
    Rear-Admiral Beamish: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is not possible to obtain anywhere in London dictionaries either Spanish or French, and will he divert some paper for that purpose?
    Mr. Dalton: All that I can do is to pass on that information to the Moberley Committee, which I shall be very glad to do.
    Mr. Burke: Is any of this paper going to the manufacture of boots and shoes?
    Mr. Erskine-Hill: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I give notice that, in view of the importance of this subject and in order to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of making perhaps a clearer and fuller statement, I propose to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible occasion?
    Mr. Speaker: I have often pointed out that it is not a point of Order when notice is given to raise a matter on the Adjournment.

    Leather (Boot and Shoe Repairs)
    Mr. Henry Brookeasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can release more leather for boot and shoe repairs.
    Mr. Dalton: I shall be glad to allot more leather for repairs, as soon as supplies improve. Meanwhile, I have issued substantial supplies of rubber composition to repairers.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Convalescent Depot, Midlothian (Accommodation)
    Mr. McKinlayasked the Secretary of State for War why men discharged from hospital, after being wounded in Normandy, are living in tents at a convalescent depot in Midlothian, while in nearby camps prisoners of war are comfortably housed in huts.
    The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): The accommodation at convalescent depots was increased in order to take patients from North West Europe by the erection of marquees. The floors are covered with tarpaulins; they are heated by open fires and lit by electric light. I understand that convalescents are in fact no longer accommodated under canvas, but I am verifying this. The hutted accommodation in which the prisoners of war are housed lacks special facilities and is generally unsuitable for convalescents.
    Mr. McKinlay: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that moisture seeps in, and the men's blankets become damp; and is this a proper way to treat men who have just had hospital treatment—to turn them loose under canvas, after they have served at the front?
    Sir J. Grigg: The accommodation situation in this country is so difficult that I am afraid that cases of this sort are bound to occur from time to time. I do not think that they occur very often and I hope—and I am verifying my information—that it has now stopped in this particular instance.
    Mr. McKinlay: May I have an assurance that men sent to convalescent camps will have a first priority for any hut accommodation that may be available; and could not prisoners be put under canvas?
    Sir J. Grigg: I cannot give a categorical assurance of that sort as one does not know the circumstances in each case, but I will certainly give the assurance that we will do our utmost to avoid these occurrences.
    Mr. Gallacher: Surely there are a number of large houses in the country which are not occupied and which could be made available for this purpose?
    Sir J. Grigg: The whole pressure on me from this House for the last six months has been to release houses as far as possible, in order to make accommodation available for evacuees from London.

    Home Leave Scheme
    Mr. Quintin Hoggasked the Secretary of State for War what construction is being put on the words, "who have borne the main burden of battle in the fighting line," for the purpose of qualifying for the home leave scheme, announced by the Prime Minister on 17th November.
    Sir J. Grigg: The primary object of the scheme was the encouragement of the fighting man. Indeed before I put the scheme forward at all I considered very carefully whether in view of the fact that only a limited number of places could be created it ought not to be confined to troops in contact with the enemy. This, however, would have meant that some theatres would be cut out of the scheme altogether and I came to the conclusion that this could not be sustained, particularly as after five years of war, the base and lines of communication units tend to contain a higher proportion of men with long service overseas than the infantry. Moreover, I am very conscious that separation from home bears hardly upon those who are not actually in the front line as well as upon the fighting men. Quotas were therefore allotted to all the theatres concerned. As I said in reply to the hon. Member on 28th November, Commanders-in-Chief were advised to have regard to service in contact with the enemy and length of service overseas but, subject to this, full discretion was left to Commanders-in-Chief.
    Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend said the other day that he would consider letting the House know on what principles the different commanders in different theatres were using their discretion. Has he been able to take that matter further?
    Sir J. Grigg: I have not got the details from the more distant theatres yet. I understand that, in Italy, for the first convoy, the men chosen have in fact all come from troops in contact with the enemy. In the Middle East, they are chosen by ballot among people of between three and four years' service overseas, but I will supplement that later on, if I may.
    Mr. Woodburn: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain why publicity was given to the case of a man coming home who has been much less than three years abroad, as this has caused grave irritation among wives whose husbands have been away for much longer periods?
    Sir J. Grigg: I know that, and it was explained in the Prime Minister's original announcement that a system of leave primarily designed to encourage the men who are actually fighting, and a system of repatriation after long service overseas not confined to fighting men, do create certain inequalities of that sort. The only alternative would be to have no leave scheme at all.
    Mr. R. J. Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman place on record the importance of being careful in regard to the dates of the men going overseas, as in case of mistake great disappointment is felt by the men?
    Sir J. Grigg: I have not heard that there have been mistakes of that sort, but I will certainly go into the matter.
    Captain Cobb: Is the Minister aware that the discretion given to commanding officers resulted in Burma in men of the Royal Corps of Signals having their leave postponed, and in view of the great disappointment caused, can he tell us whether any steps can be taken in the near future to give leave to those men who have been overseas on active service for many years?
    Sir J. Grigg: There is a Question later on the Paper by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) and I am giving a full answer to it.

    Discharged Men (Civilian Clothing)
    Mr. Hugh Lawsonasked the Secretary of State for War if all men being discharged from the Army are now receiving civilian clothing on the full demobilisation scale.
    Sir J. Grigg: As far as I am aware all men entitled to an issue of civilian clothing are receiving the full scale.

    Eire Citizens (Parliamentary Franchise)
    Mr. Hugh Lawsonasked the Secretary of State for War what facilities he gives citizens of Eire, now serving in the British Army, to have their names placed
    348
    on the register as electors for the Parliament of Eire.
    Sir J. Grigg: I have received no request for any special facilities to be made available for this purpose.

  ORDERS AND REGULATIONS (MINISTERIAL EXPLANATIONS)
  Mr. De la Bèreasked the Prime Minister whether he will undertake that in connection with all future departmental and delegated legislation the responsible Ministers concerned shall make a short explanatory statement on the floor of the House of Commons to enable a comprehensive record to be contained in the OFFICIAL REPORT and to ensure that hon. Members are conversant with all such legislation introduced in this way.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): No, Sir. As explained by the Home Secretary on 26th May, 1943, it is already the practice to make a statement to the House on any subordinate instrument involving issues of considerable political importance. It would not, however, be possible or desirable to extend this practice to orders and regulations of every kind.
  Mr. De la Bère: Does not my right hon. Friend appreciate that it is not possible for hon. Members to follow many of the regulations which come up? Would it not facilitate hon. Members following these regulations, and also act as an additional safeguard against measures being introduced which have not been properly scrutinised by hon. Members?
  The Prime Minister: As far as I can make out, I think it would increase the procedure which my hon. Friend already considers too elaborate.

  GERMAN LONG-RANGE WEAPONS
  Mr. Norman Bowerasked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied that the Allies have adequate plans to prevent the Germans carrying out secret experiments in the further development of long-range weapons after the war.
  The Prime Minister: I certainly think it ought to be well looked after. We have a lot of regular people on the job and so have our American and Allied friends.

  GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (PAYMENTS)
  Mr. Shinwellasked the Prime Minister whether he can state the nature of the agreement between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the U.S.A. for the payment of goods and raw materials outwith the Lend-Lease agreement; whether payment will be made out of our foreign assets, or will the U.S.A. accept goods and material produced in Great Britain which may be made available for export.
  The Prime Minister: I must thank the hon. Gentleman for making me acquainted with the word "outwith" with which I had not previously had the pleasure of making acquaintance. For the benefit of English Members I may say that it is translated, "outside the scope of." I thought it was a misprint at first.
  It is our wish that our current dollar expenditure, including payment for goods and raw materials not obtained under Lend-Lease, should be met so far as possible out of our current dollar receipts in respect of goods and material produced in this country and otherwise. As a consequence of the arrangements which have been made, I hope that this purpose will, to a large extent, be attained.
  Mr. Shinwell: Does my right hon. Friend realise that that statement requires considerable amplification and elucidation, and that the point which concerns hon. Members—especially myself—and traders in this country is whether this is going to be one-way traffic which will have the effect of increasing the load of our foreign debt, or whether America will be prepared, in return for goods she sends to this country to accept goods from us? That is the simple point.
  The Prime Minister: I think my hon. Friend is going a little outwith the Question which he put.
  Mr. Shinwell: Does my right hon. Friend realise that to indulge in the one-way traffic is outside the scope of what is necessary in order to rehabilitate British trade?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think the statement I made to the House the other day, which was agreed in detail with our American friends, gave any sense of disappointment, but the special application of it, will, of course, be watched most carefully.

  OPERATIONS, FAR EAST (CASUALTIES)
  Captain Gammansasked the Prime Minister how many casualties have been suffered in the war against Japan by the British Empire and U.S.A. armed Forces, respectively.
  The Prime Minister: The figures are not immediately available. Furthermore, several Governments are concerned and would have to be consulted; and it is for consideration whether this information could be given without helping the enemy. So far as I am aware the United States Government have not published any such figures, but the brunt of the war against Japan is of course being borne by them.

  EXPORT TRADE POLICY
  Sir Wavell Wakefieldasked the Prime Minister if he is aware of the grave anxiety which at present exists among export manufacturers at their inability to re-open those overseas markets whose needs can be met without hindrance to the war effort; and what steps he is proposing to take to co-ordinate the activities of the various Government Departments concerned to remove this anxiety and facilitate the development of our export trade before it is too late.
  The Prime Minister: The questions to which my hon. Friend refers are too wide to be dealt with within the compass of a Parliamentary answer. But there will be a full discussion to-morrow during the Debate on export trade and the industrial change-over from war to peace. I hope the House will not be over optimistic.
  Mr. Bowles: Could we have a Debate on the import trade as well?
  The Prime Minister: On the spur of the moment, I should have thought that imports and exports have such a well-established relation, that there must be a large borderland which would be common to both.
  Sir W. Wakefield: Shall we be told to-morrow that active steps are being taken to co-ordinate the work of the various Government Departments to promote our export trade?
  The Prime Minister: I ought not to anticipate the speeches which will be delivered by Members of the Government.
  Sir G. Shakespeare: Is the Prime Minister aware that there seems to be a complete ban against all British exports to South Africa, even when questions of Lend-Lease are not involved? Would he give his personal attention to it?
  The Prime Minister: I will certainly asked to be kept informed on that point, which is most pertinent to the Debate fixed for to-morrow.

  KING'S BADGE (PUBLICITY)
  Major Studholmeasked the Prime Minister if he will consider giving further publicity to the King's Badge in view of the fact that so few members of the public are yet aware of its significance or of its appearance.
  The Prime Minister: The wearing of the Badge by those to whom it is granted is, I think, the best form of publicity for an award of this nature. But I hope also this Question and Answer will be a help.
  Major Studholme: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask whether he will consider having illustrations of the King's Badge put in the Press, because so very few people seem to know what it is when they see it worn in the button-hole?
  The Prime Minister: I think the Press will no doubt take notice of the very reasonable suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend. I should certainly think it desirable, and a help, if the newspapers published a reproduction of this decoration, which is so honorably earned, in order that people may wear it with all the respect it deserves.
  Major C. S. Taylor: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he has now considered the possibility of extending the award of the King's Badge to all those honourably discharged from H.M. Forces?
  The Prime Minister: I must ask for notice of that question.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Civil Defence Services (Post-war Credits)
    Mr. Kirbyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Govern-
    352
    ment will reconsider their policy of granting to certain sections of the Civil Defence Services a post-war credit of 6d. per day as from 1st January 1942, and grant instead this post-war credit to all sections of the Service, including the civil dead mortuaries staff, from a date coinciding with the commencement of the Battle of Britain.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peake): No, Sir. The terms and purpose of the scheme of post-war credit for service in the Armed Forces, as outlined in the White Paper of February 1942 (Cmd. 6336), are incompatible with the grant of similar credit for service under the normal conditions of civil employment or for service before the 1st January, 1942, under Civil Defence conditions.
    Mr. Kirby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the present arrangements are causing grave dissatisfaction in the ranks of the Civil Defence Services? Will he be good enough to reconsider this?
    Mr. Peake: I do not know about that, but obviously we cannot do more for the Civil Defence personnel than we are prepared to do for members of the Armed Forces.
    Mr. Kirby: Will the Government be good enough to consider the granting of this post-war credit to the Armed Forces as well as the Civil Defence Services?
    Mr. Peake: I am afraid I cannot commit the Government on that.

    War Damage (Re-sited Factories)
    Sir G. Shakespeareasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the War Damage Commission will make a cost-of-works payment for the rebuilding of a war-damaged factory on another site in the same area if such is in accord with the proposed town planning scheme.
    Mr. Peake: No, Sir. Under the provisions of the War Damage Act, 1943, the War Damage Commission can only make a cost-of-works payment in respect of works executed for making good war damage to the hereditament which has sustained the damage. If, for whatever reason, the war damage to the hereditament cannot be made good, the Commission cannot make cost-of-works payment but has power to make a value payment.
    Sir G. Shakespeare: Would my right hon. Friend endeavour to clear up some of these glaring anomalies which arise between the War Damage Commission policy and the policy of the planning authorities?
    Mr. Peake: This matter was very fully discussed during the Debate on the Town and Country Planning Bill. Clearly it would be unfair that the owner of war-damaged property should receive more under two separate Acts of Parliament combined than the owner of undamaged property taken over for planning purposes should receive under one Act alone.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is that not vague and unsatisfactory?

    Post-war Budget Proposals
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give, as far as he can, a pro forma Budget for the year after the cessation of hostilities in Europe.
    Mr. Peake: No, Sir. It would be premature to do so at this stage.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is it right to introduce Bills with such heavy commitments as those indicated in the Gracious Speech, when the Government cannot know what the post-war economic and financial position of the country will be?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is asking for an expression of opinion instead of a statement of fact.

    Motor Vehicles (Taxation)
    Wing-Commander Hulbertasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is now in a position to make any statement with regard to the representations made to him for the revision of the basis of motorcar taxation.
    Miss Wardasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now make a statement with regard to the revision of motor-car taxation.
    Mr. Peake: No, Sir, not yet.
    Wing-Commander Hulbert: May I ask my right hon. Friend, when?
    Mr. Peake: As my right hon. Friend said about a fortnight ago, "At an early date in the present Session."
    Miss Ward: Can my right hon. Friend give us a definition of "an early date"?
    Mr. Peake: It is not quite the same thing as a very early date.
    Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate, quite seriously, that this question of a revision of motor vehicle taxation has a profound bearing on the revival of our motor industry, and that any statement which is to be made should not be unduly delayed? It ought not to await the Budget Statement itself.
    Mr. Peake: I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no suggestion that it should await the Budget Statement. There will be a statement, I expect, very shortly.

    National Insurance (Income Tax)
    Mr. A. Edwardsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes that in future social insurance benefits, old age pensions and children's allowances, are to be aggregated with the recipient's total income for Income Tax purposes.
    Mr. Peake: The broad principle which the Government have in mind regarding the treatment for Income Tax purposes of contributions and benefits under the National Insurance Scheme is, as my right hon. Friend indicated in his speech in the House on 3rd November, that contributions should be deducted and benefits should be included in computing the taxpayer's taxable income. I cannot at this stage add anything to that statement.
    Mr. Edwards: Will the Minister bear in mind that when one purchases an annuity, a great part of it is treated as return of capital, and that only a small proportion is taxed?
    Mr. Peake: I will certainly bear it in mind, but I am not quite sure that that is the fact.

    Sterling Balances, India
    Mr. Toucheasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is proposed to continue the existing arrangements as regards blocked sterling balances in India by which the sterling payable by this country automatically increases with rises in local costs, as this system places a premium on inflation.
    Mr. Peake: These questions are kept under continuous review both by His Majesty's Government and by the Government of India. The House will realise

    355
    that the Government of India have every inducement to counteract inflation and will be aware that they have in fact been successful in stablising the price level in India during a period of almost 1½ years. I must add that it is quite incorrect to describe these balances as blocked. They are available for expenditure anywhere within the sterling area.
    Sir Alfred Beit: In view of the fact that there is no such body in India as the Select Committee on National Expenditure, what steps are available to His Majesty's Government to see that they are not being over-charged for goods and services provided by India?
    Mr. Peake: I do not think that it is only upon the activities of the Select Committee on National Expenditure that we depend for seeing that we do not pay too much for proper services.

    National Income, 1938–39
    Mr. E. P. Smithasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the Treasury's estimate of the total national income for the financial year ending 5th April, 1939.
    Mr. Peake: The net national income for the year in question is estimated at approximately £4,640,000,000.

  CIVIL SERVICE (W.L.A. CANDIDATES)
  Mr. Naylorasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if members of the W.L.A. are to be allowed to enter for the Civil Service examinations on the same terms as and concurrently with members of the Forces.
  Mr. Peake: Under the Report of the Committee of the Civil Service National Whitley Council (Cmd. 6567), members of the Women's Land Army will not be eligible for the vacancies reserved to ex-Servicemen and ex-Servicewomen, since the definition of ex-Service adopted by the Committee for this purpose included only the Services defined in the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944, that is to say, the Armed Forces, the corresponding Women's Services, the Merchant Navy and Mercantile Marine.
  Mr. Naylor: Is there any possibility of that decision being reconsidered?
  Mr. Peake: I do not think so, because if we were to admit all those for preference who have been engaged in war service of any kind then, obviously, there would be no real preference left for men who have been doing the actual fighting.

GREECE (DISTURBANCES, ATHENS)
Dr. Haden Guest(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he can give the House any information on the occurrences in Athens on Sunday, 3rd December, when the Greek police are reported to have fired on a demonstration of children and youths, and what are the casualties, in killed and wounded?
The Prime Minister: So far as has been ascertained, the facts are as follow: The Greek organisation called E.A.M. had announced their intention of holding a demonstration on 3rd December. The Greek Government at first authorised this but withdrew their permission when E.A.M. called for a general strike to begin on 2nd December. The strike, in fact, came into force early on 3rd December. Later in the morning the E.A.M. demonstration formed up and moved to the principal square of Athens, in spite of the Government ban. On the evidence so far available I am not prepared to say who started the firing which then took place. The police suffered one fatal casualty and had three men wounded. The latest authentic reports give the demonstrators' casualties as 11 killed and 60 wounded. The demonstration continued during the afternoon but there was no further shooting, and by 4.30 the crowd had dispersed and tranquility was restored.
It is deplorable that an event like this should take place in Athens scarcely a month after the city's liberation and feeding. Greece is faced with the most desperate economic and financial problems apart from the civil war which we are trying to stop. We and our American Allies are doing our utmost to give assistance and our troops are acting to prevent bloodshed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh," and "Hear, hear."] Sometimes it is necessary to use force to prevent greater bloodshed. The main burden falls on us, and the responsibility is within our sphere. That is the military sphere agreed upon with our principal Allies. Our plans will not succeed unless the Greek Government

357
and the whole Greek people exert themselves on their own behalf. If the damage of four years of war and enemy occupation is to be repaired, and if Greek life and economy are to be rebuilt, internal stability must be maintained and, pending a general election under fair conditions, the authority of the constitutional Greek Government must be accepted and enforced throughout the country. The armed forces must be dependent on the Greek Government. No Government can have a sure foundation so long as there are private armies owing allegiance to a group, a party or an ideology instead of to the State and the nation.
Although these facts should be clear to all, the Left Wing and Communist Ministers have resigned from the Greek Government at this dangerous crisis rather than implement measures, to which they had already agreed, for the replacement of the E.A.M. police and guerrillas by regular national services.
Mr. Gallacher: Why did they resign?
The Prime Minister: I say they have resigned. I am stating facts in answer to the Question. I thought the House would rather like to have a full answer. In addition, the E.A.M. leaders have called a general strike, which is for the time being preventing the bread which we and the Americans are providing reaching the mouths of the hungry population whom we are trying to feed.
Our own position, though as I have said it is a burden, is extremely clear. Whether the Greek people form themselves into a monarchy or a republic is for their decision; whether they have a Government of Left or Right is a matter for them. But until they are in a position to decide, we shall not hesitate to use the considerable British Army now in Greece, and being reinforced, to see that law and order are maintained. It is our belief that in this course His Majesty's Government have the support of an overwhelming majority of the Greek people. Their gaping need is to receive relief for their immediate requirements and conditions which give them a chance of earning a livelihood. In both of these ways we wish to help them, and we are working with experts, financial and otherwise, to do so; but we cannot do so if the tommy guns which were provided for use against the Germans are now used in an attempt
358
to impose a Communist dictatorship without the people being able to express their wishes.
Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: While appreciating the great delicacy of the situation, I desire to ask the Prime Minister two questions arising out of his statement. Is he aware of the very grave anxiety felt in all sections in this country with regard to what has taken place, and will he undertake to keep the House informed from time to time in the immediate future so that we may know what the situation is from day to day? Will he also take care that the Government watch their step in this matter, so that their action in suppressing disorder shall not take the form of support of any one faction? We all recognise that law and order must be maintained but there is evidence, I think, that mistakes have been committed on both sides. This terrible shooting affair On Sunday suggests at any rate that a mistake was made by the Greek Government and that they are to blame for that action. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that, if the Armed Forces of the Allies are to be used in support of the Greek Government, the British Government will impress upon them the need for a conciliatory policy and not assume that, because they have the support of the British Forces, they can take such action as they like?
Sir H. Williams: Are we not engaged in a Debate rather than asking questions?
The Prime Minister: The answer to the first part of the question is that the newspapers give full and continuous reports from Greece and, in the event of anything important occurring which is not public property, I shall always be ready to answer any questions. I have no other wish than to keep the House fully imformed. I quite agree that we take a great responsibility in intervening to preserve law and order in this capital city which was so lately delivered by our troops from the power of the enemy. It would be very much easier for us to stand aside and allow everything to degenerate, as it would very quickly, into anarchy or a Communist dictatorship, but, having taken the position that we have, having entered Athens and brought food and made great efforts to restore its currency, and done our utmost to give it those conditions of peace and tranquility which will enable the Greek people as a whole to

359
vote on their future, we do not feel that we should look back or take our hands from the plough. We shall certainly not be able to do so but we shall certainly take care that the Greek Government, which we are supporting—or perhaps acting in conjunction with would be a better expression, because General Scobie is for the moment in charge of order—is not used to fasten any rule of a faction—I think that is the word—on the Greek people. They will have the fullest opportunity of a free election. The Government of Mr. Papandreou three days ago represented all parties, including the Communists and E.A.M., whose representatives left suddenly on the eve of a quite evident attempt to overthrow the settled Government.
Dr. Guest: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think some further information might be given? Is it not a fact that the demonstration which was fired on consisted of 200 unarmed children and youths? I quote from "The Times" correspondent. Is it not a fact that the firing went on for an hour, savagely and violently—I again quote from "The Times"—and is it not further a fact that there is a great deal of feeling in Greece that the collaborationists have not been dealt with, and that the security battalions which were appointed by the Germans to fight against the Greek movement are being maintained by the present Government; and is it not time that the whole Athens police force was disarmed, as they have shown themselves unworthy and untrustworthy to keep the peace?
The Prime Minister: As far as the incident is concerned, I have told the House that His Majesty's Government reserve judgment upon it. It is a shocking thing that there should be firing by police forces on unarmed children. That is a matter which we should all reprobate. We should also reprobate the massing and the leading of large numbers of unarmed children to a demonstration, the scene of which had been banned by the Government, in a city full of armed men and liable at any moment to an explosion. So much for that. The other point of substance is the question of the security battalions. That is not to be dismissed as easily as the hon. Member has done. They came gradually into existence very largely, according to evidence which I have most carefully sifted, during the last
360
year, in a large measure to protect the Greek villagers from the depredations of some of those who, under the guise of being saviours of their country, were living upon the inhabitants and doing very little fighting against the Germans. I could continue indefinitely to deal with these points but I am sure that I should be trespassing upon the indulgence which you, Sir, have already shown me.
Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: May I press the Prime Minister to answer a question put by me, which I do not think he did quite answer? I appreciate that the British Government are holding the ring for some future election in Greece, and the question I put to him is: Will he assure us that, so far as the British Government are concerned, any support that we give to the Government of Greece is accompanied by recommendations that the Greek Government should adopt a conciliatory attitude towards all sections in future?
The Prime Minister: Oh, yes certainly, a conciliatory policy, but that should not include running away from, or lying down under, the threat of armed revolution and violence.
Sir Percy Harris: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether, in addition to the military authorities, we have a political representative to advise the Government on political problems in Greece—a representative in first contact with the situation? I have in mind someone similar to my right hon. Friend the Member for Stockton (Mr. Harold Macmillan), who represents our interests in Italy. Is there anybody in Greece in a similar position?
The Prime Minister: We have an Ambassador in Greece with whom we are in hourly consultation. Telegrams arrive with the greatest frequency, the wires not having been cut—so far. The right hon. Member for Stockton is attached to the staff of General Wilson, the Supreme Commander in the Mediterranean——[HON. MEMBERS: "Alexander."] Well, General Wilson, the former Supreme Commander in the Mediterranean, who is at this moment carrying on until the changeover takes place—and is frequently referred to by him for advice on the political aspects of the military measures which he has to take.
Dr. Guest: I wish to move the Adjournment of the House to discuss the grave situation which has arisen in Greece

361
as a result of the firing by the Athens police on a demonstration on Sunday, 3rd December, as a matter of urgent public importance.
Mr. Speaker: I am afraid I could not accept the Motion. Quite obviously the hon. Member can put down an Amendment to the King's Speech.
Mr. A. Bevan: There is an Amendment on the Order Paper dealing with foreign policy, which I understood from you, Mr. Speaker, last week, you do not propose to call. If an Amendment to the Gracious Speech is put on the Order Paper relating to this matter, could we have your guidance as to whether you would call it for Debate?
Mr. Speaker: I will consider it. That is all I can say now.
Mr. Bevan: Further to that, may I respectfully suggest that, in the circumstances, the reason for not accepting the Motion for the Adjournment falls? We either should have an opportunity for an immediate Debate or, in my respectful submission, you, Sir, are obliged to address yourself to the question whether this is a matter of immediate and urgent public importance. May I further point out that there is deep disturbance in the country on this matter, and deep anxiety among the Armed Forces lest it may appear that they are to be used for purposes for which they were not originally mobilised? May I therefore suggest to you, Sir, that you accept the Motion for an immediate Debate?
Mr. Buchanan: May I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, in reference to your answer to the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) that we can debate this matter on the King's Speech by means of Amendment, that that is not saying whether the matter is urgent or not. The Motion suggested by the hon. Member says that the matter is of sufficient urgency to be debated to-day, and not some other day. I put it to you that this matter is so urgent that the Debate ought to take place at once, whatever view one has on the merits of the subject, on which I express no opinion—I submit that this matter is so gravely urgent that not another day should elapse before the House of Commons discusses the facts. After the cross-examination of to-day the Government must see that it is urgent, not merely for the House of Commons to state its
362
view, but for the Government's position to be stated. May I ask, Sir, that you should make a statement on the point of the urgency of this matter and not whether we could have a Debate on the Address in reply to the King's Speech?
Mr. Bowles: May I put one other consideration to you, Sir, and that is that General Scobie's ultimatum expires at 12 o'clock to-morrow night, which adds to the urgency?
Sir P. Harris: Would it not be quite in Order, if anybody were fortunate enough to catch your eye, Sir, to raise the subject to-day?
Mr. Speaker: In reply to the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), in the general Debate upon the King's Speech the matter can be raised to-day.
Mr. Buchanan: May I point out that while a Member may be called, that is not a reply to the issue? The issue is that the House of Commons wants to discuss a matter of definite urgent importance—not as one of a group of important matters in the King's Speech, but as a definite matter of urgent importance. Could I ask you, Sir, to give a definite Ruling, because this is urgent and important?
Mr. Speaker: I gather that the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) wants to discuss the firing by the Greek police upon a Greek procession. No Minister in this House can answer for that, and therefore it is not a definite matter. The question, therefore, becomes rather a general matter of policy towards the Greek Government, and that is hardly a definite matter.
Dr. Guest: My moderation in framing my question in order not to excite antagonism, should not be accepted as an excuse for putting off a matter which is, in fact, of very urgent public importance, because it involves the possible issue of civil war in Greece. With all respect to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, he is not fully informed of the situation—and neither am I. We want to debate this matter and I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, and I appeal to the House, that we should have the Adjournment in order to debate this matter now, because it is one on which I believe this British House of Commons could come to a unanimous agreement, which would be very helpful in bringing the issue to a close.
Mr. Shinwell: I understand you to have said, Mr. Speaker, that this question can be raised by any hon. Member in the course of the general Debate to-day on the Address. May I ask, with great respect, whether it is not the case that you agreed that to-day should be devoted to the subject of social insurance, and if that Debate should be interrupted by a long discussion upon events in Greece would not that be a violation of the agreement that has been reached by hon. Members? My second point is that you have said that this is not the responsibility of the British Government, but in fact the Prime Minister has admitted that General Scobie is in charge.
The Prime Minister: Pardon me. I should not like my hon. Friend to be in error. In fact, General Scobie was not at the time exercising the plenary responsibility which has now been taken.
Mr. Shinwell: That in no wise affects the point I am putting. General Scobie is our military representative on the spot. Moreover, my right hon. Friend has stated that there is a Resident Minister on the spot. Unfortunately, the Resident Minister is on the back benches opposite, the right hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Harold Macmillan).
The Prime Minister: I never said he was on the spot. In answer to a general question on political guidance being available for the military in the theatre now concerned, I said that in Athens we had an Ambassador and that there was available for General Wilson the right hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Macmillan), who had been specifically mentioned; but I was speaking of the general principle on which our affairs are carried on, and not with reference to the exact location of the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Shinwell: As my right hon. Friend has interrupted me, I will put my point of Order in another form. If the Prime Minister seeks to absolve His Majesty's Government of all responsibility, that is one matter, but if he accepts a measure of responsibility for the events in Greece and for general administration in Athens is not that a matter for this House to consider?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) has put two questions which really cross each other out. He asked, first, whether to-day was not
364
to be devoted to national insurance, and would it not therefore be a breach of faith, so to speak, to turn aside to something else. I had intended that to-day should be devoted to national insurance, but if hon. Members of that party wish to take the Debate away from national insurance to Greece it can be done. As far as the responsibility of the British Government is concerned, that has nothing to do with me.
Mr. A. Bevan: May I call attention to the fact that the Prime Minister in his statement specifically said that the Forces under the control of His Majesty's Government will be used to prevent civil disorder in Greece, and that reinforcements are already on the way, so that His Majesty's Government are now, through the Prime Minister, accepting responsibility for the maintenance of order and for the disarming of the forces of E.A.M.? Does not that, therefore, fix the responsibility directly upon this Government and upon this House? Therefore, may I respectfully suggest to you that all the conditions that are required for the Motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) are satisfied—that here is a matter of urgent, immediate and public importance which ought to lead you to accept the Motion which he has moved to enable the House to debate this matter at the earliest possible moment?
Mr. Speaker: I regard this matter as very close to an operation of war, and if we were to have Motions for the Adjournment on definite matters of urgent public importance where it is a question of the conduct, or possible conduct, of a general in control in a theatre of war, I think that would be a very great mistake.
Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. I want to join in pressing the urgency of accepting the Motion for the Adjournment on the ground that General Scobie attacked the demonstrators before the demonstration took place. General Scobie is our military representative there, and it is conceivable that his action may have encouraged the rashness and folly of the police. That is a responsibility of this Government and this House, and I suggest that the matter be accepted as a subject to be discussed on the Adjournment.
Mr. Neil Maclean: In view of what has happened in Greece and in Belgium, and also, earlier, in France, is it not necessary for this House to discuss whether the policy that is being pursued in the countries that we are liberating is the proper policy, and whether we are not allowing men to be placed in power who were actually working with the Fascists in the past, and, consequently, are not acceptable to the people of those countries?
Mr. Speaker: That question is far too wide to be considered as a definite Motion.
Sir Richard Acland: Is it not clear that this House should have an opportunity for the widest possible Debate on foreign affairs during this week? If the Amendment in my name on that subject is inadequate, then I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you would favourably consider an Amendment on this issue if it were put on the Order Paper to-night by a sufficient number of hon. Members?
Mr. Speaker: I do not propose to treat this matter as one of definite, urgent public importance. Hon. Members who object can always put down a Motion criticising my Ruling.
Mr. Driberg: May I, with great respect, Mr. Speaker, put one point arising out of what you said? Several hon. Members on both sides of the House who would normally take part in such a Debate on foreign affairs, have already exhausted their right to speak in the general Debate on the Address. Is that not another reason why it is desirable that they should be given this opportunity?

AGRICULTURE (PRICES)
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I desire to inform the House of new arrangements for fixing agricultural prices. I would like to emphasise that these arrangements were decided upon before the recent meeting of the Agricultural Wages Board. I am afraid it is rather long but it will govern procedure for the next four years. In my speech in the House on 26th January, 1944, I said that there were three questions relating to the fixing of agricultural prices by the Government which the Government were willing to discuss with representatives of the industry:
366

(1) The collection of economic and financial data which would be acceptable both to the Government and the industry as a basis for price discussions.

(2) The procedure for using these data.

(3) The means of relating the system of guaranteed markets and fixed prices to the four-year production plan, including the harvest of 1947.

After discussion with the National Farmers' Unions of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the Workers' Unions, agreement has been reached on each of these questions. The economic data to be used for price discussions between Departments and the National Farmers' Unions will be based on financial accounts relating to different types of farming and sizes of farms, and statistical material relating to costs of production, collected by means acceptable to the Government and the industry. These data will be made available to the workers' unions who will be given an opportunity of expressing their views. In February of each year there will be a review by the Agricultural Departments in consultation with the National Farmers' Unions of the general financial position of agriculture in the United Kingdom, based on the above economic and financial data and any other relevant statistical material which is available.
The price decisions reached by the Government following this review will apply (a) as regards crops, to the prices of crops from the harvest of the following calendar year: i.e. following the review in February, 1945, prices will be fixed for the crops from the 1946 harvest: (b) as regards milk, to prices from 1st October of the current calendar year: and (c) as regards livestock and eggs, to prices from 1st July of the current calendar year. It is contemplated that during the period of the four-year plan, ending in the summer of 1948, some change will be necessary in the character of our agricultural output to meet changing national requirements in the transition from war to peace. Broadly, the change will mean a gradual expansion of livestock and livestock products and a reduction from the high war-time levels of certain crops for direct human consumption.
The Government have already announced their desire to encourage a sub-

367
stantial increase in milk production and a revival in the rearing of cattle and sheep for meat production. To this end an assured market and guaranteed minimum prices are being provided for milk, fat cattle, sheep and lambs, and calves produced during the four years up to the summer of 1948. Actual prices will be considered at each annual February review, and subsequently fixed by the Government. The shortage of feeding stuffs occasioned by the war has necessitated a substantial reduction in pig, poultry and egg production. It is the intention of the Government to encourage an expansion of production of these commodities to the fullest extent permitted by the supplies of feeding stuffs which can be made available. A market will be assured throughout the four-year period for all fat pigs and eggs which are offered for sale. Prices will be considered at each annual February review and subsequently fixed by the Government. An assured market will be maintained for cereals, main crop potatoes and sugar beet up to and including the crops, harvested in 1947. The prices of these crops will be considered at each annual February review and subsequently fixed by the Government.
It is recognised that in the event of an important change in the situation such as might arise from a sudden and substantial change in costs it may be necessary to conduct a special review. The economic and financial data to be provided for the purposes of either an annual, or a special, review will include an appreciation of the economic and financial effects of any such substantial change in costs. There will be no automatic adjustment of prices; all relevant data will be taken into account and—except that no downward adjustment will of course be made in the guaranteed minimum prices for milk, cattle and sheep—the prices of all the above products will be subject to adjustment upwards or downwards. Account will also be taken, in fixing these prices, of any changes that may be required during the four year period in the character of the agricultural output. It must be contemplated that, concurrently with a relaxation of pressure—when this becomes possible—for the maximum production of certain crops, e.g. cereals and potatoes, prices of those crops will be reduced.
368
In the event of any modifications being considered necessary, to meet the changing circumstances of the transition period, in the present methods and marketing machinery by which these assurances are implemented, discussions with representatives of the farmers and of the trades concerned will take place. Separate consideration will be given to the case of fruit, vegetables, early potatoes, wool, flax and hops.
The Government have also decided that there will be no change in the acreage payments or the general level of prices for the principal crops from the 1945 harvest, namely cereals, potatoes and sugar beet. This decision does not preclude minor adjustments in seasonal, area and grade prices which may be considered desirable after discussion with producers' representatives. Details of the prices for individual commodities will be given in separate announcements.
Mr. Barnes: With reference to the very important statement which the Minister has just made, I feel that the new procedure will be generally welcomed in the House and by all parties interested in the stability of British agriculture. However, I think the Minister will appreciate that the statement is of such importance, and so far reaching, that hon. Members would desire to read it carefully before making definite observations. I would like to express appreciation of the new procedure which seeks, for the first time, to ascertain facts upon which we can apply a price regulation, and I would like to ask the Minister whether, in addition to consulting the National Farmers' Union and the workers' unions, he would take steps for consumer consultation on the basis of this procedure?
Sir Joseph Lamb: While thanking the Minister for his statement, and while I know that the industry will appreciate it as a concrete statement, may I ask if he will continue the discussion with the industry with regard to a long-term policy? This, of course, is a four-year programme. I would ask him to continue the discussions with the industry, particularly in relationship to other industries in this country and the Hot Springs Resolutions.
Earl Winterton: May I support my hon. Friend in asking that question? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make it plain that this is only an interim policy.

369
Will he also be a little careful about the point put by the hon. Member for East Ham South (Mr. Barnes) because there is an understanding between agriculture and the Government not to bring in all other interests in the country?
Mr. Price: In view of the importance of the statistics and costings, on which the prices are to be based, may I ask the Minister whether the agricultural research stations, universities and economic departments will be asked to furnish figures, together with the Farmers' Union?
Mr. W. J. Brown: The Minister has made a very important statement and many of us feel that we would like to consider it further. There were six Amendments on the Paper dealing with the subject of agriculture and I understand, Mr. Speaker, that, at your discretion, you decided not to call them. I do not quarrel about that—I do not envy anybody the job of deciding what Amendments should be called—but if we are not to have a Debate on the King's Speech, would the Minister indicate how we are likely to get an opportunity of discussing agriculture at an early date, including the very important announcement made to-day?
Mr. Boothby: I would ask the Minister to bear in mind the desirability of framing a comprehensive cereal policy dealing with wheat, barley and oats, and thus keep a balanced relationship and not to make sharp differentiations between them in price.
Mr. Edgar Granville: May I ask the Minister whether it is his intention to publish any of the accounts to which he referred as a basis of the figures, and whether these accounts, received from the various branches of the Farmers' Union, were current accounts, or referred to bad years before the war?
Mr. Henderson Stewart: The Minister said in his statement that special consideration would be given to fruit and vegetables, in other words, horticulture. Do I understand that the statement refers only to agriculture and does not include horticulture?
Mr. Turton: As it is clear that we cannot discuss this important matter by way of question and answer, may I ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether we shall have an opportunity before Christmas of
370
discussing the important statement which has been made by the Minister of Agriculture?
Mr. Clement Davies: It is obvious we cannot deal with the many topics involved by way of question and answer, and I am sure the Minister of Agriculture would desire a Debate. If it is not possible to have another day, could not the House sit on Monday so that agriculture could be debated properly?
Mr. Hudson: I would venture to remind hon. Members, including those who put questions to me, of the great difficulties we were in last year——
Earl Winterton: On a point of Order. May I ask whether we cannot have an answer from the Deputy Prime Minister to the questions which have been put to him? How can we discuss a matter of this kind by question and answer? We are entitled to ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will give an extra day for agriculture. The questions had been put when the Minister rose. Cannot we have an answer from the Deputy Prime Minister?
Mr. Hudson: A number of Members put questions to me on the statement——
Earl Winterton: But we want a Debate. Several of my hon. Friends have asked a perfectly reasonable question whether we can have a Debate. May I ask you, Sir, whether we shall have an opportunity of putting that question afterwards to the Lord President of the Council?
Mr. Speaker: Certainly, the noble Lord can put the question.
Mr. Hudson: I am at liberty to answer questions that were put me on my statement. Hon. Members will remember the grave difficulties we were in last year over the question of price fixing because there was no agreed basis. The farmers' organisations put forward certain accounts, we put forward others, and there was no accepted basis. We spent 11 months negotiating with all sides of the industry to try and get some agreed method of collecting statistics. These statistics will be collected by impartial persons, that is, by the advisory economists attached to universities and colleges. In the Bill which I brought forward, and which the House was good enough to pass recently, setting up a national advisory service, I specifically excluded these men from the national

371
service in order that there should be no question that they were absolutely impartial and were appointed and employed by the universities and colleges. These are the men who will be responsible for collecting the data on a large scale. The provincial centres will be at liberty to publish their data, and the collected data will also be published. This is purely a procedural matter and is the first big step towards providing a means of getting an agreed policy. I want to preserve the distinction between this, which is pure machinery, and the question of policy. You cannot settle policy until you have machinery, and this is the first step towards getting permanent machinery going.
Mr. Granville: On a point of Order. In view of the fact that on Friday there are to be Debates on Burma and rural housing, and in view of the interest there is in agriculture, may I ask, Sir, whether you will reconsider the allocation of subjects to be debated on Friday?
Mr. Speaker: It must be recognised that other hon. Members attach great importance to Burma and rural housing.
Mr. Loftus: Everything will depend, I take it, on costs of production as certified by these experts. Will those costs be purely financial costs, or will they take into account the maintenance of the fertility of the soil, which may multiply the purely financial aspect?
Mr. Evelyn Walkden: May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he recognises the importance of this issue in relation to housewives with their shopping baskets, to the value of the £ in the workers' pay packets, to the question of subsidies, and to everything that is connected with the post-war dietary of the nation and the prices that workers will have to pay? Whether we disagree with the proposals or not, they ought to be debated, and I would like to ask whether we can have an opportunity for a discussion?
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): It is really very unusual, when a Minister is waiting to answer specific questions, to have a sudden demand for a statement on Business. If the noble Lord had waited a moment I should have been prepared to get up, but he has no precedence over other hon. Members in putting
372
questions. The Amendments to the Address to be called are a matter for the Speaker. It is obvious that there are claims for other Debates, and a claim for a Debate on agriculture should be put through the usual channels and addressed to the Leader of the House in order that it can be considered before the Christmas Adjournment with other subjects which other Members may consider of importance.
Earl Winterton: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's rebuke, and may I ask whether he is aware that the whole agricultural interest has been demanding a Debate for months past? He must have regard to that. Although a few hon. Members who represent agricultural constituencies apparently do not want a Debate, the great majority of them do, and other hon. Members as well. The right hon. Gentleman must have regard to the urgency of the matter.
Mr. Attlee: Certainly, and these matters will be taken into account through the usual channels. They have not come to me personally.
Sir J. Lamb: I do not wish to appear ungrateful for the Minister's statement, but he did not answer my question. It was whether my right hon. Friend would continue discussions with the industry with regard to long-term policy?
Mr. Hudson: That does not arise out of this particular question, which is a question of machinery.
Mr. MacLaren: May I ask if the statement we have heard to-day commits the House in any way specifically to a policy without our making any decision? Is it purely machinery? If it is purely machinery, one can understand it, but if there is something more to it and the House is being committed to something in the nature of a definite policy, surely the statement should be discussed by the House.
Mr. Hudson: As I explained, it is purely machinery.

AGRICULTURE (PRICES)
  CIVIL ESTIMATES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1944)
  Estimates presented—of further Sums required to be voted for the service of the year ending on 31st March, 1945 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 2.]
BILLS PRESENTED
  LOCAL ELECTIONS AND REGISTER OF ELECTORS (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL
  "to continue in force the Local Elections and Register of Electors (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1939"; presented by Mr. Herbert Morrison, supported by Mr. T. Johnston, Miss Ellen Wilkinson and Mr. Westwood; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 2.]
  WAGES COUNCILS BILL
  "to provide for the establishment of wages councils, and otherwise for the regulation of the remuneration and conditions of employment of workers in certain circumstances"; presented by Mr. Ernest Bevin, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Attlee, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Archibald Sinclair, Mr. T. Johnston, Mr. Ernest Brown and Mr. McCorquodale; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 3.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  KING'S SPEECH

    DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS
    [Fourth Day]
    Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [29 th November]:
    "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:
    Most Gracious Sovereign,
    We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—[Captain Sidney.]
    Question again proposed.
    12.55 p.m.
    Mr. James Griffiths: Last Wednesday, the opening day of this Debate on the King's Speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), speaking for the whole of our party, made an appeal to the Government and to the House. He asked that we should dedicate this new Session of Parliament to the fulfilment of the promises which Parliament and the

    399
    Government have made to the people of this country. He particularly emphasised the desirability of giving some measure of priority to those items of legislation mentioned in the King's Speech, to which the country attach a great deal of importance and which they are rightly expecting that we should pass at the earliest possible moment. Since my right hon. Friend made this statement, supplemented as it was by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) speaking on Friday, we have had two replies upon this aspect of our Debate from the Government. We had a reply from the Prime Minister on Wednesday and a reply from the Foreign Secretary on Friday. Those replies turned round two phrases, one used in the King's Speech and the other used by the Prime Minister. The King's Speech indicates that the Government propose to proceed with legislation on the lines mentioned in the Speech "as opportunity serves." The Prime Minister qualified that by saying that the Government would proceed with legislation as opportunity serves and within the time that is left to this Parliament.
    I would like to deal with these two phrases and to put some questions to my right hon. Friend who is to reply on which we would like clarification. It is because we are disturbed and disappointed at the hesitancy of the language in the King's Speech, which has been accentuated by the replies we have had, that we asked for an opportunity of returning to this aspect of this Debate before turning our attention to specific problems during the rest of the week. I would like to say a few words about the question of the time that is left to this Parliament. That time is conditioned by the impending General Election. We know, too, that the General Election in its turn waits upon the termination of the war against Germany in Europe. I notice that since last week there has been a tendency in some Conservative sections of the Press to try and create a feeling of prejudice against my party by trying to saddle on it the responsibility of trying to return quickly to party politics. I notice, for example, that the "Daily Telegraph" to-day talks about the prospects of a return to party politics, due largely to Socialist initiative.
    I am a member of the party executive, and I want to make the position of our
    400
    party clear about the problem of the General Election. There need be no ambiguity about the position of our party. The trouble is that there is ambiguity about the position of other parties, but none about ours. We have made a statement about it, carefully considered and weighed, and publicly issued to the whole country on 7th October. That statement will come before our party conference next week for their approval or rejection—a perfectly proper, democratic procedure. As a party we are not afraid of any charge or accusation of seeking wickedly to return to party politics. As we understand it, the democratic system which we have in this country, which has been built up after centuries of effort and struggle, depends upon parties for its real operation. If during the last few years we have suspended parties, it is because of the impelling reasons of national safety and security, and we believe that, as soon as conditions permit, it is desirable, if we are to retain our democracy, that we should return to the party system.
    We have, as I say, made our position clear upon this question, and there are three things about it I would like to say, because they are brought out clearly in the statement our party has issued. There are, first, when we think the election ought to take place; secondly, what kind of election we believe it should be, having regard to the issues involved, and thirdly what the position of our party is. If I may claim the indulgence of hon. Members, I should like to read short quotations from our statement, which clearly show what our view is on all these points. First on, when it should take place, say—
    "The Parliament elected in 1935 has exceeded its normal time by four years. As soon as possible, having regard to the international situation and to the need for giving the electors, especially those who are in the fighting Services, a full and fair opportunity not only of voting, but of appreciating the issues involved, a General Election must take place."
    I put it to any hon. Member belonging to any Party in the House of Commons: Do they disagree with that? Do they think this House should go on voting itself extended terms of life, and do they disagree with the view we have put forward that when it takes place it shall take place on real issues, not on artificially created ones; and in particular that there should be the fullest oppor-

    401
    tunity for the men and women who are serving in the Forces to have an opportunity of voting in this election, and of appreciating the issues involved. That is when we think the election ought to take piace—when those conditions are satisfied.
    Secondly, on how is it to take place, we say: It is essential that it shall be an election which shall give a real alternative to the people of this country. We therefore reject out of hand any attempt or suggestion that there should be what the people of the country know now as a "coupon Election" when the next Election comes. Thirdly, the position of our own party is made abundantly clear in this sentence:
    "When it is time for the House of Commons to be renewed the Labour Party, proud of the share it has taken in winning the War and preparing for the Peace, will go before the country with a practical policy based upon the Socialist principles in which it believes and will invite the electors to return a majority pledged to support a Labour Government to implement that policy."
    That is the position of the Labour Party on the question of a General Election, when it should take place, what kind of Election it ought to be, and the position of our party. By that we stand, and when the election comes we shall seek to fight in the certain belief that we do not believe the people of this country want to go back to the old Britain but want to go forward to a new Britain—of security and opportunity.
    That is the future. In the meantime, what are we to do with the time that is left? How long it is, how short it is, we do not know, and I shall not speculate. The other day the Prime Minister did commit himself to an estimate. Speaking in this House on 31st October, on the Second Reading of the Prolongation of Parliament Bill, he used these words—he had already given a review of the whole of the circumstances that will have to be taken into consideration in deciding the time of the Election:
    "It follows therefore that if events should take the course I have indicated it would seem that, roughly speaking, there is no likelihood of a General Election for from seven to nine months from now."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st October, 1944; V. 404, c. 665.]
    That is, seven to nine months from the end of October. For the purpose of what I want to say I will accept that as being as careful and competent an estimate as
    402
    can be made by anyone. A month has already gone, so that instead of saying seven or nine months we should say that six or eight months are left to us. What are we to do with that time? That is a subject to which I wish to devote myself and to say something for my Party?
    We say it is our duty as Parliament, it is the Government's duty to Parliament and the nation, to use every available moment of time that is left to carry through as many of the measures outlined in the King's speech as can be accomplished in that time. We say we owe a solemn obligation to the people of this country not to use opportunities as they come, not "as opportunity serves"; we believe we ought to go very much further, and that is our major conflict with the words in the King's Speech and the replies of the Government. We believe we ought not to wait until opportunity serves, we believe that for this purpose we should create opportunity in order to bring about the fulfilment of this programme. If we make up our mind to do it, we can carry through a great deal of this programme. It may be said that we cannot carry through all of it. That is all the more reason why we should carry as much as we possibly can. This programme, which I know, covers a very wide field, foreshadows something like 12 or more Measures. It may be we cannot carry all of these but we can carry a lot of them, I am certain.
    I am like many of my hon. Friends; this is our first Parliament, maybe our only one. We have had an example of how this great instrument, this Parliament, can work quickly when there is the will to work quickly. I have been in this House of Commons in one day's Sitting in which 40 Measures were passed, because we were agreed about it, because there was the sense of urgency, there was the war. Are we to send a message to the people of this country that we are only going to tackle business quickly when there is a war, that this instrument of Parliament cannot work quickly for peace, that it can do its job well and quickly when it is a question of war but that when it is a question of peace we dawdle and waste opportunity? We would not wait for opportunity, if this was a war programme; we would create opportunities every day. It is essential that we should send a

    403
    message to the people in this country, and wherever they are serving and fighting for us outside the country, that we shall be as urgent and as quick and determined and resolute about our peace programme, as about our war programme. If any other idea gets out to those lads in the Forces, it may be a disaster for this country.
    I urge that we should make up our minds that we shall use every moment and create opportunities. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. A. Greenwood), speaking for all of us here, said we were prepared to consider and accept any changes that are required—changes in the hours of sitting, the re-establishment of Standing Committees, extension of the days of sitting. We are prepared for the next six or eight months, to work as we have done throughout the war, to carry out and implement as much of this programme as we can. In six or eight months, it may be argued, we cannot carry through this programme fully. Then let us do as we do for war, settle priorities, making up our mind what part of this programme we think ought to be carried out, and give it the first preference. Let those Bills come first.
    There are three great groups of problems which our people are anxious and worried about, and for which they are looking to us to find a remedy. First, there is the question of homes. We are to discuss that later in the week. Secondly, there is the question of jobs. That is to be discussed to-morrow. Thirdly, there is this question of security from want, the abolition of fear and want. Let us be under no misunderstanding about this: The experience of the last 20 years has sunk deep into the minds and hearts of our people.
    I very often contrast the mood of people in this war and in the last war. In the last war, which came as a kind of bolt from the blue, as a kind of intrusion in our life, people looked forward to the end of that war as the time when they would go back to the old days. There was a nostalgic longing to go back. The important thing about the mood of this country in this war is that people are longing for the victorious end of the war, and they are determined to go on until it has ended victoriously, but their longing
    404
    for the end of it is accompanied by apprehension about what will take place after it. That is the central feature about the minds of people. That is why these measures of social security have gripped the imagination and the minds and hearts of our people. We would say that high among the priorities which we ourselves would fix for the legislation which we ought to debate and pass into law in these next six or eight months stands this group of social measures—family allowances, the national insurance measures in their two forms, the general one and that for injury allowances, and the health services. The injured men are looking to this House.
    We would put these high, and in asking the Government to devote these six or eight months to a real attempt in this House of Commons to implement this programme of national insurance, I urge upon them that it is now two years since the Report by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir W. Beveridge) was presented to the Government and the House. It is 20 months since we debated the Report in this House, and when we did so statements were made, 20 months ago, on behalf of the Government. I want to quote them. Lest it be said that I am quoting one side against the other, I propose to quote the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Home Secretary, both of whom took part for the Government in the Debate. The Chancellor said:
    "the Government will press forward with the preparation of a Bill or group of Bills, and, when this work has been completed, they will review their policy, and Parliament will have an opportunity of pronouncing on the scheme."
    In the course of the Debate I and several other Members had criticised the Chancellor. I think he deserved criticism, and I think so now, because of the reservations he made. Therefore, in his reply he used these words:
    "No reservations that I have made will affect the speed and vigour of our preparations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1944; Vol. 386, c. 1678.]
    That was 20 months ago. The Home Secretary speaking in the same Debate two days later said:
    "we shall arrange for a limited but special staff to be concentrated on the general work of preparation. … We cannot give a date … but we are going to lose no essential time. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February, 1943; Vol. 386, c. 2047–8.]

    405
    I put this point. It is 20 months ago since these pledges and promises were made in this House by the Government spokesmen. In the Debate upon national insurance and social insurance my right hon. Friends promised that the preparation would be hurried forward with vigour and no essential time would be lost. We are entitled to ask the Government, Are they ready now, are these Bills ready, any of them or all of them? I want to ask this question in this way. Are we to have any or all of these Bills presented to us this Session? If so, which of them, and in what order? Can we have an idea of the Government's time-table? Can we be told how many of these Bills will be presented to the House before Christmas, and how many before Easter? In other words, is there a time-table? We urge that there should be one. We attach tremendous importance to this next six or eight months being effectively used by this House to carry out the promises that the people have accepted from us. The Government and the House of Commons have promised this legislation to the people of this country. Are we going to say, "There is no time; there is only six or eight months"? In six or eight months we can do a great deal. I put this question to my right hon. Friend, and ask him, not only for myself but for the whole of my party, to answer it. I want to be perfectly frank. The replies that we have had so far leave us completely unsatisfied. We believe that there has been a dodging of the opportunities to introduce this legislation. I would rather put it perfectly frankly like that because I know that then I shall get a frank reply. We are not satisfied with the answer that there is no time, and because of that we have raised this Debate.
    This Parliament and this Government, in which we all share, have made great calls upon the people of this country—calls for great sacrifices, calls for great efforts. No call that we have made upon the people of this country—and these are greater calls than have been made in the history of this land before—has gone without a complete answer from the people. They have responded magnificently. That White Paper, published last week, is a testimony to the effort of the common people of this country. We have asked so much from them, and they have given so much in answer to our call. What are
    406
    we going to give them now? When the war in Europe comes to an end, some of our men—we hope a large number, but that is to be decided by military considerations—who are fighting our battles all over the world, will come back. When the war in Europe is over it is also very clear that a large number of the men and women now engaged in war work will be released from war factories, and will begin to take other jobs. Coming from an industrial area, I know—and my hon. Friends know it too—that there is a word growing up in the industrial areas: the word "redundancy." People are becoming redundant. In other words, they will not be wanted at their present jobs in three or four months' time. They are worried, and they are looking to us. I hope we shall get from the Government the answer that in the next six or eight months we are going to get down to the job of implementing the promises that we made to the people.
    Recently an article appeared in the "Spectator." I do not know how many right hon. Members read it. It was written, anonymously of course, by an officer serving with the British Liberation Army. I hope that members of the Government and Members of the House of Commons will read it. It is a disturbing article. I do not know, but it may be that it overdraws the picture one way or the other; but the editor of the "Spectator," commenting upon it, said that what the writer said in the article was confirmed by much that he himself had heard from the war factories, and, even making allowance for the possibility of exaggeration, there was much evidence that among a very wide section of our people there existed these ideas and this mood—because, remember that what we shall have to face at the end of the war is a mood. If the spirit in which the men come back is wrong, it may be a very bad thing for this country, and a very bad thing for this Parliament. The article summed up by saying that the men whom the writer was privileged to lead, fine fellows, brave fellows, great fighters, courageous men, were distrustful of politicians. He had recently been engaged in trying to get men to register for the vote, and they said to him, "It does not matter." He said that he was appalled by the cynicism, the scepticism, and the distrust of Parliament, and of everything that we say; because of the gap between what we say

    407
    and what we do: because what we say and what we do do not correspond.
    I have friends working in the Army Educational Corps, and what they say confirms the statement that these young people are afraid, distrustful, concerning what they are coming back to. They remember what happened to their fathers after the last war, and they are afraid that the same thing is going to happen to them. In the next seven or eight months we have a chance, by the way we implement this programme, to determine whether these men come back to find their distrust justified, or come back satisfied that we have not only called upon them to do things in war, but have used every opportunity to see that they come back to a Britain better than the Britain they left. For five years we have called upon the people of this country. They have kept faith with us. We must keep faith with them too.
    1.23 p.m.
    The Deputy-Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I have listened with great interest to what my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) has said. He has spoken with his usual cogency. I want to make a statement on behalf of the Government, although I think that Members should have been satisfied by the speeches made by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. I would like to deal specifically with the points raised by my hon. Friend. I think it is very important to remember that this is a Parliament, and that you cannot throw things through in large and complicated Measures in the way you would throw something through quickly because it is immediately necessary for the war. You have got to take some time over it. I would ask Members to be very careful not to give people the idea that these things are very easy, that it is only a kind of Government cussedness that prevents them getting along. Believe me, these questions are very complicated.
    I was a little disturbed at what my hon. Friend reiterated about the length of time that the Government took to consider these schemes. That point was made also by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir W. Beveridge), in his very interesting speech. There were one or two things which he omitted, and which I might mention now. He omitted
    408
    to say that when he made his scheme he also asked for two other schemes, for the health service and for full employment, and that those had to be worked out by the Government. They were prerequisites of his scheme. The policy there involved an immense amount of detailed work. I want to remind hon. Members again that it is one thing to be able to work day in day out on a scheme, and quite another thing to have to work on the details of a number of schemes when, at the same time, you are already very heavily burdened with other work. I do not think that that is quite realised. You can get work done for you by officials, you can get work done for you by secretaries; but, if you are a responsible Minister, it ultimately come down to you, working, and working hard, on the details.
    These great Measures took up an enormous amount of the time of people who, from the departmental offices they hold and from their weight of experience and importance, were necessarily burdened by an immense amount of other work. In a Government it comes down to a comparatively small number of people who must take decisions, and they cannot take those decisions lightly. I myself have not had the heavy departmental responsibilities of some of my colleagues: I have not been perhaps so closely engaged on the detailed examination of these proposals; but even I found a pretty big addition to my other work. Also, the day-to-day work of carrying on the war is, at the same time, very heavy. There is the work of Parliament; and that is quite heavy on Ministers. If you look at the Prorogation Speech you will see that this House itself has got through a great deal of legislative work. The Government have also taken part in international conferences, again involving the consideration of very far-reaching questions, on which decisions had to be come to, which necessarily fall very largely on the same group of Ministers.
    When you look at these proposals in detail, I think you will find that they are not matters, necessarily, of party controversy. Government committees and meetings of Ministers that discussed these proposals spent many long hours on them; and I can assure hon. Members that they were not taken up all the time in inter-party squabbles—far from it. Members of the same party, looking at the same proposals with their background of depart-

    409
    mental experience, will take slightly different views. That is the main problem in these schemes: the equities between various classes of citizens. They are not very easy. Hon. Members opposite know vastly more than I shall ever know about workmen's compensation. They know that that side of the thing is not simple. I ask hon. Members to believe that there never has been any obstruction of these schemes: work has gone on continuously. But it is inevitable, from the nature of these schemes and the fact that they had to be considered by people with very big responsibilities, in the middle of the war, that they should have extended over many weeks.
    Mr. David Grenfell: My right hon. Friend has said that questions of equity are concerned in all these schemes. Does he not attach full importance to what my right hon. Friend has said: that those questions of equity will be emphasised, acerbated, sharpened, and deepened immensely when the men come back, disappointed with what has been done while they were away?
    Mr. Attlee: I am afraid that my hon. Friend has not understood my point. My point was that you have to assemble into one scheme a number of provisions of various kinds, relating to various categories of persons. I was referring to the equities between different classes, such as widows and so on, which have to be worked out to get a fair balance. All of us who have been in the House some time know that, when you are discussing these things, there are a great many detailed points on which hon. Members will insist, and I think we ought to be very careful to get these things right. I only put that as a preliminary point.
    Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: My right hon. Friend has made a very interesting statement. He said that, in the discussions on all the Measures coming before the House, there was no real party issue. That seems to be a very important statement. Does it mean that it is on administrative details that difficulties are arising?
    Mr. Attlee: I am afraid my hon. Friend did not quote me quite correctly.
    Mr. Lindsay: I have tried to.
    Mr. Attlee: I am not being offensive, but my hon. Friend did not quote me quite correctly. I was referring to this particular group of proposals. I did not say that no political question ever arose. I said that a great amount of the work done did not involve party political considerations, but was taken up with administrative details. I said that a great amount of the detailed work was not a matter dividing the parties on political differences. I am sure any hon. Member with experience of these things will know what I mean.
    The hon. Member for Llanelly quite reasonably put the question about what we are able to do in this Session. I think anybody who is an experienced Parliamentarian will agree that the Gracious Speech contains a very heavy legislative programme. For any peace-time period, it would be an extremely heavy programme. The Bills that are indicated there fall, broadly speaking, into three groups. First, there are the annual Bills, most of them giving an occasion for debate, though not in very much detail. Then there are a number of Bills which must be passed within a specified time. That is why you cannot afford a priority programme based entirely on the preferences of hon. Members for certain Measures. There are a number of Bills which must be passed within a certain specified time. Some of these are Bills that come forward fairly easily, but others are really quite detailed and quite important. They arise out of other legislation already passed by this House. Then, there are a number of Bills, some dozen or two dozen, perhaps, which are essential for the carrying on of the war and for dealing with matters that will arise immediately after the peace with Germany. All these have to be got on with. Then we come to the reconstruction Bills. There are a large number of these and we find that groups of hon. Members in all parts of the House are interested in them, some in one and others in another. I am sure it would be a great thing if all hon. Members could feel as much interested getting through the Bills in which other hon. Members are interested as in those which are their own pets. That would be extremely helpful.
    The Government were, I think, right, with so heavy a programme, to strike a note of caution. The hon. Member for Llanelly has said quite rightly that it is a dangerous thing not to fulfil promises.

    411
    It would have been wrong for the Government, having regard merely to the volume of legislation with which we have to deal, to say specifically that all these things could be passed into law this Session. We were bound to strike a note of caution. There is another factor, too, which is quite incalculable, and that is the length of the German war. As the hon. Member for Llanelly has explained, and he backed it up with quotations from an excellently-written document produced by the Labour Party, there are reasons why, in a democratic country like this, as soon as conditions allow—physical conditions, conditions of the waging of war and conditions that are going to give electors and would-be elected fair opportunities—there ought to be a General Election. I think that is common ground. No one can say when that situation will arise, but we all hope that, as soon as possible, we may bring the war against Germany to a victorious end, but it has been stated, and I think everybody agrees, that you cannot plunge into a General Election until you have finished the German war.
    That is a date which we cannot fix, and that brings an element of uncertainty into the implementation of the programme outlined in the King's Speech. Therefore, we have set out quite fairly that we are going to try to do our best. Our intention is to make the greatest possible progress that we can. With regard to that other group of Bills I mentioned, the annual, essential ones, we all want to get them through or at least as far forward as we possibly can.
    There are the social insurance proposals. The Prime Minister, in his speech on the Address, said they were in the forefront, but he was unable to give a complete time-table. I think that, on reflection, the hon. Member for Llanelly will see that it is quite impossible to give an exact time-table. There are the various Bills which have to go forward at different times to be passed by certain dates and so on, but I hope that the Bill providing for family allowances will be presented very soon, and I hope that the Industrial Injury Bill will not be very long behind it. I cannot say when the other Bills will be presented, because an immense amount of work has to be done on them, but my right hon. Friend is using the utmost vigour to get these Bills forward and get the drafting completed. There, again, we
    412
    must remember that there is a very heavy strain on the quite limited number of skilled draftsmen in this country. It is rather a limiting factor and you have to consider it.
    Dr. Haden Guest: Does what the right hon. Gentleman has said about draftsmanship mean that a lot of preparation is necessary to be applied to the Bill for the comprehensive medical service? The Ministry of Health has been working on it for about three years. Surely, they have arrived at some definite definition?
    Mr. Attlee: These Bills have been the subject of discussions in this House, and it is really quite impossible to begin drafting a Bill before we have got a considerable way towards agreement.
    Mr. Lindsay: I would really like to get this point clear, because I was very interested in the way the Government got the Education Act through. That, I think, took about 18 months in the drafting. If it is really a question of a shortage of draftsmen in the country, or in the Government offices, I think we ought to be told.
    Mr. Attlee: I mentioned it as one of the factors concerned. You cannot work your officials or Ministers more than a certain amount, and we are already working very long hours. It is a fact, which everybody knows, that there is not a superabundance of skilled draftsmen in this country, and if you are to get a Bill through the House you must have it properly drafted. I have seen plenty of Bills take a very long time in this House through bad drafting. I do not think hon. Members realise the large amount of legislation which has come before the House in the last year. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) is always trying to suggest that the real difficulty is disputes and so on——
    Mr. Lindsay: I was only asking the question.
    Mr. Attlee: Yes, but it is the second time, and I have already said that these proposals are agreed and will come before the House, and that, therefore, the hon. Member's point does not arise. Has my hon. Friend got the point?
    Mr. Lindsay: Yes, I have got that point, but I notice that there is a dispute among the doctors.
    Mr. Attlee: Quite. We have put forward our proposals and we are going ahead with our proposals, but there are other Measures apart from these, and hon. Members must not think that these things can be brushed aside. There are Measures dealing with our own elections, and with matters of water supply connected with housing, and there is housing itself. You cannot brush them all aside.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: We do not want to.
    Mr. Attlee: I thought my hon. Friend was rather suggesting that one could have an absolute priority, but perhaps I am wrong.
    Mr. Griffiths: I referred to certain priorities, and I mentioned three—jobs, houses and security. I said that houses and jobs were to be discussed separately, and so I would not refer to them.
    Mr. Attlee: I mistook my hon. Friend. I thought he was asking for an immediate decision by the Government on the order of priority of legislation.
    Mr. Griffiths: Yes.
    Mr. Attlee: I do not think we can do that, but we shall get things through just as quickly as we can. There is a limit, however, to the amount of work this House can do. I am quite in agreement with the hon. Member for Llanelly in suggesting that we should work together and adopt any method to get things along, but, having had some experience of these matters, I say that, even with the best will in the world, you will find that it takes time. Take the Education Bill, which was a very remarkable example. Contrasted with other Bills before it, it secured the co-operation of all parties to get it through, and yet, with the best will in the world, merely from the nature of the Bill, it took a considerable time in this House.
    I support the plea made by my hon. Friend to all hon. Members of the House to help along the passage of these Bills, because, after all, it depends on what this House does. The Government proposes, but the House disposes. If the House continues in a mood of full co-operation, in which every hon. Member is doing his best to help these things along, we can make great progress, but if we allow political questions to be cropping up all the time and differences to grow and
    414
    grow, then we may get into a position wherein such a programme as this would be quite impossible. I entirely support the hon. Member for Llanelly in the view that, these Measures having received such a large amount of support in this House and in the country, it is up to us to try and get them through if we possibly can, but it is right that I should warn hon. Members of the physical difficulties and also warn them of the inevitable uncertainties in time of war.
    The Prime Minister said that those who were pledged to these great matters of social legislation would feel themselves bound, in a General Election, to make good their promises and commitments to the people. My right hon. Friend did not say that we should not make progress with these Bills in this Session, and I entirely agree with him in his pronouncement. Whatever the Government or whatever the composition of the House, whatever programme parties put forward, I hope that there will be co-operation between all parties so that these great Measures, if not put through at the time of the General Election, can still reach the Statute Book, because they represent an immense amount of work.
    It has been dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and brought up by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock, there have been discussions by the Government and by officials, discussions in this House, and a wide consideration in the country, and never before has there been such a tremendous measure of support for these proposals. We do not want to suggest to the men in the Fighting Forces that in any part there will be a disposal to waive that work which is being done. Whatever happens, we shall endeavour to put this coping stone on to our provision of social services. There may be differences of detail between people, but do not let differences of detail destroy the great measure of agreement on main principles and the main framework.
    I have tried to answer by hon. Friend. I have told him that there are two Measures which, we hope, will be coming along very shortly. I told him that I cannot give the exact order of priority with regard to the others. I say that with regard to all the Measures we have mentioned in the King's Speech, we shall do our very utmost to get them on to

    415
    the Statute Book. But I say, in conclusion, that we must remember that the Government is not the master but the servant of this House and, in the long run, it depends on the will of this House and what it does as to how far these proposals in the King's Speech can be fully implemented.
    1.47 p.m.
    Mr. T. J. Brooks: I was very interested in the statement that has been made by the Deputy Prime Minister. It reminds me of a long experience in local government work—some 30 years—and it appears, even from to-day's statement, and also from the statement of the Prime Minister a few days ago, that the time is not going to be opportune. It never has been opportune, as far as we have been concerned, in all my experience in local government life. I am very confused to-day as to what is to happen in the future and whether we are actually going to get the social insurance scheme on to the Statute Book. First, we have to wait until the defeat of Germany, and after the defeat of Germany, we shall be able to consider how long it will be before there is a General Election. Therefore, we are very confused as to what is to happen with regard to the Social Insurance Scheme.
    I am glad to have an opportunity of saying one or two things about the industrial side of this scheme. I was very glad to hear the Deputy Prime Minister say that the question of family allowances was going to have a very early turn in reference to social insurance and that industrial insurance would, maybe, take the second place. I am hoping that this may happen before there is a Dissolution of this Parliament and before we go to the country. The population have been thrilled by the White Paper, and this House has definitely agreed that the proposals ought to become law as soon as possible. I am glad that workmen's compensation is, by social insurance, to be taken out of the atmosphere of controversy and conflict and established on a sure and sounder foundation. As one who has had a good deal of experience in the courts with reference to compensation, I am glad to see the demise of these Compensation Acts. I understand that these Acts have proved the most expensive that have ever been passed. I have heard it
    416
    said that it has cost something like £1,000,000 a year on the legal side in order to get for our men either full or part compensation, or none at all. One is glad to see compensation taken out of the arena altogether, and that we are to get a general scheme upon which we can all agree.
    In the absence of definite information that an employer shall re-employ an injured workman should there be any incapacity, can we be told whether any definite training centres will be established, or are we to be pushed into the open labour market and have to apply for unemployment benefit? That has been our lot and it is to-day, and if it is to continue so, the waste of manpower will go on, and the position is very serious in the mining and heavy industries. What has been said about treatment? Thousands are cripples to-day because of not having had expert treatment for fractures. Most hon. Members, at least on this side of the House, know that in their own towns there are scores of men who have been very badly injured and are cripples to-day because they did not have early treatment. The men may receive very good treatment in hospitals from the matrons and local doctors but often there are no experts to deal with fractures. It is high time that, in training centres, we should have experts who could put these men right in order that they may he made, if not as good industrial workers as before their injury, very good workmen again. Treatment is as important as the payments that are made to the man and his family.
    Is any help to be given in reference to medical appliances, artificial legs and arms and so on? These are not supplied by the insurance companies. All they pay is the compensation, and they pay only what they are forced to pay in accordance with law. In a colliery of from 3,000 to 4,000 men cases of this sort may be happening every week. We have had to supply the appliances. The insurance company, or what is known in the coalfields as the Coalowners Indemnity Association, would do nothing at all except pay compensation and in many cases they have been forced to pay by law. The coalowners and ourselves at many collieries do agree to pay 50 per cent. each towards the purchase of these appliances. The workmen in receipt of social

    417
    insurance benefits cannot be expected to purchase them. A man who receives from £2 to £2 10s. a week cannot pay £30 or £40 for an artificial leg or arm or afford to pay for an artificial eye or truss or the 101 appliances that are required in accident cases. There are special beds required for men who have sustained broken backs, and invalid chairs are also needed, and are the Government going to make any arrangements in this connection? It may be said that these are matters of detail but we have to make them known now.
    I welcome the social insurance scheme and I am glad to know that compensation is not to be related to wages. A man will know exactly what he is to have whatever his earnings may have been; the good will go with the bad, the weak with the strong. Insurance companies only insure good lives. They usually inquire about the lives of our parents and grandparents. This is a very comprehensive scheme and puts us all into the pool together. I hope that no section of the community will be able to contract out of this scheme as they were able to contract out of the last scheme. That would be a retrograde step, perhaps the beginning of the end of what is considered throughout the country to be a comprehensive, sound and vigorous step forward. Mention is made in the King's Speech of wages and conditions but it does not really give us an indication of what it actually means. I want to add a word or two in respect of agriculture in that connection. Agriculture to-day, in this country, they say, is the most highly mechanised in the world and has the best outlook and output. We have congratulated the Department on the very excellent work during the last few years. How shall we fare in this great industry when we lose the services of prisoners of war and the Women's, Land Army, and cannot rely on the thousands of people who have given up their holidays in order to go hay-making and to assist at the harvest and seed time?
    How are we going to encourage men and women to come into the industry? Not by the present wage standards, surely. It is interesting to note that our farmhands are actually receiving 1s. 5d. an hour and that there is some talk about their having a penny extra an hour if they work any overtime. Here, surely, is a craftsman's job. An ordinary
    418
    labourer anywhere in the country receives 1s. 7d. an hour, and these very excellent men, who can milk, plough, thatch, sow and reap, these craftsmen, should be paid better wages than they are being paid to-day. Unless wages and conditions are improved, the men will eventually drift back into the towns and other industries and flood the labour market, as they did between the two wars, when some 250,000 of these men, who had been doing very much better work on farms, came back and did townspeople's jobs.
    We should not allow this industry to languish again as it did in the years of poverty and misery after the last war. We have created a great record in this war and our output has gone up 70 per cent. and we are producing now nearly two-thirds of the total food we need in this country. It is a very fine achievement. But are we going to do it in the post-war years? What encouragement are we going to give to get these people back into farming? Do we think that the men who have been out fighting will come back and go into the farming industry at 1s. 5d. an hour. We have to encourage these people. This is a basic industry. There is a lot of talk about improvements, but unless we get the food and get the people on to the land to produce the food we shall be in a very sorry position.
    Just one other word, before I close, about the Channel Islands. In "The Times" this morning there is a very strong letter and I think we will have to do something about it. Those Channel Islanders who were able to get to this country in the early part of the war appreciate what has been done for them but they express great concern to me in letters about the condition of people left in those Islands, and the points put to me in writing are well expressed in the letter in "The Times." Is everything being done that could be done regarding food and clothing and the ordinary amenities of life for these people? I appreciate, of course, that the enemy is still in possession. We all know what attack would mean, followed afterwards perhaps by what is known as the scorched earth policy. We do not want that to happen to those beautiful little Islands, but cannot we be more definitely assured here to-day that everything that is humanly possible is being done for the people left in those Islands? So many strong representations are made to me

    419
    and, I am sure to other hon. Members, that one feels rather irked that we are not able to do more. It is stated in "The Times" this morning that these people feel they have been abandoned by the Mother Country and they cannot think why. It is a terrible position. There has been no message from the B.B.C. to these people for over four years. They had great comfort in June, 1940, when His Majesty the King broadcast a message which they heard and remembered. There is no doubt at all that these people are suffering very great hardship. We have had question and answer about these things, but I ask that we should be given a little more assurance that these people, who are our own and are on our own doorstep, should have better treatment than they have had in the past. We get messages from these Islands: cannot we get something back to them to let them know that we think and care about them?
    2.3 p.m.
    Captain Prescott: The words "social security" have been ringing in my ears for years and therefore I think possibly it is appropriate to-day that I should, with the permission of the House, address one or two words to the House upon the matter which is now being debated upon the most Gracious Speech. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) is still here, for I listened with the greatest interest to his observations. May I at the very outset say that I, and I am sure many of my hon. Friends on this side of the House, are as keen as anybody that a scheme of social security in its entirety should be introduced and passed into law at the earliest possible moment? Indeed, I should be the happiest Member of this House if it could be introduced and passed into law before this Parliament ceases to exist.
    I am very conscious of what was said by the hon. Member for Llanelly, that there is throughout the country a very grave suspicion whether we in this House, and the Government, are really serious in our intentions with regard to implementing this scheme of social security. That feeling, which I sense in my own constituency and going into the highways and byways throughout the country, causes me considerable disquiet and disturbance of mind in exactly the same way as I know it does
    420
    the hon. Member for Llanelly. If I may, however, I would with great timidity and sincerity say to my hon. Friend that I do not think it is we in this House who are to blame if that feeling be prevalent in the country. Indeed, I do not think it is the Government which is to blame if that feeling exists in the minds of many millions of men and women in this land. It is, I think, engendered partly by the political spirit which is re-awaking in this country, and by the activities of all, or some, of the political parties. I have always tried, in this House and out of it, to observe the party truce and the party spirit in the fullest form, and I am sure that no words of mine to-day will be misunderstood; but in view of the observations that have fallen from my hon. Friend I think that I should be quite frank and quite honest with the House, if you will allow me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in putting my views before it with regard to this feeling in the country.
    I remember not so very long ago reading a paper, not concerned with my own constituency, in which a candidate-to-be at the next election, not of my own party, made a most spirited and hearty attack on the Tory Party. He alleged that of course it was the Conservatives who were obstructing this progressive legislation, and but for the Conservative Party it would be passed into legislative effect within the next 48 hours or so. Then I read soon afterwards in the same paper that a member of another political party—also a would-be candidate for the same constituency—got up and said that he quite agreed it was the Conservative Party. Then the Member for the constituency went down and said that that was entirely untrue, that his party would most wholeheartedly support this scheme of social security, that he had advocated it in the House of Commons, and would continue to do so, and that he had many hon. and right hon. Friends on his side of the House who were of exactly the same opinion as himself. I am quite sure that the thousands of men and women who read that paper must have said to themselves, "Where does the truth lie? One politican says this, another politician says that; can we believe any of them? Let us disbelieve them all."
    Mr. J. Griffiths: If I may interrupt my hon. and gallant Friend, I said that it was two years since we had this report

    421
    and 20 months since the statement. I also asked, "Are we to tell the people of this country that it will really take as long as that in order to carry this thing through? Is that the speed at which Governments work?" How does my hon. and gallant Friend deal with that?
    Captain Prescott: I quite appreciate that and, if I may, I will deal with it in a moment. The suggestion I am making, in the friendliest and most sincere spirit, is that the attitude which my hon. Friend senses in the country is in no small degree due to the practices which I have mentioned, and I think it is those practices which are largely creating the unhappy spirit in the minds of the people, and which we all deplore so much. I fully appreciate the point which my hon. Friend made in his intervention, that it is a considerable time since the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir William Beveridge) introduced his report, and from that date to when the Government produced their White Paper on social security. The answer I would make, and I have given prolonged and serious thought to this matter, is that this scheme of social security or social insurance or national insurance—call it what you will—is one of the most vast and far-reaching social measures which has ever come before the House of Commons.
    I suggest that one cannot introduce and pass into law a measure of this nature in the same spirit or in the same time as one introduces and passes into law, for example, the Education Bill which has been mentioned to-day. A scheme of social security has very wide ramifications, for instance, the question of the medical service. There are many other questions to consider and to solve which have to be weighed in the minds of the Government. Full employment is one. I suggest seriously to the House that while I am prepared, as a back-bencher with very little authority, to bring all the pressure I can to bear on the Government in this matter—I am sure hon. Members in all quarters of the House will adopt exactly the same attitude—we must face facts, and we must realise the vastness of the measures with which we are dealing. However great our desire may be to help the men who are fighting overseas, to give them confidence in the future, to sustain their wives and families at home, nevertheless we must exercise that restraint,
    422
    that common sense as Members of this House, to which the Government is entitled. That is the submission I put before the House to-day.
    I was very glad to hear the speech made by the Deputy Prime Minister because, prior to hearing it, I confess quite frankly that I was not entirely happy with some of the phrases in the Gracious Speech from the Throne. It seemed to me there was a vagueness which was not entirely justifiable; but the Deputy Prime Minister to-day has explained the position and has given assurances with which, for the moment at least, we should rest satisfied; especially when one considers the observations made by the Leader of the House last week, the pledges which were given on behalf of my party, and those which have been given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. A. Greenwood) on behalf of the party opposite. To-day, I hope very sincerely, because I think it is a matter of great importance to the peace of mind of the people of this country, that a message will go out that there really is no prevarication by the Government or by Members of Parliament, that the ordinary men and women of this country, and the men in the Services, need not distrust all politicians, that we are trying to play our part, that the Government are trying to play their part, and, at the earliest possible moment, legislative provisions will be brought before the House to implement this scheme of social security in its entirety. In the meantime, we have had an announcement with regard to family allowances and we have had an announcement with regard to a possible Industrial Injury Bill. They in themselves are matters which in peace time would have been considered of the greatest possible importance. So I do hope that there may be a change of attitude possibly in certain quarters of the Press with regard to this question of social security which I fully admit, with my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly, is one of the three prime factors in the future of this country and the welfare and betterment of all its inhabitants.
    I would end with one point which is very near to my heart. It seems to me, rightly or wrongly, that with the best will in the world some considerable time must elapse before this scheme of social security can become effective.

    423
    There is one section of the community who are not receiving at the moment all to which they are entitled, and for whom I make a plea to-day. One can gain Parliamentary fame in this House by talking on foreign policy and so on, but I very much doubt if one would gain Parliamentary fame by talking on behalf of the old age pensioners. Nevertheless, they are a very worthy section of our community for which I confess I feel very strongly. I think sometimes that hon. Members who represent constituencies in the South of England, or rural agricultural constituencies, do not come into contact with the old people and their present circumstances to the same degree as hon. Members who represent constituencies in the North, or constituencies of an industrial character. In the ten years before the war, especially in Lancashire, the old people really had a very bad time. I quite admit that in view of the comparatively recent amelioration which the Government has effected in old age pensions, those people are not now actually starving or actually in need of food or shelter over their heads.
    But they are cut very near to the bone, and they have very little comfort to give them solace in their old age. I therefore make this plea to the Government and to the House. It must, of necessity, be a considerable time before the full scheme of social security will become effective. Is it not, therefore, possible to do something further to benefit the lot of the aged in this country? They are not at the moment having a very happy time. Their age, the war, and other things, have combined to prevent them living a particularly happy life—other Members must have had the same experience—and something more should be done to give them that comfort to which they are entitled.
    I know full well that millions of aged people in Europe are to-day without a home and have been subjected to the greatest possible brutalities by the enemy, and that when one is in the middle of a war like this it is hardly becoming to ask for further consideration for old people who have food, clothing and shelter. Nevertheless, I would say that although I do not regard pounds, shillings and pence as meaningless symbols we can afford to do something here and now for our old people. I will end by saying
    424
    how glad I was that the Government's provisions in the White Paper were more beneficial to present old age pensioners than those contained in the Beveridge Report. I hope the points I have put will receive consideration, and that, above all, it will go forth from the House to-day that there is no prevarication by the Government with regard to this scheme of social security and that notwithstanding the observations of the hon. Member for Llanelly people in this country need not distrust all politicians.
    Mr. Collindridge: I do not propose to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Darwen (Captain Prescott) in what he has said, although I must say that many of us will applaud the tone and temper of his remarks if we do not agree with all he has said. I do not feel that on this question of the introduction of practical proposals of social security any unusually great amount of time is necessary. All I would say is that the man in the street and the man in the Forces feel that what we have done during this war is evidence of what can be done in the post-war period to bring about the necessary legislation. Besides social security, we are also discussing to-day, in effect, what success we shall have as a nation in the post-war period. Justice for the community is of major importance as a contribution to that success, and I want to speak for the moment as one who represents almost entirely a mining constituency. If we are to be successful in post-war years we must have a plentiful supply of coal. Bound up with these national insurance proposals is workmen's compensation, and I would like to assure the House that in mining districts the lack of social security, via workmen's compensation, has been one of the prime factors as to why there has been a shortage of new entrants into the mining industry.
    On the average, every four years a miner is injured while he is doing his job, and if he is not then someone else has a double dose. Let us picture if we have mental vision a procession of the men who were injured or killed at our pits last year. If the procession was four abreast, and each rank one yard apart, it would stretch for over 25 miles. Every 16 yards there would be an ambulance in which there was a seriously injured man, and every 60 yards there would be a hearse containing the body of a dead miner.

    425
    Those who, like myself, belong to the mining industry would prefer being in a pit with all its risks rather than risking "flak" over Berlin, but, on the other hand, youths coming to manhood prefer to bomb Berlin or to go into a submarine under the sea rather than go into a pit. What a commentary on mining conditions. In 1922 there were, in the pits of Britain, 56,600 boys between 14 and 16. In 1938, that number had fallen to 28,000 and now, despite all the Minister of Labour is doing under his Bevin scheme—and he is doing the best he can under the circumstances—that figure of 28,000 has dropped to 18,000. There is a reason, and part of it is lack of security and the giving of decent conditions to people in that industry. I make no apology for referring to the matter in this Debate, because unless we are assured of a plentiful supply of coal after the war other industries, which are dependent upon coal, will be seriously handicapped.
    I have been carried out of mines on a stretcher and have been injured often, and when I have recovered I—and others, too—have always had the thought, "How soon might come the accident which will again put me on half the wages I had while I was working as a fit and sound man?" This 50 per cent. reduction in living standard when one is injured is a factor in workmen's compensation which is deterring not merely our lads but their parents from allowing them to work at the pits. We have not associated with our workman's compensation any rehabilitation scheme in law, and there has been no compulsory medical aid to enable the injured man to make the quickest possible recovery. There has been no guarantee of future employment, particularly if the man has been still partially incapacitated when it has been stated that he has recovered and fit for some work. If a miner has nystagmus, and recovers, there is no compulsion on the coalowner to take him back into employment. By leaving workmen's compensation in private hands with the profit motive, men have been thrown out to seek employment elsewhere because there has been the danger of the recurrence of this disease if they went back to their old work. Further, there has been discrimination when it has been known that a man has received workmen's compensation for industrial diseases. I have been on the road out
    426
    of work, and when I have been lucky enough to find work I have been asked whether I have received workmen's compensation. If truth is told and if one had the misfortune to have suffered an injury or disease which might recur then there was no possibility of getting a job.
    We complain of the vested interests which are associated with workmen's compensation. It is gruesome in all conscience. It was bad enough that the national need for coal should be exploited by private owners, but the fact that traffic in blood is looked upon as profit-making is particularly bad. It is because I am so proud of Britain that I feel that if other countries can adopt schemes which are giving better results we should lose no prestige in saying that we should consider the adoption of similar schemes. I was a few months ago privileged to go to the coalfields of Western Canada, where I worked 30 years ago as a miner, and there I found that the Alberta Legislature had passed a Workmen's Compensation Act which gives better conditions than those set out in our White Paper. This has had a settling effect on the workers and youths proposing to go into the coalfields there. This Albertan Act, passed last year, defines more broadly than we propose to do what constitutes an accident.
    They also give definitions of those who are entitled to benefit, which are very good. The definition of a child includes an illegitimate child and any child of a husband or wife by a former marriage. The definition of compensation includes medical aid, and medical aid includes nursing, drugs, dressings, X-ray treatment, surgical appliances, special treatment and transportation to where these things can be acquired. Three Commissioners, subject to the Legislative Assembly, decide what the payment shall be, based upon certain general principles in the Act, and the resultant effect is that whereas to-day, in our Britain, of the premiums that go to the insurance bodies, about a third is spent in administration, under the Albertan Act 98 per cent. of the premiums go where it is intended that they should go, to the injured man or his dependants. For fatal claims they have abolished the lump sum idea. The widow of a miner who is killed receives £28 for burial expenses—I have translated the dollars into pounds—and she receives for pre-burial expenses, presumably garments

    427
    and the like, another £22. I contrast that with £15 all told in this country, and then only in cases where the family of a dead son receives no compensation. The widow in Canada receives a weekly payment of £2 5s., and each child receives 13s. 6d. a week, not until he starts in active employment, but until he is 18 years of age. Orphan children receive £1 2s. 6d. a week and an invalid child receives 13s. 6d. as long as invalidity continues, irrespective of age. It is true that these payments to widows cease on re-marriage, but a marriage portion of 480 dollars or £106 is paid. In fatal accidents two-thirds of the former wages represents largely the accepted amount paid to the injured workman.
    At Barnsley at one period we had three major explosions within 18 months. I saw men who were lucky enough not to be in the mine at the time dashing to the pits to help their comrades in distress. This Albertan Act gives a decent measure of justice to these men who are prepared to do that. It lays down that any helper in an explosion or similar accident receives not two-thirds of his wages if he is injured in rescue work but 100 per cent. There is one important thing about this Measure I speak of which I do not notice in our proposals. We leave unpaid for a month after the accident the first three days of compensation. In the Albertan Act the first three days are given after 14 days. Rehabilitation and the re-training of disabled men are compulsory. Our proposals in the White Paper are a splendid improvement on what we do at present, but I still feel that if we are going to make these hazardous occupations attractive and if we are going to get the entrants that we need we have to make these improvements better still. The first consideration is the injured man and his family but to the districts concerned there is a liability which is not entirely shared by non-industrial districts. A few years ago the compensation of 24s. a week which was the average payment, threw injured workmen after the first week of injury on to the local rates and the trades-men were affected on the one hand by the lower purchasing power of the injured and in the second by the increase of the rates. I hope my right hon. Friend will consider this Albertan Act with a view to following out some of the lines of policy
    428
    which they have laid down and which were so well received by those concerned.
    2.40 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe: I hope the hon. Member will forgive me if I do not pursue him into the realms of Albertan legislation. The chief discussion here is with our own legislation and we have little enough time for that without venturing into that of Alberta. It has been rather interesting to observe the issue which has really arisen as between the two sides of the House to-day. It has become manifest that Members of all parties are advocating the introduction and the passage through the House of a National Insurance Bill and the only difference between hon. Members opposite and us is that hon. Members opposite are complaining that it is not being done with enough speed. We see there being already defined the election issues and what is in fact happening is that hon. Members opposite are saying, knowing of course that they cannot improve on the legislation that we propose, that they propose the same legislation but propose it quicker. They either believe that or they do not. If they do not it is dishonest to go about the country saying so. If they do it is evident that they lack what we have always said that they lack, the experience of Government, which is necessary before you can govern.
    The truth is that the delay is due to the fact that we are working within the four walls of a democracy. It is all very well for them to stump the country saying you can put this into force in a few weeks, but that just is not true. I have no doubt that you could do it in a few days if you lived under a dictatorship, but you cannot do it under a democracy because there are a number of interests to be consulted and you can only do it by trampling on those interests and completely disregarding them. If you concern yourself with the interests of the great majority of the people it is bound to take time before Measures of this kind can pass on to the Statute Book. The Education Bill is not a clear parallel as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay) suggested, because there you have easily recognisable and identifiable interests which can be consulted through well recognised channels. That is not

    429
    so when you are dealing with the totality of the vast Measures proposed in this programme of social reform.
    Mr. Riley: I understood the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that both sides of the House were agreed as to the desirability of these social insurance Measures and that it is only a question of time, but if both sides are agreed, what is the difficulty?
    Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe: That is exactly the question that I was proposing to hon. Members opposite. It is a difficulty that they have to face up to. It is idle for them to say, "We are going to break up the Coalition as soon as possible," and at the same time say they must have this Bill. The difficulty will inevitably arise that, if they break the Coalition, they cannot have the Bill until after the end of this Parliament.
    A vast number of people, naturally, are interested in the national health service. There are various bodies with whom the Government have to deal. I want to put forward the general proposition that no medical health service shall be put into operation which takes the control of that service away from the profession that is mainly concerned. I think it would be deplorable if the medical profession were to be subjected in its professional duties to lay control, and I believe it is a matter which has caused considerable alarm among a large number of people. I do not want to say more about that particular matter at this stage.
    I come back to one or two generalisations on the question of insurance. As I have said, it seems that we are all entirely agreed, on both sides of the House, on the general principles which we wish to see put on the Statute Book. But I wish I could see, also, some more definite information on the practical workings of these schemes because it is quite clear that we cannot create prosperity by putting an Insurance Bill on the Statute Book. Rather is the reverse the case—you cannot have social insurance without prosperity, and I am a little doubtful whether I have seen enough indication in the Gracious Speech, of any practical measures intended to arrive at a prosperous industry which is the essential foundation.
    Nor have I seen what is the other essential—or, perhaps, the first essential—and that is any reference to the keeping of sufficient armed forces to maintain
    430
    peace in Europe in the future. I would like some outline of how it is proposed to deal with the question of Germany after the war. There are, broadly speaking, two schools of thought on this matter. One is what I would call the hard school and the other the soft school. Those are the two broad distinctions. What I call the misguided soft school believe that we should deal kindly with the Germans because, in that way, we may not engender bitterness which would create a further outbreak of war. I think it is essential for people to understand that the bitterness is already there. There is no question about that, and what we have to be concerned about is how we are to avoid the effects of it. Nothing we do at this stage as, indeed, nothing we were able to do between the two wars, is going to avoid the determination of the Germans to make war on us again at the earliest possible opportunity. That is their declared intention, and, as I understand it, we can only deal with that situation; we cannot avoid their having the intention. We can only deal with the matter by having a foreign policy which will prevent the outbreak at which they will undoubtedly aim in the future. It seems to me, therefore, that we must give further practical attention during the coming years to our alliance with Russia. It is essential that that should be the foundation-stone of our foreign policy, and only by maintaining that alliance, and by working in harmony and good-will with them, which I believe possible, shall we be able to retain peace in Europe in the future.
    I would like to come back for a moment to the question of prosperity in this country, to which I was referring. I propose to take advantage of the opportunity of having the Minister of National Insurance here, and hope he will have his ears open to something I have to say in connection with another office which he has been good enough to discharge. That is an inquiry into the position of the coastal areas. It is a comparatively small matter in relation to the others with which we have been concerned, but, seeing the Minister here, I would like to deal with two points in that connection. First, it is proposed, although, perhaps, not generally known in this House, that in coastal areas which have been very badly hit through being defence areas, by being

    431
    banned to the general coming and going of people, which has so badly affected their trade, to advance money which will enable local authorities to pay up to £150 to start small businesses, small hotels, and so forth, going again. I hope the Minister will not think that anybody is satisfied with that amount. We shall certainly not be satisfied unless we have at least £500.
    The other matter to which I want to refer is the question of light industries in these areas. There seems to be some confusion between the various Government Departments concerned, over these matters, but it certainly is clear that a distinction has been drawn between the North of England and the South of England in this respect. While considerable assistance is to be given by the Board of Trade in restarting businesses and industry in the North of England, no real attempt is to be made to assist the restarting of businesses in the South. It is said, rather negatively, that "no obstacle will be put in the way," but that is not enough. We must have more than that. We need affirmative assistance in areas which have been extremely badly hit by the war.
    I do not propose to take up much more time, but I am roaming over matters in which I see injustice from time to time, and the presence of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) reminds me to say that I hope, while they are considering these matters, the Government will take some active steps about the age-barred officers in the Civil Service. They have been scandalously treated, and I feel that theirs is an injustice which can easily be put right; the mere fact that it can be done easily is not a relevant principle for remedying an injustice, although it is perhaps easier to ask for one to be remedied, which you know can be put right easily. I wanted to mention that in passing, because it is a matter which I think deserves immediate attention.
    Whatever our proposals for insurance are—because only when we see a Bill shall we know with definitiveness what they are—the first and paramount realisation of the Government will be, as I have said, that no insurance will be of any use until they first direct their minds towards prosperity, and that foremost in any such plan there must be a real effort to deal with the returning ex-Servicemen. At the
    432
    moment there is no particular indication of how it is proposed to assist such people. There are general indications such as were contained in the White Paper on full employment, but that is not enough for the soldier who has been serving overseas. He wants to be told, in particular, what is being done for him, and he wants to know that he is the person ever in our minds. I hope that the Government will make it clear, as this Session proceeds, that they have something really substantial and concrete for the man who has been fighting, so that when he returns he may be quite sure that his security and his prosperity are ensured for the future.
    Dr. Haden Guest Dr. Haden Guest rose——
    Mr. W. J. Brown: On a point of Order. We have had a string of speakers from the Labour side and a string of speakers from the other side to-day, and I would ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether there is any method by which a selection of speakers is made.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): That seems to be a reflection on the Chair.
    Mr. Brown: I did not intend it as such. I only want to know how it is possible for one of those persons, about whom the Prime Minister spoke the other day, when he said that the Gracious Address was an opportunity for those who had no party or group, to intervene on this occasion.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member will have an opportunity if time permits.
    2.53 p.m.
    Dr. Haden Guest: I am glad to follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite about demobilisation, although I propose to speak primarilly on medical services. Before I do that I want to make a brief reference to the discussion which arose this morning in reply to the Question which I put to the Prime Minister on the subject of Greece. I only want to say that I do not propose to pursue that subject now—as, of course, under the Rules of Order, I could do—because an Amendment is being put down by myself and some other hon. Members, on which we hope to raise a discussion at a more appropriate season, and also because I think it is most important that we should not go too far away from following the

    433
    lines laid down for this Debate, especially when they deal with matters of such tremendous importance to all the people in this country.
    I wish to put to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister a special point about the medical services, in view of what he said this morning. I am sorry that the question of a comprehensive medical service should come in the list—I will not call them the "also rans,"—but in point of fact the comprehensive medical service involves considerations which are very closely related to demobilisation at the end of the war. I do not want to weary the House by dealing with one profession, or its sorrows or grievances, but I do wish to point out that a very large proportion of the medical profession—an overwhelming proportion of the young members of it—are serving in the Forces of the Crown. If some are demobilised at the end of hostilities with Germany, and others a little later, are they to come back to a confused and chaotic situation, in which it is going to be very difficult for them to fit in, or are they to come back to a situation in which they can take their place in a service already constituted?
    That is an enormously important point, not only for the doctors themselves, but for the whole country. It has been the practice, unfortunately, for years past for young doctors desiring to enter practice to get loans from insurance companies at fairly heavy rates of interest, the repayments of which were spaced out over a period of many years. Are they to come back to that iniquitous position, because that is the only alternative they will have to working as assistants, or working in some public capacity, unless there is a complete alteration with regard to the medical services in this country, and unless we have a comprehensive scheme. We have been reminded by the Prime Minister that this is the last Session of this Parliament. I hope that in this Session we shall lay the foundation of social security and especially of family and health security. With regard to a comprehensive medical service, may I also remind the House that the Prime Minister, himself, has expressed a very special interest in this question? In his broadcast address of March, 1943, when he talked of what was described at the time as the four-year plan on the assumption of the continuation of a Coalition Government—
    434
    which, fortunately, as I think, has came to nothing—he laid particular emphasis on the importance of a reorganised and comprehensive medical service. I hope that the Prime Minister has not gone back from that position.
    We have had during the war a convincing demonstration of the value of the medical services in what they can do for health in the Army, Navy and Air Force. They have kept men fit and they have prevented infectious diseases in tropical and temperate lands. They have done something that was not attempted in the last war; they have, by special means, increased the individual fitness of men to a very high point. We have had, in addition to all that, a splendid curative and hospital service which has enabled the greater proportion of wounded as well as sick, but especially wounded at the moment, to be not only made well again but so far rehabilitated as to be able to take their places in the original units from which they had to go when they were wounded—a very remarkable medical achievement. The whole of that knowledge, which has been greatly increased in the war, knowledge of keeping fitness, of preventing sickness and improving health, is now available and has been during the war a major contribution to victory. If our men had not been kept so fit our comparatively small force would not have been able to stand the strain, and they would not have been able to do the heroic things which they have done and are continuing to do.
    The medical service has been so excellent because of its singleness of purpose. It has been devoted without any question of financial consideration to the one object of improving health and keeping men at a high level of fitness. It has protected them and has maintained and increased their mental and physical powers. A comprehensive medical service for the nation in peace should have the same singleness of purpose. To attain this, the whole of our medical forces must be mobilised to serve the nation. There must be a full domiciliary service, with not only doctors visiting the homes and sitting in their consulting rooms where they can be consulted by private patients, but a full consultant service, a full service of pathological help and a full service of special services, such as X-rays, available for all without question of money

    435
    passing one way or the other. The nation in peace cannot, with the immense programme of work before us afford the waste of preventible disease and of absence of fitness through the lack of the application of medical knowledge which is abundantly present if people would only use it.
    This means that the whole of the medical profession must be integrated. It must be made into a comprehensive service in which the services of men are all working together with one object. There must be health centres as well as private practitioners everywhere. There must be specialist services and the closest co-operation with the public health and maternity services. A complete domiciliary service for all will be of immense value to the ordinary citizen, who has never had it before. May I remind the House of a domestic detail which many Members will know, especially on this side of the House? In the past, and indeed, up to the present time, large numbers of wives of men who are in insurable employment, but who are not themselves insured, do not get medical treatment because they cannot afford the possibility, at the end of the illness, of having a large bill which they do not think their husbands can pay. For the same reason large numbers of children do not get treatment. It will make in millions of working-class homes an immense difference, the difference between good health and chronic bad health, if women and children can get early treatment and have no longer the thought of the financial obligation of having to pay a doctor's bill. A free domiciliary service for all people in the community would by itself be a tremendous benefit to them.
    Then there is the question of hospital services. No one but a doctor who is in general practice, as I have been for a long time, or the unfortunate patient or patient's family, know how incredibly difficult it is to get many poor people into hospital. You have to spend an hour or more on the telephone making arrangements. You have to make arrangements for an ambulance, and if there is something to pay for it you have to get a special form exempting payment. Then you have to go from one hospital to another to find accommodation. This condition of things applies not only to poor people, but to people in a better
    436
    position. It is difficult to get proper treatment for them because the hospital services, which, if you add them altogether, are admirable, are not added together, and it is difficult, therefore, to get the right kind of service you want. A comprehensive hospital service, pooling the voluntary and publicly controlled and owned hospitals together, which will guarantee to every sick person who requires it a bed where he can be treated without question of payment as long as it is necessary for him to be treated, will make 100 per cent. difference in the health of a large number of people and will contribute greatly to the speed and completeness of their recovery.
    I want to see another aspect of the Service work in this war carried on into the peace by the integrated hospital service. During the war an enormous amount of work has been done for the Services by the civilian hospitals. What are called in the Army the base hospitals in this country have practically all been provided by the civilian hospitals acting as an Emergency Medical Service. The same thing does not apply, of course, in the United States Army. The majority of men in our Army coming from overseas, who have been treated for sickness or wounds, have been treated in this country in Emergency Medical Service hospitals. That has meant the creation of a big organisation in which the voluntary hospitals and the publicly owned council hospitals and other hospitals have been grouped together and have all worked as one team. It has also meant the building of a great deal of additional accommodation. Many thousands of additional beds have been provided in good solid structures by the Emergency Medical Service hospitals. I want that tradition of co-operation between the voluntary and the publicly controlled and owned hospitals carried on into the peace. The co-operation has met with the greatest success in war time, and there is no reason why it should not be carried on with equally great success in peace time.
    Another reason for making the change at the present time is this. We have always been short of beds for the treatment of tuberculosis. If we throw into the pool of hospital accommodation all the additional beds which have been built for the Emergency Medical Service hospitals, we can cope with that. We could add another group of hospitals which have not

    437
    come to the notice of many hon. Members, namely, the excellent hospitals which have been built in this country by the Government for the United States Forces. There are a large number of them. They are well equipped and well situated, and they will form the basis of a great and valuable addition after the war is happily over to the hospital services of this country. I hope that they will be fully used and that there will be the closest co-operation with them.
    I want also to secure that the comprehensive medical service to which I have been referring is got ready so as to provide that when the young medical men come back from the war there will be an organisation into which they can move at once, without having to go through the appalling business of this private buying of practices, with mortgages held over a long term of years. It will relieve the younger generation of a heavy and crippling burden, and it will go a long way to a reform which I think is overdue in this profession, the total abolition of the buying and selling of public practices, panel practices and others. There ought to be no commercial element of that kind in the medical profession. The less commercial element there is in it the better for the people as a whole.
    I see the future tasks of the medical profession to build up the health of the population to the optimum, and to release, by medical science, the creative powers of the human individual. I am not talking through my hat, or through the nape of my neck, but of what can be done if this country only has the common sense to apply to the ordinary citizen, from day to day, the medical knowledge we have had for many years, and which the present organisation or disorganisation of the medical services does not allow us to apply. We can reduce infantile mortality to a much greater extent than that to which it has already been reduced. We can reduce maternal mortality, and improve mental and physical well-being and vitality, to an extent which is not realised at the present time by the ordinary citizen. I would put it in this way: We can, in the course of the next generation, make the age of 70 a very ordinary, and what one may call a reasonable middle age, instead of old age. We have examples, even in this House, of people who are 70 and over, and who, compared with the ideas of a few years ago, are to be regarded as only
    438
    middle aged. But we can make that an average for the average citizen and individual. Some progress in that direction has already been made in the United States in another sphere.
    We can extend also, if we have this service, the benefits of a comprehensive medical service, with everything it can do for the individual, to our Colonies. We have left our Colonies too long without a good medical service, and I believe we ought to make our medical service in this country interchangeable with the Colonial medical service, and have one vast Empire service, in which men will serve in tropical or temperate countries, learning and contributing by their experiences new knowledge to medical science which will be of the greatest value. That is a thing which, with our Colonial Empire, we should do—we owe a debt to the Colonial people, because up to the present medical knowledge has not been applied to them as it ought to have been applied. I hope we may also get, in this matter, co-operation with the Dominions. I do not wish to speak too long on this point, but I have emphasised it, because I believe it is of supreme importance that their health should be safeguarded and their vitality should be increased.
    We ought not to let the last Session of this long Parliament pass without implementing the promises which have been made to the whole people. There are no irreconcilable differences inside the medical profession in these matters. There are no administrative problems which are insuperable. We must provide a service which is not only worthy of the people of this country, but worthy of those men in the Services who are coming back from the Forces, having done such splendid work, and who will be able to do for the nation, if the nation will give them the chance, the same great tasks of fitting them for health and vigour and full activity as they have done in the Services during the war. The Services have a great deal to teach the civilian medical practitioners in this country at the present time, and—let this be my last sentence on these matters—when we are thinking of the reform and improvement of the comprehensive medical services let us remember that those young men who we are going to emancipate and give their chance, and are only anxious to get their chance and use it, are accustomed to work

    439
    as a service, and do not want to go back to the drudgery of day-to-day commercial medicine that we have had in the old times.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Major Procter.
    Mr. W. J. Brown: On a point of Order. I must protest very publicly and very bluntly about the order of selection of speakers in this Debate. I wish to draw your attention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to the fact——
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is not himself in Order. He cannot raise that question, which is a reflection on the Chair, as a point of Order. If he wishes to raise it, there are ways and means in our procedure, but he is not entitled to raise it in the midst of a Debate and on a point of Order.
    Mr. Brown: In those circumstances I give notice that if I see a continuance of the practice in this House——
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to give notice of anything in regard to this matter. There is a procedure provided, by way of a Motion on the Order Paper, and the hon. Member must take such action as he thinks fit.
    Mr. Brown: In those circumstances I will place a Motion on the Order Paper.
    3.18 p.m.
    Major Procter: I would like to express the feeling of gratitude of the people of Lancashire, and indeed the whole of England, for national insurance. I congratulate the Government on improving the original Beveridge Report, a report which was publicised all over the world, and which came to be regarded as some new Aladdin's lamp, that would solve all the difficulties of the future. The Government proposals in one regard, I welcome very much indeed. Under the original Beveridge scheme the old age pensioners were left out in the cold. I am glad to see that the new scheme brings within its scope the existing old age pensioners.
    I must point out however that this national insurance scheme is a great venture of faith. It may or it may not succeed, and little we can do in this House by way of talk can guarantee the permanence of this great and monumental work. Viewed in its proper aspect, its
    440
    success depends on the prosperity of industry through the whole land. No Act of Parliament is a substitute for goods, and without the goods, without the trade, indeed without hard work on the part of everybody in this country, the whole scheme will tumble to the ground. Therefore, I suggest that there should be greater co-ordination now between the Minister of Social Security and the other Government Departments, to open the channels of trade, and remove the hindrances which prevent our manufacturers producing the goods that will provide the wealth for the people who are to pay for national insurance.
    Take the case of Lancashire. It is not generally known that, through the operation of Lend-Lease, we cannot supply customers abroad with machines that have been made in Lancashire. Lancashire produces the best textile machinery in the world, and these machines go to every part of the world. If one of these machines wants a new part, small or big, that cannot be sent overseas without permission, because of the operation of Lend-Lease. We have, through the kindness of America, imported American steel on Lend-Lease terms and therefore we cannot send steel goods to South America in order to replace, or to repair machinery made in my constituency. What will be the result if such a policy is allowed to continue? Entire cotton plants will be scrapped, and American machinery put in. That is inevitable. The loss of those markets means the loss of export trade, and the loss of money. A firm in which I am interested received an order from one of the South American countries for nearly £1,000 worth of chemical products in which was £8 worth of Lend-Lease material—a very minute quantity—but so conscientiously do the Government carry out their promises to American that that order could not be delivered until certain modifications had been made and the Lend-Lease materials cut out. Then we had another difficulty. Because of the removal of this minute quantity of Lend-Lease material, the order could not be got into South America, as it did not comply with the specification filed in the Government offices there.
    These are a few of the difficulties our manufacturers meet with when they try, not to extend but to preserve, their

    441
    markets, in order that our boys will have something to come back to after the war.
    Another reason why firms would like greater interdepartmental co-ordination is that there is so much delay in getting permits and licences. These bureaucratic controls strangle business. If a man wants to trade abroad, he has to see so many Departments. He is passed from one to another, and months go by before the order can be executed.
    Mr. Montague: What does the hon. and gallant Member propose to do about it?
    Major Procter: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I will tell him. What we require is greater co-ordination between Government Departments, so that the restrictions can be eased. I am only asking for simple things. I am not asking for great alterations, I ask that these petty annoyances should be removed at the earliest possible date. This national insurance scheme can only be paid for out of the manufacture and sale of goods. To regain our foreign markets will require great effort and sacrifice.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Does my hon. and gallant Friend know that 75 per cent. of the cost will be paid for by the people themselves?
    Major Procter: With that aspect of the matter I now deal. The social security scheme will be paid for by the British taxpayers. We have practically eliminated the rich taxpayer, and the cost will be paid for by the working man directly by his contributions and indirectly out of his Income Tax. While the scheme is welcomed, I am sure that when the full repercussions are felt by the working man, he will not regard it as anything but compulsory saving for his old age. At the moment people regard this national insurance scheme as something to be paid for by that mythical, mystical, entity called the Government, and not by working people themselves. The success or failure of the whole structure of social services depends on industry. In the final analysis, success rests upon the working man. His bread and butter as well as security all depend upon full employment. I ask that the Government as a whole should try to remove at the earliest possible moment every obstacle to getting industry back into its
    442
    stride so that when the war is over there will be full employment.
    Dr. Russell Thomas: The hon. and gallant Member is implying that the Government can print the £1 notes but cannot produce one slice of bread and butter.
    Major Procter: The hon. Member is quite right; he has emphasised the point I tried to make. There are three omissions from the King's Speech, which I would like to see filled in. One is the problem of our returning men, as it applies to their housing. I have recently sent out 10,000 letters to serving men and women from my own division. From the hundreds of replies that I have received, it is plain they are anxious whether they are going to get their jobs back, and whether they are going to get a house to live in. I hope that the Government will instruct, or advise, every local authority in the non-blitzed areas that the ex-Serviceman should have priority over everybody else, so that he will be able to set up a home of his own in the town from which he has gone. Another omission from this Speech is that provision has not been made for an amelioration of the lot of the existing old-age pensioner. The Government proposal is a great advance on the original Beveridge proposal, but, through the incidence of war, the old-age pensioner who has by his grit saved money finds the purchasing power of that money reduced, as it may be further reduced by inflation.
    The purchasing power of the old-age pensioner to-day is considerably less than it was pre-war. I remember when we could get four cigarettes for a penny, a pint of milk for three-halfpence, an ounce of thick twist for 3d., a pint of beer for 2½d., and a hundredweight of coal for 8d. But, when these things are purchased now by the old-age pensioner, he has to pay considerably more. There are many old men and women who are just able to eke out a precarious existence waiting for the proposals of the Government to increase their pensions. Why not do so at once?
    The second omisson from the King's Speech is that of any reference to the mothers of our serving men. They are completely ignored. In the last war, the mothers of serving soldiers got a pension if anything happened to their sons, but, to-day, they do not, unless they are in need, that there are parents—who have

    443
    had to return to work—old men and women—because their sons went to the war, and lost their lives. If the State thinks they have sufficient to live on, they receive no benefit. Many a mother in Lancashire endures real hardship because there is no provision for a pension for her. True, if they are destitute, parents can get a pension, but in Lancashire there are aged mothers compelled to work who would not be so compelled if their sons had lived or if a pension had been given to those mothers. Therefore I hope that something may be done speedily for the mothers of our soldiers.
    The last omission from the King's Speech which I regret is that of any reference to the position of spinsters. I know that the Minister built up a very fine case—an almost unanswerable case—when he met a deputation which I had the honour to attend, but I do not make an appeal for the spinster on actuarial grounds The spinsters' pension is an exceptional case. I regret that the spinsters' cause is not supported by all the women Members of this House. The reason is that the hon. lady Members of this House are largely feminists; they believe that men and women are equal, and if a spinster is given a pension at 55 then logically a bachelor at 55 should receive one also. However, I do not regard a woman as the physical equal of a man. In Lancashire to-day we have many spinsters who have worked in the mills, and who, at 55, are worn out. The average man of 55 is not worn out, but the average woman of 55 is. I hope that the Minister of National Insurance will think again to see if it is possible to give a pension to spinsters because of the physical inability of women of 55 to carry on with their work. This great scheme is a milestone marking the advance of our country towards the fuller life all of us desire to see. Let it be the beginning of an era in which private enterprise, the State and the citizen, working together, will remove from our people the fear for the future, a fear which causes mental anguish to men and women in the evening of their lives.
    Mr. Montague: While agreeing with the latter part of the hon. and gallant Member's speech, may I ask him how it comes about that, in the same breath, or certainly in the same speech, he talks about
    444
    social security and the policy of the Government inevitably leading to inflation? Which does the hon. and gallant Gentleman want? Which does he believe in? Is there any consistency in his remarks?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not make a speech.
    3.37 p.m.
    Mr. W. J. Brown: By common consent, we are sticking to home affairs, whereas, last Friday, we were dealing with foreign affairs. But there seems to me to be a sort of underlying unity, and a very great similarity in principle, between the Debate that we had last Friday and the Debate we are having to-day. Since I think that that similarity is of great importance to our approach to domestic problems, as well as to our approach to foreign problems, and because I think that it derives from the view that we take of the general historical background of the period through which we are passing, I would, even at the expense of spending a minute on last Friday's Debate, say a word or two about it.
    In last Friday's Debate, the broad set-up was that, from this side of the House, there was grave disquiet expressed about British foreign policy, particularly in the now liberated areas, such as Italy, France, Belgium, Greece and so on, and the broad charge was made, from this side of the House, that, by and large, in our foreign policy, we were backing those elements in Europe which belonged to the past, and we were refraining from backing those elements in Europe which were important to our future on the Continent. The reply of the Foreign Secretary to that point, was to deny that the Government were influenced, in its consideration of policy, by the political complexions of the governments with which they had to deal. The right hon. Gentleman denied that they divide them into governments of the Left or Right, and then deliberately favour governments of the Right as against governments of the Left, and he affirmed that our Government's foreign policy was based on an accurate appreciation of the facts, and of the war situation as it existed, uncoloured by any particular Governmental desire here to back forces in those other European countries in any sense hostile to what is desired by their inhabitants.
    Let me say that I need no convincing that the Foreign Secretary is not a black-

    445
    hearted villain who sits up at night considering how he can torpedo the hopes of the future. I do not believe that to be the case. I believe him to be an honest man, bringing what honest judgment he can to bear upon these problems. But what I am very sure of is that he misconceives the character of the period through which Europe is passing and will continue to pass, and because of that fundamental misconception, which is duplicated in our approach to domestic politics, we are giving the wrong answer to many problems of foreign politics at the present time.
    The essence of statesmanship is not only to look at facts as they are, but to project the curve of the present into the future. It is to discern to-day tendencies which will be dominant to-morrow, in order that the policies we pursue to-day may not only meet the facts of to-day, but anticipate those of to-morrow as well. I picked up for my Sunday reading last Sunday—a very respectable source—"The Sunday Times." I quote it because on the opposite side of the House it will not be objected to so much as if I quoted from a publication of the Left. I read this from "The Sunday Times" and it is worth notice:
    "What is Allied policy now? Britain incurs the reproach that she seeks to maintain the Conservative regime in power against the clamant protest of popular opinion. Can this win 'law and order' in operational areas, or the friendship of the people of Europe with whom we shall have to share our destiny in the years after the war? Once more, it would seem, British Foreign Policy must make a fundamental decision. It has been thus before and we may well recall a speech of Palmerston's on the source of England's power. He abandoned Canning's policy of acting as 'umpire between despotism and democracy.' We must side, he argued, with 'Britain's natural allies,' the Constitutional States."
    The article went on to say:
    "When Bonaparte was to be dethroned, the Sovereigns of Europe called up their people to their aid; they invoked them in the sacred names of Freedom and National Independence; the cry went forth throughout Europe; and those whom subsidies had no power to buy, and conscription no force to compel, roused by the magic sound of Constitutional Rights, started spontaneously into arms. The long-suffering Nations of Europe rose up as one man, and by an effort tremendous and wide spreading like a great convulsion of nature, they hurled the conqueror from his throne. But promises made in days of distress were forgotten in the hour of triumph."
    446
    The fundamental mistake that we are making in European policy and home policy is that we utterly misconceive the character of the period through which we are passing. Our approach in both cases derives from a conception of this war which I regard as utterly unsound. It conceives of this war as being merely another international war and no more than that. It conceives of it as a national struggle in the course of which we must enlist the support of the oppressed minorities abroad and of our own working class at home, but that when that purely national war is over, then you must do your best to damp down progressive forces in Europe, and damp dawn, too, the hope that we have generated amongst our own people. I affirm that this is not merely an international war, but a continuing and developing social revolution, which will not stop short after the signing of an armistice following the defeat of Germany. It is part of the process which has been going on throughout practically the whole of this century, the development of a growing gap between the protective forces of society and the social and political envelope in which we have sought to contain them. They can no longer be contained within that envelope and as long as we seek to contain them there, they will break out, either in the form of international war, or of domestic upheaval. Unless we recognise that to be the characteristic future of this age, then our approach to foreign policy and domestic policy will be wrong.
    We have had a similar approach to-day. The approach that we had to-day on the part of the Government is that while they desire that the social insurance legislation should become law, here again, as in Europe, we must face the facts. The facts are, they say, that, with the best will in the world, it would take a very long time to put these Acts upon the Statute Book, and there is really nothing that can be done about it, because that is how our Parliamentary machine works. There are two answers to that. The first is that it is we who are responsible for the fact that it is only now, on the eve of the death of the Coalition, that we come to deal with these problems at all. It is two years ago since the Beveridge Report was made. I do not quite know how many years ago it is since the Uthwatt Report was made, the Scott Report and the Barlow Report, and all the rest of the

    447
    reports which must be dealt with as a preliminary to dealing with the post-war situation. Whose responsibility is it that it is only now, in 1944, with the Coalition on the eve of its break-up that, these great issues are posed for discussion here to-day? The Government cannot escape responsibility for that and they cannot shelter behind the cry that there is now very little time before the General Election.
    Mr. Evelyn Walkden: They are sheltering behind it.
    Mr. Brown: If they are, I am doing my best to pull the shelter away, and to demonstrate that it is the Government who are responsible for that. We have, in all human probability, only a few months before the General Election, in which to deal with these matters of legislation. The second answer is that, whenever this House is asked, in the interests of national security, to carry through legislation at a vastly accelerated rate, it has always found the means of doing it. In 1940, when we were faced with a critical situation, we passed within a few hours the most comprehensive Act of Parliament which has ever been passed through the British House of Commons. We did that because we held that the emergency was so great that we had to compress procedures, which would otherwise have lasted for years, into a matter of hours.
    I want to submit that the man in the trenches feels—and he writes to me and says so, and to other Members—that when the Government can do these things in the interests of the war, they ought to be able to develop a corresponding speed in the interests of the warriors who fight for the war. It is a recognition that, when we are dealing with war issues, we can act with great rapidity, but when we are dealing with social issues at home nothing can be done to speed up the pre-war pace of Parliament. It is that recognition which accounts for the kind of bitterness which one finds expressed in a letter published in another respectable Right-wing paper, "The Spectator," only a few days ago quoted in "Cavalcade." A "Captain in the British Liberation Army"—that is how he signs his letter—reports that the soldier of the Second Army believes that we shall lose the peace and precipitate another war
    448
    in 10 or 20 years' time. The soldier of the Second army profoundly distrusts what he reads about Germany in the Press, and is convinced that the bankers, bishops and barons will ensure a peace that will make the Third Great War certain. The quotation goes on:
    "He distrusts all civilian authority, including the Socialists 'now they have become the Tories' bedfellows.' Many soldiers are not interested in the vote. 'A large number of men in my unit will not fill up the form for the electoral register,' he writes, because 'it won't do me any good.'
    "Reforms are suspect because they are too late and too grudgingly given. The soldier 'doubts whether they will ever be honourably implemented.' He thinks there must 'be a catch in' the White Paper on Social Insurance because of the previous partial rejection of Beveridge.
    "'He is convinced big business is making a nice thing out of the war. He has read some ugly reports of certain English firms charged in America with trading with the enemy. … He believes the financier was largely the cause of this war and is already thinking of the next war.'"
    Now it is not my purpose to argue whether those beliefs which I have quoted are justified or not; it is sufficient for me to say that, if any large section of the British people at home, or abroad in the Army, believe what is here attributed to them, that is a post-war political fact of the utmost political importance. If the belief be wrong it is for us to prove it so. If it be right, then it is for us to dispel it by action.
    If that is the post-war mood in which the British people face the problems of the peace, then we are moving into a period of very great social danger indeed. I have before expressed in this House the opinion that the social strains and stresses that will come at the end of this war will be vastly greater than those which we experienced at the end of the last war. I have expressed the view that the British people have a genius for avoiding social breakdown which has sometimes led them to appropriate the fruits of other people's revolutions without going through them themselves. I wish to say, however, that the whole of that British genius will have to be called upon if we are not to face a very grave situation at the end of this war. That really is the significance of the Debate to-day, to my way of thinking. The significance is not whether we agree with this detail or that of the Government's White Paper, whether we want it to go a little further

    449
    or a little less, but whether we are prepared to do what we mean to do, quickly. For if this change be not done before the election comes, if there is a General Election in which the impression will further grow that social issues of this kind are the sport of party politics, and that there is no assurance that these things will ever reach the Statute Book if a majority of this kind or that is returned, then I believe that the intellectual climate, the moral climate, in the light of which we shall face post-war problems in Britain, is going to be a very grave and unhappy one indeed.
    Why do not the Government take their courage in their own hands? The other day they told us they had to take away the rights of Private Members in the interests of the prosecution of the war. May I ask this question? Has there been, at any stage in this war, a discussion in the Cabinet as to whether we could not modify Parliamentary procedure for the purpose of securing that we do not get at the end of this war the kind of public outlook which I submit we are in grave danger of getting? Has there been a single Cabinet meeting at which we have collectively considered the possibility of getting all these Bills on the Statute Book before an election takes place? Have we no more to say about the problem of the pace of legislation than has been said up to now? Members of the House know what are the facts. The facts are that under our old orthodox procedure we cannot hope to get through this House more than about a couple of major measures in the course of the year. One hundred years ago that pace might have been all right, but we are now facing a period when what we may have to deal with is not two major measures a year but 20. Let the House consider what we are committed to already: The National Insurance Bill, Workmen's Compensation, Social Insurance, the outcome of the Dumbarton Oaks Conference, and of Bretton Woods, Civil Aviation—problem after problem piling up in the form of White Paper, or international discussion which, sooner or later, has to be brought to the point of a Bill. There are dozens of them, yet under our orthodox procedure we can only deal with about two major measures per annum.
    When the Home Secretary draws attention to this, and asks that Parliament, in order to expedite the pace of things,
    450
    should confine itself to broad issues and let the details be worked out by civil servants or somebody else, there is an immediate outcry against "delegated legislation," and an outcry that we are handing over our destinies to civil servants to dispose of. I notice, however, that those who cry out against "delegated legislation" never lift a finger in this House, and never raise a voice in this House, to urge that the procedure of Parliament should be speeded up in some other way. I notice that, while they attack the Home Secretary on that issue, nobody comes to his help with suggestions for speeding up the pace of Parliament in a way that would free us from the charge that we are having increased delegated legislation.
    I take a grave view of this, because I have seen the consequences of social breakdown in Russia, where I spent some months in 1927. However much I admire some of the things that they have done in Russia since, I hope very much that we shall not have to face social breakdown in Britain. That is too big a price for me to want to pay, even for very considerable ultimate social improvements. In my opinion, the social strains and stresses generated by this war, when the actual international aspect of the war comes to an end, will precipitate in every country in Europe a sharp conflict between those who think that society was made for man, and those who think that man was made for society. I think that the prospects of coming peacefully through that period of immense strain and stress, will depend, more than on anything else, on the belief or disbelief of the mass of the men in the army and the mass of the civilian population, in the honesty of the intentions of this House of Commons in dealing with social issues. Do not let either side of the House think that the country is behind it. Do not let the Labour Party think that the country has an unrestrained confidence in them, and none in the Tories; do not let the Tories think that the country has confidence in them, and none in the Labour Party. The truth is that the ordinary man is watching both parties and the whole Parliamentary set-up, with a great deal of suspicion and distrust.
    My last word is this, that if the Government want to preserve a belief in Parliamentary democracy, if they want to

    451
    minimise the social strains and stresses that we have to come through when this war ends, they will subordinate every calculation of electoral expediency, and so will this side of the House, to what I regard as the imperative necessity of getting these Bills on the Statute Book before, and not after, a General Election comes.
    4.0 p.m.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: I would have liked to have followed my hon. and eloquent friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) in the interesting discussion that he has started but, by the general consent of the House, Sir, and under your direction, we have now an opportunity, for a short time, of discussing something which Members from fishing constituencies greatly desire to discuss, namely, the attitude that we, the country, and the Government ought to adopt to the needs and place of the fishing industry in the days to come. I hope none of us is in any doubt as to the importance of this industry, either in size or in relative value to the nation. We are dealing here not with any secondary, or second-rate, or hole-in-the-corner trade. I am speaking to-day, as my hon. Friends will be speaking after me, for an industry whose products in volume, in money value and in nutritional benefit are of the first concern to the nation; and whose capital equipment in boats, in gear, in harbours and in long experience are, in my view, of primary value in the defence of an island State like ours; whose man-power is second to none, I claim, in those virtues of courage, hardihood, and vigorous independent enterprise, without which I, personally, see no hope of recovery for this nation after the war.
    There is no time to give many statistics, but let me recall to the House a few outstanding facts. Landings of fish before the war were worth no less than £15,000,000 a year. The value of boats and gear was then estimated, conservatively, at £10,000,000. I myself estimate that at least 500,000 people were directly or indirectly interested in the prosperity of the industry; and I do not think anyone has yet estimated how many towns and villages, scattered along our hundreds of miles of coast line and which are the very expression of dauntless British character, are almost entirely dependent on the suc-
    452
    cess of this trade. But for the silent pride of these people we should perhaps have heard a great deal more in this House about their sufferings in the years between the two wars. My hon. Friends and I who come from the coastal regions of Scotland are not unmindful of the contributions of other great industries in the country; we stand in admiration of what these other trades have done in the war years, and I hope we shall continue to maintain a right proportion in these matters. But when we observe the great and costly efforts now being made to improve the lot of miners, farmers, dockers and others we are determined to stake a claim for the men and women whom we represent, and who we believe have as great a contribution to make, in their own way, to the life of the State.
    I am not sure the country—and I doubt very much whether this House—realises the extent of the sacrifice which the fishing industry has made in this war. Let me give a fact or two from that part of the country I represent. At Anstruther, in Fife, no less than 90 per cent. of the fishermen are serving in some part of the war machine. They are to be found in every part of the world, in the Merchant Service, the Navy, the Army or the Air Force. There are none left in that port now except the old, the infirm and the maimed. Every boat in that harbour, except three, has gone, either requisitioned or sold or damaged or lost by enemy action. The quays that used to present so picturesque an appearance, that used to be so lively and active, are now practically deserted. The same might be said of the other Fife ports, and no doubt my hon. Friends would produce similar pictures of their areas.
    The overseas markets of the fishing industry have been almost completely destroyed by this war, so much so that one is in serious doubt as to whether they can ever be recaptured again. The herring trade looked to oversea markets for much more than half of its total output and no man can predict to-day when these markets will or can be restored. The multifarious gear that fishermen use, nets, ropes and so on, are now either unprocurable or can be procured only at uneconomic prices. Many harbours have suffered damage in the war, and have not obtained the slightest repair. These are the hostages that this industry has given to the war, and

    453
    I doubt whether, perhaps with the single exception of the shipping trade, any other industry in the country has made such great sacrifices in the nation's interest.
    If ever there was a case for national gratitude and for reward for service well done, it seems to me to be here, and the point of this Debate, is to ask what it is that we in this House can do, what steps can be taken, to make that reward in a fitting fashion? The fishermen ask for no charity or any grandmotherly direction from Whitehall or anywhere else. That is not what is wanted. All that they ask—and I think they are entitled to ask—is that Parliament shall provide for them the social and economic conditions within which they themselves can forge prosperity in days to come. That has been the chief function of this House in the past, and will be its inescapable function in the days to come.
    I acknowledge at once that some advance has already been made, certainly in the branch of the trade concerned with the herring catch. The Herring Industry Board, which was set up recently following upon the Herring Industry Act of last Session, bids fair to put this particular section of the industry on its feet. But "bids fair," is as far as I am prepared to go at this stage. Until I see a new fleet, up-to-date, economic, efficient, and at a reasonable price, actually upon the waters around our coasts; until the research work now being carried on, and which is so important, into the various methods of processing herring—cold storage, refrigeration, canning, curing, dehydration and all the rest—is translated into a practical commercial organisation; until new markets are available both at home and abroad—and here the Ministry of Food, the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade, carry a heavy responsibility; until all these steps are taken I myself do not feel that this House will have met the obligation which is resting upon us at the present time.
    So much for herring. In the region of white fish we have not even reached the stage of preparations, because the Committee of Inquiry has not yet finished its deliberations. I hope its Report will not be very long delayed, because many things hang upon it. The problem of boats, for example, cannot be solved until we have clear in our minds the Government's general policy in regard to white
    454
    fish, because in many hundreds of cases the same boats will be used for herring as for white fish catching. It is manifest that the Herring Industry Board is going to be hampered in using the powers which we have given it until the Government announces its white fish policy. Speed in this matter is therefore of the greatest importance. I foresee very considerable changes in the organisation and work of the inshore white fish trade. There has been something like a revolution in the business in the last 20 or 30 years. Even so lately as 10 or 12 years ago it was common to see the fisherman's wife baiting the hooks, and spending a large part of almost every day in doing it—cold, dirty, miserable, uncomfortable, ill-paid work. To-day they are no longer ready and willing to do this. That stage has passed and we have to move, whether we like it or not, to the next stage of catching—by means of the seine net. I see a very great development in the use of the seine, but it can only be made profitable and possible if the right boats are provided, at the right price.
    The right hon. Gentleman opened an exhibition in Edinburgh the other day and I should like to express my appreciation of the work that has been done there. At very short notice those responsible for the museum, supported no doubt by the Scottish Office and the Food Ministry, have produced a very attractive exhibition of the work of the fishing industry. I think something much bigger than that ought to be our aim, but there could be no more attractive exhibition. It brings public opinion to realise the immense importance of this industry, and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on what he has done. I, of course, am an enthusiast in this matter of fishing. I should like to see the trade restored to its past prosperity, but I am bound to face facts and to recognise that there must be some limit to expansion if only on account of changes in the world position. I see a real danger in leaving these fishing communities—because it is the communities, the villages and the towns, with which I feel the House should be principally concerned rather than the individual fishermen—with nothing but fishing to depend upon. The sooner we can introduce suitable and adequate ancillary industries of one kind or another the better shall we be serving the people concerned.

    455
    In this connection I am a little disturbed about the Government's employment policy, because I find in the White Paper that they intend creating what they call Development Areas, which I understand will in Scotland be more or less the same as the old Special Areas. It is only in these new so-called Development Areas, I understand, that private persons or local authorities are to be permitted to create new factories. Yet without the erection of new factories in these fishing villages there is not likely to be introduced any new industry. By the Government's policy they are prohibited from doing so. I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman will undertake to consider my proposition that fishing villages should be considered automatically as part of these Development Areas for getting permission to erect new factories.
    May I draw attention to another point? Under the new social insurance scheme fishermen are to be regarded as in Class II, that is to say, employers and not employees. As such, they are going to be very much worse off from the point of sickness benefit and compensation for injury than they are now. It seems to me an extraordinary and paradoxical situation that this great scheme, introduced to improve the social conditions of our people, is, when applied to fishermen, actually going to worsen their present conditions. At present a fisherman who goes sick immediately gets benefit. Under the new scheme he gets no benefit until the expiry of four weeks. Some steps must be taken to deal with that strange anomaly. Under the present scheme he gets compensation for injury. Under the new plan he will get none.
    I beg the right hon. Gentleman to regard this great industry and its needs as of the first importance to the nation. Eleven or 12 years ago the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) and I, and he long before I appeared here, pleaded with the Government and every Department of the State to have regard to its value in the national defence. I was told in reply to a question that the Admiralty had no need for fishermen nor for their boats. This war has taught us how stupid that view was. I beg the Government to assure us that never again will the British Government be so foolish.
    4.19 p.m.
    Mr. Boothby: I support what the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) has so ably said. I think that fishing constituencies all round the coast have reason to be grateful to the hon. Member for raising this topic. I should like to begin my remarks by a brief quotation from one of the great books of our time, "The Social History of England," by the Master of Trinity. Dr. Trevelyan writes:
    "The two chief nurseries of English seamen were the 'colliers' plying between the Northern ports and London, and the fishermen of Cornwall and Devon, many of whom ventured to the foggy shores of Newfoundland for cod. No less important was the growth in Tudor times of the herring fleets of the East Coast. Camden noted the size of Yarmouth, the out-port of Norwich, now out-stripping its rival Lynn, 'for it seems incredible what a great and throng fair is here at Michaelmas and what quantities of herring and other fish are vended.' The fishermen were favourites of the Government—"
    I ask my right hon. Friends particularly to take note of that and to compare the record of Queen Elizabeth in this matter and their own record prior to the war—
    "—because they so often helped to man the mercantile and royal navies. Laws were passed ordering the observance of 'fish days': none of the Queen's subjects were to eat meat during Lent, or on Fridays—sometimes Wednesdays were added. It was expressly stated that the object was not religious but political—to maintain our seafaring population, to revive decayed coast towns, and to prevent the too great consumption of beef and mutton which resulted in the conversion of arable into pasture. These fish laws were enforced by actual penalties. In 1563 we read of a London woman being pilloried for having flesh in her tavern during Lent. … In this and every other way, Secretary Cecil strove to maintain the seafaring population and shipping of the country. He exempted seamen from military service on land; and he enforced Navigation Laws against foreign ships, particularly in the coasting trade. The English marine could not yet carry the whole of English exports, but the Navigation Laws were aiming in that direction."
    This was the foundation of the Royal Navy. We can surely take a lesson from Queen Elizabeth, who presided over a great age in the history of this country, for she showed great sense in dealing with the fishing industry.
    This Amendment deals with the fishing industry as a whole. Broadly, it can be divided into four sections, each of which has its own problems. There is, first, the

    457
    great deep-sea white fishing, based on Hull, Grimsby, Fleetwood and Aberdeen. Second, there is the herring fishing industry based on Lerwick, Buckie, Peterhead, Fraserburgh, Yarmouth, Lowestoft, Stornoway and the Clyde. Third, there are the very interesting specialist fishings, such as the sprat and mullet fishing from Brixham, and the pilchard fishing from Falmouth. Finally, there is the great in-shore fishing, the line fishing, based on an infinity of small harbours round our coasts. Each one of these sections has its own separate problems, and it is impossible to deal with them all in a speech of a quarter of an hour's duration.
    But there is one motto which can be applied to all sections—"First catch your fish." I would ask my right hon. Friends first of all to consider carefully the whole question of seasons, because it requires most careful investigation in the light of modern knowledge. I have observed in the past that the later the spring fishing in the herring industry began in the Orkney and Shetland Islands, the better the season was likely to be, because fewer immature fish were caught. That can be applied to the other fishings as well.
    My hon. Friend the Member for East Fife mentioned the development of seine net fishing and I think that it is full of possibilities. On the other hand, I have had complaints from some of the line fishermen in my constituency, who say that if seine netting is allowed to continue without any control within the three-mile limit, it may result in putting them out of business. I am not qualified to express an opinion on this; but I am sure that this new development of seine netting inshore wants careful investigation by the Government. It may require some regulations to protect the in-shore line fishermen whom we certainly do not want to see put out of business. Then we have the vexed question of deep-sea trawlers fishing close inshore. That has gone on for at least 20 years, and it is still going on. One or two fishery cruisers are not enough to look after that problem. I agree that under war conditions it is difficult to keep a sharp look-out, but after the war there should be some more cruisers—there will be plenty of craft available for the purpose—to see that these deep-sea trawlers do not come close inshore and ruin the livelihood of the small fishermen. In this connection there is also the thorny problem of the
    458
    Moray Firth. We shall be in a pretty strong position when the war is over and I think the time will then come to say to foreign trawlers, "Keep out of the Moray Firth"; and to make a general proclamation to that effect.
    I pass from fish to bases. You cannot fish without adequate bases, just as you cannot conduct naval warfare without bases. The harbours from which the white and herring fishings are conducted should be a national responsibility. They must be well found if the industry is to prosper, and supplied with adequate storage and repair facilities, electric light and power, and the most up-to-date equipment. For the smaller harbours the responsibility must rest on the local authorities. They should be given every facility and encouragement for developing these little harbours, and keeping them in good repair. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir W. Beveridge) got hold of a good idea the other day when he brought forward the question of local development funds. One of the projects of that fund at Berwick, as I understood it, was not only the improvement of the harbour but also the purchase of four of five small boats in order to supply the inhabitants with fresh fish locally caught in the morning.
    On the question of boats, I believe, without being dogmatic, that the future lies with the Diesel engine so far as the fishing industry is concerned, and probably with dual-purpose craft. I want to ask my right hon. Friends whether any experiments are being carried out with regard to the type of craft which will be most suitable for fishing after the war. If there are not, there ought to be. Then we come to the question of releases of craft. It is most important that the largest possible number of craft should he released by the Admiralty at the earliest moment. My hon. Friend the Member for East Fife was right. So far as the fishing industry is concerned the record at the Admiralty is really a shocking one. Over and over again, before the war we pleaded with the Admiralty to make a small contribution for the upkeep of the trawler and drifter fleets, so that the boats could be kept in good order and repair. We were answered by the Admiralty to the effect that if war came the Admiralty would have no use either for the fishermen or their craft. Within a fortnight of the outbreak of war,

    459
    every serviceable craft in the fishing industry together with the men was commandeered by the Admiralty and now, of course, nobody yields to them in admiration of the fishermen for the services they have rendered in the war. Some of us can never forget the record of the Admiralty in this matter. They never lifted a finger to help the fishing industry in time of peace, but when the emergency came they rushed to it, and commandeered every man and boat they could lay hands on. We hope that will not happen again. Lastly there is the question of the men. They, as well as the boats, must be released; and unless the Government can give them some assurance of being able to earn a decent livelihood, they will not come back to fishing, and nobody can blame them.
    On the question of research I must confess that, having once observed a dehydrated herring, I do not think there is a great future for dehydration in the herring industry. I do think, however, that there is a great future in the modern methods of freezing. I believe that if they are developed it will be possible to ensure a continuous supply of fresh herrings all the year round, which would obviously be an enormous advantage. There is also a great future for the canning industry. In this connection, the work that is being done at the Torry Institute at Aberdeen is of the greatest value. I think I must also say a word in defence of the much abused kipper. I am afraid that my hon Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) may not like this. There has been a good deal of nonsense talked in the past about the dyeing of kippers. I agree that kippers should be of the highest quality; but the dye that is put on to them is a pure vegetable dye. They have to be put in a brine solution in any case; and if the dye adds a little yellow, and the public like to see them a little brighter, it does not do the public any harm, and it may do the industry some good. I quite agree that they should be well smoked, and that a minimum standard of smoking might be laid down; but I do not want the impression to get around that because a kipper looks nice and bright it is somehow or other poisonous, because there is not the slightest foundation for that charge.
    I turn in conclusion to markets. So far as the home market is concerned, I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree
    460
    that the pooling of transport charges should be continued after the war. It is of great benefit to the industry as a whole, and there is no reason why fishermen who land their catches at ports far distant from our towns should be penalised. There is also something to be said for the encouragement and revival not only of the country van going round the villages with fresh fish, but also of the hawker, who made a good living in days gone by, and played a considerable part in the distribution of fish. I yield to no one in my admiration for the Ministry of Food, but no one can say that the distribution of fish in this war has been their brightest spot. They might consider quite seriously the problem of the distribution of fish in the rural areas of this country, by rather unorthodox means if necessary. There are many small towns and villages which have not seen a herring in the last four years, even when there was a glut of herring in the North.
    We can undoubtedly increase the home consumption of herring; but that side of the trade by itself cannot restore prosperity to the industry. I would remind hon. Members that the herring is the only article of food we export from this country. The great markets were, and will be again, I hope, Russia and Northern and Central Europe. Hon. Members may not realise that before 1914 we exported every year over £1,000,000 worth of herrings to Russia alone. Poland was at that time included in Russia. It was on that export market for cured herrings that the industry as we know it to-day was built up. If we are to build up the industry after the war to anything like its old size, we must recapture that market. This brings up the whole question of international trade, which is to be considered by the House to-morrow. I shall only say this in that connection—I am afraid that not all hon. Members will agree—I do not believe that international trade, as such, is necessarily beneficial in the modern world. I do not believe we should spend the whole of our time trying to get gods out of this country, and nit trying to bring something in. I believe that, in order to be beneficial, trade must be complementary. There are things we need from Russia, timber and other things as well. I believe that, whatever my right hon. Friend may say, the Russians will want Scotch herrings again when this war is over, because

    461
    they are incomparably better, as everyone knows, than any other herrings in the world; better flavoured, and of better quality; and the Russians were once accustomed to them.
    The truth is that in the modern world the uncontrolled interplay of supply and demand upon regulated markets is an impossibility; and a high degree of purposive direction of trade is essential, if chaos is to be averted. In connection with this business of securing an export trade in herrings, I believe two things to be essential. So far as the catches are concerned, we should come to an agreement with the Norwegians and the Dutch, who are our only competitors in the North Sea, in order to avoid cut-throat competition, and the production of herrings at prices which are, in the end, below the cost of production. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to give some assurance that tentative negotiations with the Norwegian and Dutch Governments have already begun. If we can come to an agreement with them as to the rough proportion of herrings we are each to take from the North Sea per annum, we should have taken a long step in the right direction.
    The other thing to bear in mind, and I hope it will be borne firmly in mind, is that the conditions of trade vary, not only in respect of industries, but also in respect of different countries. Just as, in the case of meat, overseas producers have now organised themselves to a high degree and would welcome a corresponding organisation of our buying policy, so in the case of selling herrings to Russia, we require to centralise our sales organisation in order to deal with the purchasing organisation of the U.S.S.R. It is no use thinking we can conduct trade with Russia on an individualist competitive basis. This does not mean we have to socialise industries in this country. It simply means that every industry which wishes to do trade with Russia has to centralise its sales organisation in order to conduct trade with that particular country. Unless we do so, I do not see how we can expect to expand our Russian trade. There has to be some body, capable of speaking on behalf of the herring industry, and saying to the Russian buying organisation, "We will guarantee to supply you with so many barrels of herring per annum at a fixed price; and you can give us so much against that." On the other hand, a considerable degree of competition will be
    462
    desirable in dealing with Holland, Belgium, Poland, Czechoslovakia and what is left of Germany. There is no reason why the sales organisation of the herring industry should not be able to conduct trade both on an organised basis, and a competitive basis. The exporters in the herring fishing industry have in fact come together and formed a company to do this; but they must receive the full backing and whole-hearted support of His Majesty's Government. They are hard bargainers in Moscow; and no sales organisation can expect to a good deal with the Soviet Government unless it has the whole authority and force of His Majesty's Government behind it.
    I hope that in to-morrow's Debate the Government will be pressed for a clear definition of commercial discrimination. There would appear at present to be a sharp division of opinion between us and the United States about this, and it needs to be cleared up. They seem to think that non-discrimination means doing away with all forms of preference, all forms of long-term purchase contracts, exchange restrictions, and reciprocal trading or payments agreements. If that view were to prevail, it would be the end of us. After this war we shall only have two assets, our productive capacity and our internal market. Unless we retain the necessary powers to enable us to trade those assets, I cannot see how we can get through, unless we choose to live indefinitely on charity, which I do not think anyone in this country would wish to do.
    There is this God-given gift of shoals of most wonderful herrings, swimming round our coasts year after year. They used not to do it. Suddenly, in the reign of Henry VII, they came over here from the Baltic; and, at odd intervals, we have taken advantage of them. But between 1919 and 1940 we made practically no use of them. These herrings, which are to me a form of gold mine, I wish to see utilised to the full. I wish hon. Members could have stood with me at Fraserburgh Harbour this summer and seen this marvellous harvest being landed; hundreds and thousands of crans of herrings of superb quality. My right hon. Friend did see them, and even tasted them; and I am sure he would agree with me that it was a most remarkable and encouraging spectacle. I do not want to see these fish dumped into the sea when the war is over. I believe they could be a source of great

    463
    wealth for this country. If the Government put their back behind the fishing industry after the war as they never did between the two wars, we have here a source of great prosperity and strength to this country. We want to trade these herrings for goods. Unless we do so there is no great future for the herring industry.
    4.40 p.m.
    Mr. Loftus: The subject of this Debate is so wide that one must carefully select the items to deal with in the very short time available. As we debated the herring industry only a few months ago, and as my two hon. Friends who have lately spoken have devoted a considerable part of their speeches to herrings, I propose to deal generally with the fishing industry, and with plans for its reconstruction. The subject is so vast that I must concentrate on firing off a series of questions. I am concerned to know whether the Department is preparing now for the immediate post-war situation, the three or four years after the armistice with Germany, when Europe will be half-starved, when there will be a very great shortage of boats, when every boat will be fishing to full capacity and there will be an urgent demand for more. Also, is the Department preparing a long-term policy? Are negotiations going on now for an international convention to regulate fishing in the North Sea? What happened after the last war? In 1919–20 the North Sea was heavily stocked with fish. There were magnificent catches for a few years. Then the North Sea was over-fished; the catches went down and down, and the fish got smaller and smaller. Fifty years ago, in 1893, a Committee of this House, under the chairmanship of the then Mr. Marjoribanks, inquired into North Sea fishing, and in its report it used these words:
    "No doubt considerable diminution has occurred among flat fish, especially soles and plaice … the great falling-off in the size of the flat fish caught on the older grounds of the North Sea is a matter of universal observation."
    Over-fishing results in inventions to increase the catch per boat and man. That reduces stocks, until finally the total catch gets smaller and smaller. It is an extraordinary thing that the total average catch from the North Sea per year between 1928 and 1932 was less than that in the years 1909 to 1913—I have the
    464
    figures. In spite of the fact that there had been a great increase in the number of steam trawlers, the size of the trawl, the methods of catching, and the efficiency of the fishing gear, the total catch in the North Sea fell between those years.
    Are we after this war to have a repetition of what happened after the last war? Are we to have over-fishing—two or three good years, and then a steady decrease in the size of the catch and in the size of the fish caught in the North Sea—or are we to have international regulation? International regulation has been carried out successfully. Canada and the United States made a treaty in 1930 to regulate the halibut fishing. The result is that the average size of the fish has increased year by year, and the total amount caught in a given period by the combined fishing fleets of the United States and Canada has increased, so that on an average in five months of the year the total catch is as much as used to be caught in nine or 10 months. That means economy, leisure, and efficiency. That is a remarkable result. My first question therefore is, Are we beginning negotiations now with France, Holland, Belgium, and Norway to regulate fishing in the North Sea, as was recommended by a Committee of this House 50 years ago? Are we, at any rate, laying the foundations for this post-war period?
    Now I will deal with other matters. First, I would like to support what my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) said. What arrangements are being made for the return by the Admiralty of fishing boats now commandeered? One has a suspicion, probably wrong, that the Admiralty may hang on to these boats longer than is necessary, on the plea that there is a war with Japan. There will be such an urgent demand for them. Every boat will be required. Are negotiations going on now with the Admiralty to arrange for the release of some of the fishing boats? What plans have the Admiralty made for their vast post-armistice programme of mine-sweeping? These mines must be swept up. Are all the fishing vessels to be retained for mine-sweeping for a very long period after the armistice, or are some of them to be released?
    I turn to another vital question. Are inquiries being made as to whether any of the Admiralty auxiliary boats which

    465
    have been built for the war are of any use for the fishing industry? I know that there will be wooden boats—I think 68 feet long—but those boats will be quite useless for fishing. In the last war they built that type of boat. They are of necessity built of unseasoned wood. Some of the fishing people bought them, and they were an appalling expense and a very great failure. Are any other types of boat now being examined by the Minister, in consultation with the Admiralty, for post-war fishing? Is any consideration being given to the examination now of all commandeered fishing vessels, to see which would be suitable for fishing immediately after the war? Some will be so worn, so battered, so out-of-date, that they will be utterly unsuitable. Is a census being taken to decide which vessels will be available, and which will be released? Is any consideration being given to the seizure of enemy fishing vessels after the war, so that we can get fishing going again as quickly as possible?
    Are any arrangements being made for the preferential release after the war of young men from the Navy or Merchant Service who wish to go in for fishing? Are any inducements being offered to them? Does A.B.C.A. circulate any notices about the prospects of fishing? We want to do our utmost now, while the war is on, to interest young sailors in the fishing industry, and to attract them. To attract them we have to give them a much better deal than they had in the appalling years between 1920 and 1928. We have got to give them a minimum wage. We must give them a fair share in our plans for social security, but, in addition to that, and I call the attention of the Minister to this, we must give them opportunity. They are enterprising and courageous men, and we want to give them chances to make good and to become skippers and, later on, owners or part-owners of their vessels. We must give that chance to every young man; but here I must issue a word of warning. I hope that the policy of the Department will be to discourage big business and combines from getting hold of our fishing fleets. There are rumours to-day that one big combine is taking a very keen interest in the herring fleet, and I ask my right hon. Friend, by administration and, if necessary, by legislation, to encourage individual seamen to work up to become owners and to discourage big busi-
    466
    ness and combines reducing the fishing fleets to a kind of uniform machine, in which the individual will never have a chance of rising to become an independent owner.
    Are any steps being taken now to assist in the supply of nets for use immediately after the Armistice? I understand that camouflaged netting is no longer a great priority, and that the demand has slackened. A lot of small factories have been making it. Could not they, or some of them, be switched over to begin making the nets for the fishing fleet which will be wanted immediately after the war? Has anything been done about that?
    The hon. Member for East Aberdeen referred to markets overseas. We have our representatives of U.N.R.R.A. in all the liberated territories. Is there any liaison between the Department of Fisheries here and U.N.R.R.A.?
    Mr. Boothby: Or the Ministry of Food?
    Mr. Loftus: Yes, or the Ministry of Food. We want representatives of the Department of Fisheries going out to these countries, making the contacts with U.N.R.R.A. and examining the possibilities for supplying them, immediately after the Armistice, with cured herrings. I think there is a very great opportunity here, but the work should be commenced now and not postponed for a long time.
    The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): It has been, for a long time.
    The Minister of Food (Colonel Llewellin): Perhaps I may be allowed to interrupt. All the cured herrings have now been taken, a small part for consumption in this country and the remainder taken for the relief department of the Allied Expeditionary Force, or S.H.A.E.F., as it is called. All the cured herrings of this year are now going through these organisations to the liberated peoples of Europe.
    Mr. Boothby: Arising out of the Minister's statement, is it not a fact that while S.H.A.E.F. has taken all these herrings, U.N.R.R.A. did not take one?
    Colonel Llewellin: Let me explain the position. The initial burden for relieving the peoples of the liberated countries falls on S.H.A.E.F. U.N.R.R.A. comes along when S.H.A.E.F. hands over and it was thought better to give the herrings to the people who would consume them the more quickly.
    Mr. Loftus: I must have been bad in explanation, because the Minister is talking about what is being done now, and my whole point is what is being prepared and organised now for after the war.
    Mr. Hudson: It has been done.
    Mr. Loftus: There is a further point. I think there are many harbours occupied by the Admiralty. Is the Department in touch with the Admiralty to see if these harbours will be available for fishing? Is there to be uniformity or will some be available before others? If so, it is only fair to the fishing industry that they should know to-day and make their plans accordingly. In making plans for the future, the Herring Board should be given powers now, and, what is more, the advisory Committee should be formed now so that it can get together and start planning for after the war. All these things should be under review by the Department. I wonder if they are. I hope we shall not find, when we begin to tackle the problem, that the foundations have not been prepared. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen referred to the neglect of former years. That must not happen again. I confirm what my hon. Friend said about the way the Admiralty treated those of us who went time after time to ask for help——
    Mr. Boothby: Disgraceful.
    Mr. Loftus: This industry has served the country well in two wars. It produces as fine a type of men as any trade or industry in the country. In future, we should judge all our industries not only from the financial and economic point of view, but also take into account in helping them the type and quality of men they breed, and, judged by that test, we should rely on the utmost aid from the Government. I am sure of the good will of the Minister, but, in spite of that, I ask him to see that preparations are made now and that the organisation plans are ready for dealing with the reconstruction of our great fishing industry for a big advance after the war.
    4.58 p.m.
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I congratulate all the three hon. Members who have spoken so far on their eloquent contributions to this very important subject. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) especially
    468
    stressed a number of points which it will now be unnecessary for me to reiterate. Perhaps I may begin by referring back to a Debate which took place last July, when the Secretary of State for Scotland stated the problem before us. If I may use his words, the right hon. Gentleman said of the problem with which we are faced:
    "… a diminishing catch of most valuable food, ancient and outmoded boats, and gear and equipment practically gone,"
    Of the fleet, the right hon. Gentleman said:
    "It now consists, in the main, of very old boats, manned by elderly men and by boys. Nine-tenths of the steam drifters are over 23 years old, and half of them are more than 30 years old."
    Referring to the numbers of drifters in use, the right hon. Gentleman said:
    "Steam drifters in 1913 were 1,407 in number; by 1938, they had been reduced to 685. The total catch was diminished in almost similar proportion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th July, 1944; Vol. 401, c. 1172–3.]
    I think that, in no industry, could there be a worse or more serious decline in such a short time as we have seen in the herring industry. It meant, in terms of boats, that, in 25 years, their numbers had been more than halved. With a similar prospect to that which they had to face after the last war, this would mean that there would be no herring fleet at all in 25 years from now, not allowing for the exceptional losses caused through naval activity of all kinds.
    With regard to markets, it was said at that time, in July—and that is the present position—that the falling off of herring consumption in the home market was about 40 per cent. in those 25 years between 1913 and 1938, and that in the foreign market the demand had dropped by about 60 per cent. The Russian market, including Poland and the Baltic States, before the last war accounted for about 70 per cent. of our herring. It is impossible that we shall ever export 70 per cent. of our herring to Russia and the Baltic States again, for the simple reason that the Russians have developed their market to something over 90 times what it was at the end of the last war. I believe that if we cultivate commercial friendships with Russia we can recover a certain amount of that market; nothing like the 70 per cent.; but I still think there is great hope because of the intrinsic quality of the article itself. I

    469
    believe that in Poland and the Baltic States also we shall be able to recover a relatively greater part of the market than we shall be able to do in Russia. There are possibilities in the South American market, too, which have never been adequately exploited. There is a demand in those countries for salted fish and I do not see why herring should be excluded. With regard to the Middle East and Palestine, the Secretary of State for Scotland used to be very keen upon swapping herring for citrus fruits and things of that kind, and certainly the demand for those fruits will be great after the war, and if the demand for herring in exchange is anything like proportionate we shall be able to obtain quite a market for herring.
    In this industry we have had a general picture of decay, with the threat of ultimate extinction. No industry has been so threatened with virtual extinction as the herring industry. Instead of exporting the finest herring in the world, in the immediate pre-war years we were about to start exporting the finest men in our community once again, as we did in the early and middle 20's of this century. Any solution is very much tied up with the question of guaranteed prices for the herring that the men go out to catch. You must at any rate guarantee a minimum price, and I agree too with the hon. Member for East Aberdeen—and I have said this in this House on various occasions before—that you must have a great deal of home propaganda in order to stimulate a taste for herring at home. We have a great opportunity in this war in the Armed Forces for cultivating among people of all classes of the community from all parts of the country a taste for herring and for kipper. I know from personal experience that no people in this world can make a bigger mess of the kipper or herring than Army cooks. At least that was the case in 1939 and 1940. If there was anything to put a man against herring and fish generally it was the way it was dished out in the early morning, half cooked and half cold. It became an absolute misery to the poor soldier. I do not know what happens in the Navy; but that was the feeling among the troops. We lost a special opportunity of creating a taste for this excellent commodity. We can still do a great deal in the home market to cultivate a taste for herring. Everybody knows of its nutri-
    470
    tional value and that has been brought to the attention of the public in various campaigns. The Secretary of State for Scotland has done a good deal to try and popularise it among the primary products in various competitions and exhibitions and his example might be followed by other Ministries with a great deal of benefit.
    An important part of our foreign trade is going to be the long-term agreement method of dealing with Russia and these other countries. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen again was right when he said that you must have a centralised agency for dealing with the Russians. They have a centralised buying system and we must have a similar selling organisation here, while leaving the trade to some extent free to use its own methods with regard to other countries. We remember, for example, in 1938 when dealing with Germany that they, with a state buying organisation, came over to this country during the West Coast fishing season and offered a price so low that the local fishermen were unable to do anything but dump the fish. In that case it would have been beneficial if we had had a strong central selling organisation. Men will fish if they know that they can sell it at a good price. That is what we have to guarantee them. They deserve a good price and nobody seems to argue against that. Everybody thinks that they are fine fellows and that the work they are doing is extremely important, valuable and productive and nobody denies that a good price is deserved. The trouble is that no Government has in peace-time taken the trouble to guarantee continuously a price that will pay them for their trouble and labour. The herring industry's recovery is dependent upon the fishermen being guaranteed a good minimum price, and upon an efficient herring fleet of up-to-date boats based upon modern harbours. These are things which, according to the Secretary of State for Scotland's definition on 5th July last, are absolutely lacking to-day. I am debarred from discussing the white fish industry because, with the hon. and gallant Member for Orkney and Shetlands (Major Neven-Spence), who is chairman, I am serving our committee on white-fishing in Scotland. With regard to piers and harbours, I think that that is among the most acute of all the domestic prob-

    471
    lems of the herring industry. We must have good boats with gear and equipment. But, you cannot accommodate them in many smaller ports on the West Coast because of lack of adequate harbour space and suitable and substantial piers.
    It is no use offering ex-Servicemen a one-third grant of a vessel costing some £2,000 to £5,000. If they were adequately assisted to own their boats it would give them an interest in the fishing and running them properly and efficiently. If you are going to do that, you will have to grant much more to the ex-Servicemen coming back with only a small gratuity than one-third of several thousand pounds with a loan charge interest rate over a long number of years. One-third will not represent an adequate grant at all when they have no prospect of making up the other two-thirds, even with the help of a loan.
    I would like to draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland to a number of harbours which deserve special mention, because in them you have perhaps the most enterprising and the most tenacious of the fishing communities, those who have not yet completely given up the struggle with the unequal handicaps with which they are hampered. There is for example a place Portnaguran in the Isle of Lewis where for 50 years or more they have been trying to get a suitable pier for their community of fishermen. Governments came and went and discussions were held with the various Departments concerned. Also, tentative proposals and conditional promises were given. By 1938 a pier was guaranteed with a grant of £11,500. Recently, however, when I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland, and certain other Departments, all that seemed to be undone once more; there was no certainty whatsoever that the grant would still be available for these fishermen. After 50 years of struggling as a community to make a livelihood there, against all the odds of lack of harbour, piers and so forth, the men are now being told in advance of being demobilised and coming back home to set up the fishing industry again, that even what was granted in 1938 is no longer certain because of the competition of various other priorities in other parts of the country and in other industries. I take it that what happened in the case of
    472
    that harbour, will also happen in the case of many others, about which the Secretary of State and other Departments have been approached; at Bayble, Back and Tolsta and in other parts of the islands of the Outer Hebrides. It is most discouraging to have to write to these fishermen, and to the families of these men who hope to come back and take advantage of loans and grants and charter arrangements for new fishing boats, and tell them that they are still where they were 50 years ago when they started asking for the minimum of the absolutely essential things on which to base a fishing industry.
    May I make one appeal to the Minister on this point? It is hard enough to carry on a fishing industry without suitable harbours or piers, with outmoded and ancient boats, with a lack of modern and adequate gear, but when, along with that, you have the handicap of heavy freights, as you have in the various islands around Scotland, about which I certainly have had many representations, the fishermen and fishing communities in these areas are not being given any chance at all to compete in the open market with other communities nearer the rail and road centres. In war-time the need for the services of these fishing communities has been amply demonstrated and acknowledged. The value of maintaining these communities at full strength is obvious to everybody to-day as a result of their work in the Navy, the Merchant Navy, the Minesweeping service, and so on. In peace-time it is acknowledged that their work is productive of most important food supplies. The industry gives useful productive employment to our people in their own homes; it maintains a population which makes a big contribution in peace, as well as in war, to the prosperity of our country, and has made a big contribution in some of its finest citizens to the Dominions and British Colonies.
    There is a point to which I would like to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland especially, and that is the need for technical education in the Hebrides for the boys who are growing up there and may be attracted, that is with good conditions and on good terms and with good prospects assured, into the herring fishing industry. There is no use in sending these boys across to the mainland to be

    473
    trained, because, in the first place they cannot afford it; secondly, they are not so near to the practical work of the herring fishing, to the environment in which fishermen in the past have grown up and become useful fishermen, useful sailors, and useful members of the Merchant Navy. The best technical education these boys can get is in their own home areas amidst the fishing industry, right in the heart of it, beside the Atlantic, amongst all the lore and tradition of the fishing industry, beside their own fathers and older brothers, among their relatives and friends who are practising fishing. There is a strong demand in the Islands to-day for technical education for a school situated in the Islands where the various aspects of the fishing industry and of navigation can be taught along with agricultural subjects and the various courses when can be given in weaving, design, and so forth—the Harris tweed industry there has developed in a very big way, and needs new technical skill, too. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give his support and consideration to technical education in the Hebrides.
    We have witnessed, as the right hon. Gentleman said, a diminishing catch of the most valuable food owing to ancient and outmodel boats, piers and harbours. It has practically gone into decay in a very short period of 25 years, before the very eyes of the Government who, perhaps, thought they would not need again the services of the fishermen and their families in war. That is the picture of the decline and fall of a great industry. The restoration of that industry, its rebuilding and reconstruction, must at least be on as great a scale as that decline and fall. The people, I believe, are calling for a big effort now, and if the effort is not forthcoming, the final disaster will be overwhelming. This industry will not be able to survive unless the Government takes a hand.
    There is one final point which is strongly felt in the Hebrides to-day—if I may revert to the technical school. I would like to stress it for the right hon. Gentleman. It is that, when he is dealing with the question of technical education, special emphasis shall be laid upon the fact that it shall not be under the omnibus school arrangement; that it shall be separate and shall also have the fullest practical relationship to the industries
    474
    themselves in part-time day continuation classes. I do not mean the four hours per week which is allowed for under the coming Scottish Education Bill, but a real practical course of instruction, the boys being engaged part of the time in fishing itself, and the rest of the time in the theoretical education which will give them a chance to become skippers and navigators and masters, all the fine opportunities which they have been denied in the past.
    5.18 p.m.
    Major Neven-Spence: My hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan), who is at present sitting with me on a committee examining white fishing problems in Scotland, has referred to the diminishing catch of herrings in Scotland and the ageing men and boats in that industry. I should like to reinforce what he has said by calling attention to the calamitous fall in the herring catch of Scotland, which has gone down from 4,750,000 cwt. in 1913 to 2,750,000 cwt. in 1938. That has mean a decline in the earnings of the men from just over £2,000,000 to just over £1,000,000. During the same period, the landings of white fish have remained at the same figure, but the value has nearly doubled, and the position of the men themselves is that whilst the herring used to be worth £2,000,000 to them it is now only worth £1,000,000, and the white fish, once worth £1,000,000, is now worth £2,000,000. This is an extremely important industry to Scotland, and I hope that everything that can possibly be done to get it on its feet again will be done.
    Reference was made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) to the disposal of herring, and I hope some efforts will be made, when negotiations are entered into with Russia, to get herring placed somewhat higher on the priority list. Agricultural machinery and things like that come at the top of the list, while herring is about fortieth, after harmoniums and mouth-organs and things of that kind. The Russian Government are able to say to their people what they are to eat, and they give them the Black Sea herring, which is definitely not as good as the herring which we can supply. Therefore, I hope it will be possible to induce the Russian Government to take rather more of our herring that they have taken in the past.

    475
    The release of boats is an urgent problem; plans must be made now. The supply of boats will be difficult. Fishermen were badly bitten by the standard steam drifter after the last war. I have been to practically every fishing port on the Scottish coast, together with my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles and another member of the Committee, and at every one of them these steam drifters were condemned. They were millstones round the necks of the men, who will never touch them again. Fortunately, other types are available which promise to be economical to run and suitable for their purpose. I found great interest in what the terms will be on which men will get these new boats. The broad terms were laid down in the recent Act, but men are anxiously awaiting the final terms which will be laid down by the Herring Industry Board, and which, I hope, will be published as soon as possible. Generally speaking, the men now engaged in fishing, and who are satisfied with their own position, are anxious about what will be done to help ex-Servicemen, who have not been earning big sums of money and who will need substantial assistance to get going again after the war.
    The Scottish trawling industry is in an extremely bad way and it is very unfortunate that there was no standard of profits, as they were not making any profits before the war. When they might now have been accumulating money which they so badly need it is all going in E.P.T. and in other directions, and some help will, obviously, have to be given to enable the industry to get going again. I believe that the trawling industry made representations to the Admiralty, when it was building vessels for mine-sweeping, that it should build trawlers and adapt them for mine-sweeping. But the Admiralty, quite rightly, said "No, we want mine-sweepers. If you want to adapt them afterwards for trawling, all well and good." I know that the Admiralty have recently released 12 slipways for the express purpose of building trawlers for use after the war, but I hope the industry itself will do something for its fishermen. I was disgusted, when looking at some of the older trawlers in Aberdeen, to see the conditions in which men are working. I am sorry that the benches here should be so empty on an occasion when we are talking about
    476
    labour conditions in this important industry, because we might have had some advice. I believe it is a fact that the modern 60-ft. type of boat has far better accommodation for men than any of the old trawlers of double the length.
    Another vitally important point in building new trawlers is that it has been proved by research that white fish will not keep in the best conditions for more than 10 days on ice. If it is not too well handled it will probably keep only seven days. A great quantity of the fish which used to come to this country before the war was iced when caught, and might have been 20 days old when landed. So the trawling industry might give consideration to freezing the first part of their catch, so that it may be landed in good condition. The latter part of their catch could be iced in the ordinary way. Some steps will have to be taken to get priority for the release of fishermen. This is important because a large part of our food supplies comes from the sea. Attention, too, must be given to the question of the release of timber for barrel hoops and staves. Further, for some years past it has been getting more and more difficult to recruit crews of women who normally do the gutting of the herring. Boys have been taking their places in some instances. These girls have a very hard life, conditions are very uncomfortable, and I think a good deal might be done to make things easier and better for them. Superficially, this is a very dirty job, as is the baiting of lines. Wherever we went round the coast we heard that women had "packed up and would not bait any more lines." Personally, I sympathised with them. I do not think this matters very much now, because alternative ways of fishing are now available.
    Another important question is whether the future of herring may not lie more with ice than with salt. Research has shown that it is possible to make as good a kipper, and, possibly, even a better one, out of a good frozen herring as a fresh one. There is the possibility of storing herring when the season is on and releasing it later for fresh food or kippering. Here I would say to the Minister of Food that the time has come when the Government ought to take very firm action in relation to dyed kippers. The dyed product we see now is doing a great deal of harm to the fishing industry, because what is commonly bought from the shop-

    477
    keeper as a kipper is not really a kipper at all; it is a herring which has been very lightly salted, severely dyed and given a whiff of smoke. A proper kipper is neither salted nor dyed; it is properly smoked. The trouble is that if you start with a cran of herring and treat them in the way they are treated at present you will get about 23 boxes of kippers. If you smoke that cran of herring properly you only get 17. That is where the incentive lies for the kipperer to put out this very inferior product. I do not think it will be got over except by stringent regulations as to how kippers are to be produced.
    May I utter a word of warning? We often hear about gluts of herring in the sea, and I think people are hoping that freezing may be the answer to the problem. I doubt that very much. A glut of herring is a natural phenomenon and we have about as much hope of controlling it as of controlling an earthquake or a cyclone. When there is a glut of herring, a very large part of the catch is really spoilt for processing in any way. We hear a lot about fish having to be thrown away, but I do not think I have ever heard anyone refer to the very much worse loss that the fishermen themselves sustain when a glut takes place owing to the fact that they frequently lose their nets. The reason why we cannot deal with a glut is that we have only a limited number of crews at the particular place for curing the herrings; the curers provide crews which they think will cope with the largest catch they are likely to get. The only thing that is of any great help is rough packing, by which you can handle three times as much herring as if you were salting and curing them. But here, again, there is a catch, because you cannot treat all herring like this. It is no use treating herring in a fat or oily condition. Whatever we do, we shall always have to face the possibility of herring having to be thrown back into the sea or turned into manure.
    I wish to say a word on the subject of boats. The tragedy of the Scottish inshore fishermen, the men who were originally fishers with lines and hooks, is that they have suffered from revolutionary changes in methods of catching. When trawling grew to be more and more important, the impact of that was extremely severe on the line fishermen. They switched over very largely to herring as a way out of their difficulty. That was all right for a time. Then herring fell on bad days, so
    478
    that very often communities were practically ruined through no longer being able to live by line fishing and getting into great difficulties over herring fishing. But I think there is new hope in this great development of the use of the seine net. At Lossiemouth between 1918 and 1938 landings of white fish went up from 5,000 cwt. valued at £14,000 to 125,000 cwt. valued at £127,000. That is a most startling increase, and Lossiemouth, which was ruined because of its dependence on the herring fishing, is once again the centre of a very prosperous industry, well-equipped with modern boats and gear, nearly all owned by the men themselves. If my right hon. Friend can produce a number of Lossiemouths all round the Scottish coast—I see no reason why it should not be done—I believe he will have done the greatest service to Scotland that it is possible to do, because a prosperous fishing industry is the backbone of all these boroughs and villages round the Scottish coast. It is of the utmost importance that prosperity should be brought back and I believe that seine net fishing points the way.
    There is one practical point that I should like to ask about. The Herring Board has been given power to make loans and grants to fishermen. Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether a man who gets help in this way will be able to use his boat for white fishing, or is he tied down to using it for herring? I do not believe we can draw a hard and fast line between herring and white fishing. The ideal set-up for the industry is to have the men provided with all-purpose boats, which can be used for herring fishing, line fishing, seine net fishing or, it may be, ring net fishing. It is a tragedy to see so many men who only fish for herring during part of the year and have to try to live for the rest of the year on their very meagre earnings or else go to sea. I do not believe it is a good plan to have men alternating between the sea and the herring industry. There is no reason why the two methods of fishing should not be run together and the man who is fishing herring from his own port during the height of the herring season use the same boat for carrying on with white fishing during the rest of the year. That is the only way these boats will be able to pay for their overheads—that they should he kept fishing every day they can fish.

    479
    There is one point that I hope my right hon. Friend will look into. I am told that the quotation for building a 50-foot boat in Scotland, the hull alone, is the same as the figure for building a complete boat in Arklow, with engine and seine net gear. If that is so, there is something very wrong. I should like to be assured that boat builders are not making a deliberate attempt to walk off with the grant that the men may get to help them to obtain these boats. There can be no excuse for this great difference in price. I should like to quote a remark made the other day by a fisherman who was asked why, in view of all the hard times he has gone through, he was still a fisherman. He said, "Need makes a naked man run." I think it is need which has kept a great many of these men in the industry, and they have hung on to it. The fisherman is a born gambler and has an ever-lasting fund of hope to draw upon. One cannot help being struck in our fishing villages with the extraordinarily fine type of citizen found there—hard working, self-reliant, brave, enterprising men. I do not like to think that men like that, who are ready to risk their lives that we may get our food, should ever fall into the state that so many of them have fallen into between the last war and the present. If my right hon. Friend can do anything to restore prosperity to the industry, he will have done Scotland a very great service indeed.
    5.40 p.m.
    Major McCallum: As the herring fishing industry has been gone into by other hon. Members, I do not propose to refer to it except to take up my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) in his reference to the best herring in the world. He has forgotten the Loch Fyne herring.
    Mr. Boothby: I said Scottish herring, and that covers the lot.
    Major McCallum: I accept that, but the Loch Fyne herring is the best of the Scottish herring. We have just listened to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Orkney and Zetland (Major Neven-Spence) and the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) on the question of the white fish industry, which to my mind is now the most important branch of the Scottish fishing industry to be dealt with. One or two speakers have
    480
    expressed doubts about what is to come out of the Herring Fishing Act passed in the previous Session. I feel that we should wait to see what advantage and benefit will be derived in due course, but we are very worried as to the position in white fishing. The two hon. Members who have just spoken are engaged on the Commission and have spoken of matters with great technical knowledge. It is to be hoped, therefore, that before long we shall have the benefit of their conferences and negotiations and that some recommendations will be brought before the Government to resuscitate the white fish industry. I know whole areas in the islands off the West coast of Scotland which used to be busily engaged in the white fish industry, and now there is not a single boat or crew to go out.
    In trying in a small way to resuscitate this industry, I have taken occasion to put one or two questions to my right hon. Friend as to what assistance fishermen can get by way of loans or grants for boats. The last reply I had was that the question of boats for the inshore and white fishing industry was being referred to the Scottish Council of Industry. Again I hope that something definite will come out of that very quickly. I wish to refer to one question which has not been stressed sufficiently to-day, and that is faulty distribution. I have referred my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Food on many occasions to this question, and I am told that the best possible distribution is made. I would ask him, however, if it is commonsense that while fish are caught round the coast of Scotland towns and villages within a mile or two of where they are caught cannot get fish by hook or by crook. Fish are landed on the Mull of Kintyre and are passed to the rail head at Oban, yet I have had complaints from the Oban local authorities that there is often not a fish to be had there. One of the most important things in connection with the fishing industry to be overhauled is fish distribution.
    5.45 p.m.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Johnston): As the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll (Major McCallum) indicated, this problem can be divided broadly into two parts. There is not only the problem of production, but the problem of distribution. The problem of production is one to which the Government had given anxious and detailed

    481
    attention during the past few years. This year our Herring Industry Bill indicated the method of approach to that problem. It passed the House unanimously, and I believe that it affords hope to all the herring fishermen who are producing a commodity which, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) said, is second to none in nutrition. So far as production is concerned, I think the herring industry has set sail for a bright future. On the productive side of white fishing, I can speak for only a moment or two. I feel particularly impressed with the experiments being conducted at Loch Sween. It may be that exaggerated ideas are abroad as to the economic effects of those experiments. Nevertheless, it is true that they can by certain devices feed the plankton and in turn feed the larvæ, which in turn feed the fish, so that they can multiply by 300 per cent. the rate of growth of flat fish in our sea lochs. That is a hopeful experiment in multiplying the food resources of the world, and it may, indeed, be a considerable advantage not only to the people of this country, but to other nations as well.
    The hon. Member who opened the discussion referred to the general importance of this industry in our national economy. To everything he said Ministers assent most heartily. In the last pre-war year, 1938, we produced £16,500,000 worth of fish food consisting of herring and white fish and a little in shell. We provided in this industry, either directly or indirectly—indirectly much more than directly—employment for 150,000 men. It is a large and considerable industry. Indeed, no Government could afford to ignore the importance of such an industry in the national economy, and certainly this Government does not. An hon. Gentleman opposite asked a question which was promptly replied to by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Food, as to what preparations were being made for distributing the product. That is a large issue and one which would require a considerable measure of public time to discuss. We are taking steps to increase the consumption in the home market, for instance through the schools. A considerable step has been taken through the schools and by teaching our girls how to cook fish. Apart from raising the home consumption, the hon. Gentleman asked what is being done with a view to selling surplus products abroad.
    482
    While my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food said that S.H.A.E.F. this year had taken the entire surplus, with the exception I think of about 1,500 tons that have gone to the Mediterranean white fish market—[Interruption]—they are not the sort of red herrings to which my hon. Friend is referring. The point we have to make up our minds about is that the products of our waters, our sea fishing, should be used first of all for the proper sustenance of the people of this country. Priority in our markets should go here, but we ought to take steps to ensure that there are no restrictions in production until everyone gets enough. That is the policy that the present Government is pursuing. Twelve slipways have been put at the disposal of shipbuilders for the building of 12 new trawlers—certainly a small number, but it is a beginning, even during the war. We hope to see that our industry is equipped, partly from the stocks presently in the possession of the Admiralty, and it may be partly from foreign sources. We hope to see that our industry is equipped at the earliest possible moment with men and boats, efficiently provided, to ensure that our markets will be properly supplied. What more anyone can do than that in the middle of war is beyond me. We have indicated to our Herring Industry Board the lines of our approach, how we think part of the industry can be organised. We go further and say that the home market shall be stimulated in every possible way; and thirdly, we are prepared to organise the proper distribution of the surplus products abroad.
    The Government have no possible ground for objecting to any comments that have been made here to-day. On the contrary, we welcome the interest that the House of Commons shows in this great industry. The fact that every Minister concerned has sat on these benches to-day is an indication of our interest in this matter. We can certainly give the assurance not only that anything and everything that can be done will be done to ensure that in the future this great fishing industry of ours in all its phases, herring, white fish, shall be an efficient producer of food, but that we shall assist it to organise its markets. The old chaotic conditions of glut and slump, of scramble—starvation to-day, prosperity to-morrow—must be evened out, and anything and everything His Majesty's Government can

    483
    do towards that end not only will be done but is being done now.
    Mr. Boothby: Would my right hon. Friend give an assurance that his Department and the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Agriculture are in contact with the Admiralty with regard to the release of craft suitable for fishing after the war?
    Mr. Johnston: Yes, Sir, most certainly. It is an obvious sort of thing which we have been doing.
    Mr. Boothby: You never know with the Admiralty.
    Mr. Johnston: It is impossible during the war for us to do more than we are now doing, that is to get a promise from the Admiralty that at the earliest possible moment ships and personnel will be released for this industry.
    Mr. Loftus: Is a survey being made of these boats with regard to which are suitable for fishing and which of these boats must be scrapped?
    Mr. Johnston: I cannot answer that question. I do not know where these trawlers are; the Admiralty know, we do not. All we have is an assurance that at the earliest possible moment every vessel will be returned.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman say something on the point about designating these fishing districts as Development Areas?
    Mr. Johnston: That is rather outside the scope of the discussion this afternoon. In a Debate at an early date the President of the Board of Trade will be dealing with that matter. I can assure the hon. Member that the interests of the fishing industry in this country are not being lost sight of.
    Major Neven-Spence: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that the White Fish Commission was set up but it had only just got into the saddle when war broke out. It produced a Report which I have seen, a very valuable Report with a lot of useful points in it, which will be of the greatest interest to all branches of the fishing industry. Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to see that that Report is published as soon as possible?
    Mr. Johnston: I cannot give an answer to that offhand. It may not lie within my
    484
    jurisdiction to give an answer. I will look into the matter and let the hon. and gallant Member know.
    Mr. R. J. Taylor: When my right hon. Friend is making representations with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture about the return of boats, will he do something about getting permission granted for a considerable number of working men, miners in my constituency, along the coast, to be allowed to go out and fish with their boats from the shore?
    Mr. Johnston: I cannot guarantee that.
    Ordered: "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Captain McEwen.]
    Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

    STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS, ETC.
    Select Committee appointed to consider every Statutory Rule or Order (including any Provisional Rule made under Section 2 of the Rules Publication Act, 1893) laid or laid in draft before the House, being a Rule, Order, or Draft upon which proceedings may be taken in either House in pursuance of any Act of Parliament, with a view to determining whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to it on any of the following grounds:

    (i) that it imposes a charge on the public revenues or contains provisions requiring payments to be made to the Exchequer or any Government Department or to any local or public authority in consideration of any licence or consent, or of any services to be rendered, or prescribes the amount of any such charge or payments:

    (ii) that it is made in pursuance of an enactment containing specifie provisions excluding it from challenge in the courts, either at all times or after the expiration of a specified period:

    (iii) that it appears to make some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the Statute under which it is made:

    (iv) that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in the publication of it:

    (v) that for any special reason its form or purport calls for elucidation:

    Captain Crowder, Mr. Owen Evans, Mr. Thomas Fraser, Mr. Furness, Mr. Edmund Harvey, Mr. Moelwyn Hughes, Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew, Mr.

    485
    Molson, Mr. Petherick, Mr. Ellis Smith and Mr. E. P. Smith.
    To have the assistance of the Counsel to Mr. Speaker;
    Power to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House, and to report from time to time:
    Power to require any Government Department concerned to submit a memorandum explaining any Rule, Order, or Draft which may be under their consideration or to depute a representative to appear before them as a Witness for the purpose of explaining any such Rule, Order, or Draft:
    Instruction to the Committee that before reporting that the special attention of the House should be drawn to any Rule, Order, or Draft the Committee do afford to any Government Department concerned therewith an opportunity of furnishing orally or in writing such explanations as the Department think fit.
    Three to be the Quorum.—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]

    KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS (HOUSE OF COMMONS)
    Adjourned Debate on Question [30 th November], further adjourned till To-morrow.

    PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (ACCOMMODATION)
    Resolved:
    "That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to enquire into the accommodation in the Palace of Westminster and to report thereon with such recommendations as appear to them desirable."—[Sir Percy Harris.]
    To be communicated to the Lords, and their concurrence desired thereto.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  POLICE AND CIVIL DEFENCE SERVICES (ARBITRATION MACHINERY)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain McEwen.]
  5.59 p.m.
  Mr. W. J. Brown: I wish to raise a matter about which I gave the Home Secretary notice some time ago. About a year ago, I and other Members of the House of Commons were ap-
  486
  proached by representatives of the Auxiliary Police, the war-time body of police, recruited to help the ordinary police forces of the country. They complained, first, about their conditions of service, and, secondly, about the inordinate delay——
  It being Six o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain McEwen.]
  Mr. Brown: —as they represented, in getting a reply from the Home Office to the claims that they had advanced. In company with other Members I investigated that position; and I found that there was, as it seemed to me, an extraordinary state of affairs. In the first place, there appeared to be no adequate machinery for settling, by conciliation, disputes about the conditions of service of this very large body of men. In the second place, it appeared that where it was impossible to settle such disputes as might arise by conciliation and agreement, there was no provision anywhere for the settlement of such disputes in the normal way, the common way in England, by reference to an arbitration board. On further investigation it appeared that things were equally unsatisfactory in other services controlled by the Home Office, such as the regular police, the National Fire Service, and the Defence Services created during this war generally. In the case of the regular police, it appeared that they were forbidden to be members of a trade union. It seems that in 1919 there was a strike by the police, which resulted in the passage of the Police Act later that year, which laid down that policemen should not be members of a trade union.
  In place of a trade union, and the ordinary negotiation machinery which goes with a trade union, there was created what was known as the Police Federation. This Federation appointed representatives to meet the Home Office from time to time, and that was the only kind of conciliation machinery which existed between the regular police and the Home Office. I was told by representatives of the regular police that the Federation met the Home Office about once a year on the average, and that most of the time of the second meeting of the year was occupied in saying "No" to the claims advanced at

  487
  the first meeting. The police to whom I talked were unanimous in the view that that machine was utterly unsatisfactory. Here, again, with the regular police, there was the same feature, that there was no provision for arbitration. The Home Office was judge and jury and recorder in its own cause, and there was no court of appeal against a decision of the Home Office, except this House of Commons. The same general remarks apply to the National Fire Service. That is a wartime creation, and the members of that Service in fact enjoy the privilege, or the opportunity, of belonging to a National Firemen's Association. But here, again, there is no regular conciliation machinery, and no provision for reference to arbitration where disputes cannot be solved by agreement. So with the other Defence Services—the ambulance service and so on.
  It seemed to us who investigated the matter that there were three features common to pretty well all these services which come under the control of the Home Office. The first was the absence of adequate conciliation machinery. The second was inordinate delay in dealing with grievances—and any trade union representative will tell the House that the magnitude of the grievance is in direct proportion to the delay experienced in dealing with it. The third common feature was that there was no right of appeal to arbitration against the decision of the Home Office. Some of the delays appeared to be very serious. For example, I was told that the regular police had asked, as early as July, 1943, for the right of appeal to arbitration. They had received no reply at all by July, 1944—when they sent a reminder—and, in August 1944, they were told that the Home Office were still not in a position to reply to that application. In other words, a period of something like 16 months has elapsed since reasoned representations were submitted on this point, and the regular police of this country are still without a reply to the issue which they raised. There appears to be a similar delay with the auxiliary police, who put in an application for an increase of wages as long ago, I think, as September, 1943, and an application for the right of appeal to arbitration as long ago as January, 1944. But they, too, have still received no reply to their representations in that respect.
  488
  As against that picture—a picture of inadequate conciliation machinery, protracted delay, and no right of appeal to arbitration—the regular Civil Service has had properly-constituted Whitley Councils for the last 25 years, and the right of appeal to arbitration in wages disputes and others since 1925. The Prison Officers have had a Whitley Council for some years past, and the right of going to arbitration on wages and other disputes. And the Government, as a whole, has not only cordially recommended employers and employed to settle their disputes by arbitration, but has also, during this war, created a National Wages Tribunal for the purpose.
  In the light of what we discovered, hon. Members of this House—and they were Members of all parties in the House, and not merely Members of my own—sent a deputation to the Home Secretary which made a reasoned presentation of the case as we saw it, and pleaded that, as an issue of principle, there ought to be proper conciliation machinery in these Services and a normal right of appeal to arbitration where cases could not be settled by agreement. I have forgotten the precise date of that deputation, but it was some time before the Summer Recess and, if I say it was in the neighbourhood of three or four months ago, I think it will probably be about right.
  The Home Secretary met us with his accustomed courtesy, and promised to go into the representations that we submitted, but, although I have written to the right hon. Gentleman repeatedly, on behalf of this all-party group, on a number of occasions since, I have not been able to get any reply to the representations that we then made. What is in the mind of the Home Secretary I do not pretend to know, and the only indication of difficulty that we had when we saw him was his reference to the fact that some of these services, and especially the regular police and auxiliary police, were what he described as "disciplined services," that is to say, services where men were under, not a military discipline, but a quasi-military discipline, where one man says unto another "Go," and he goes, unto another "Come," and he cometh, and, to a third, "Do this," and he doeth it, and that this distinguished these services from others in which conciliation and arbitration machinery existed. It would

  489
  be unjust to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman gave us a final reply on the question, but he hinted at this as a difficulty.
  Now the very fact that these are disciplined services is not an argument against the provision of the necessary conciliation and arbitration machinery, but rather an additional argument in support of it. Or, to put it differently, the more disciplined the service is in this respect, that is to say, the more helpless the individual is to enforce his own rights, the more he is precluded from having a trade union of the ordinary type, the more essential it is that he should feel in his own mind that there is other adequate machinery for the settlement of his grievances, and that he is not dealing with a Department which is judge and jury in its own cause. All service is disciplined, from domestic service to divine service. There can be no service that is not disciplined. But the more the discipline is of a military or quasi-military character, the more essential it is that the helpless member of that service should be satisfied that there is adequate machinery for dealing with his grievances.
  The last point is that, in the absence of such machinery as I have asked for and am asking for now, the men in the service have only one court of appeal open to them. They are public servants, and their only court of appeal ultimately is to this House of Commons. In the absence of such machinery as I appeal for, they are bound to bring to us their grievances about wages, hours, subsistence allowance, overtime, promotion, and so on. I wish to assert, first, that this House is not a body suitably composed for passing detailed judgment upon an unlimited number of wage claims. We are not so constituted as to be the most desirable body to discharge that function. The second observation is that it is wholly undesirable in the public interest that the conditions of public servants, whether they are in the so-called disciplined services or the wider Civil Service, should be the subject of a "dutch auction" between rival parties in this House. That is quite undesirable. If we are not to have that, then we must provide the necessary machinery for settling these things without reference to the House of Commons
  I understand that the Home Secretary has been very busy. He has been courteous enough to drop me a note that be-
  490
  cause of that he will not be able to be here to-night, and I understand that the Under-Secretary of State is ill, and that, therefore, another hon. Member will be replying for him. I understand that, and I can understand, too, that with the pressure of bombs and doodle-bugs and the rest of it, the Home Secretary's job is not an easy one. But I do not want to take up a great deal of the time of the Home Secretary. He ought to be able to give a decision in principle; he ought to be able to say as a matter of clear principle, "I have decided that there shall be adequate conciliation machinery for the adjustment of these difficulties, and where that conciliation machinery does not produce agreement there ought to be the right of access to an independent arbitration court, which every other Government Department is prepared to accept." Every other Government Department accepts it. The House provides for it in all disputes between members of the public and the Crown. If the Crown takes our land, and we do not like the price, we have the right of appeal to an independent body. If the Minister of Pensions, whom I see sitting on the Front Bench, does not give one of our constituents a square deal, or we think he does not, although he always desires to do so, we have the right of appeal to a tribunal. There should always be a court of appeal from the overwhelming power of the State. It is in pretty well every Act of Parliament we discuss here. It is observed by every Government Department in its relations with its staff. I can see no reason whatever why this particular category of people, to the number, in the aggregate, of some hundreds of thousands, should be excluded from the scope of the operation of that simple principle.
  Therefore I ask the Home Secretary to take two decisions: one, that there shall be adequate conciliation machinery; two, that there shall be proper access to arbitration. Having taken those decisions in principle, I ask him to tell his civil servants in the Home Office to work out the necessary details, and when these have been worked out, let them be submitted to the Home Secretary and to the Member for Rugby, and between us we shall reach a definite conclusion.
  6.16 p.m.
  The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Robert Grimston): Perhaps I may say,

  491
  first, that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has asked me to convey his apologies to my hon. Friend and the House that he is unable to be here to-day. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security is laid up in bed and she cannot be here, and my right hon. Friend has asked me to reply for him. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) for his courtesy in saying that this will be agreeable to him; I hope it will be to the House. My hon. Friend has raised several points to Which I will endeavour to make reply but, in order to do so, it is necessary for me to sketch some of the background of the Civil Defence Services. I should not like to let this opportunity pass, when I am at this Box speaking for the Ministry of Home Security, without paying my tribute to the magnificent work which has been carried out by the Civil Defence Services in this war. As the House knows, these services are made up of the wardens, the rescue parties, ambulance, first aid, and the Civil Defence reserve and also, as my hon. Friend has mentioned, the National Fire Service and the police. The set-up, like many of our successful institutions, is somewhat illogical. Leaving aside for a moment the question of the National Fire Service and the police, to which I would like to refer separately, most of these services are local authority services employed by the local authority but paid by the central Government. We have the position, therefore, of these services having one employer and being paid by somebody else, the whole of course, under the general responsibility of the Minister of Home Security.
  Now as regards their rates of pay: these have been based broadly on those of the Armed Forces. To go into one small detail, the Civil Defence rate has been made broadly equivalent to that of a married private with one child——
  Mr. W. J. Brown: Except that many of these men are much older than a married private with one child and have, in fact, a wife and several children.
  Mr. Grimston: Yes, that is why I used specifically the word "broadly."
  Mr. Brown: It is very broad.
  Mr. Grimston: The reasons for that are that the work of the Civil Defence
  492
  Services is really governed by enemy action; they are, in fact, fighting troops. I think it would be very inviduous to say to a man, "If you have to deal with a bomb at midnight, you will get a different rate of pay from that which you will get if you have to deal with a bomb in the middle of a day," and the ordinary conditions—wage rates and so on—worked out in accordance with industry did not seem to apply to the Civil Defence Services which, as I say, do their work more or less in accordance with the dictates of the enemy.
  My hon. Friend has complained of the conciliation machinery which exists and I should like to describe to the House exactly what it is. There is what is called the Joint Consultative Committee which was originally set up when the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was at the Home Office. That Consultative Committee has been set up and is composed, on the workpeople's side, of the representatives of the various unions of which they are members. These unions are the Transport and General Workers Union, the National Union of General and Municipal Workers, the National Federation of Building Trades Operatives and the National Union of Public Employees; the Fire Brigades Union is also represented on the Committee. On the official side, the Committee consists of officials of the various Departments concerned.
  I am given to understand that by and large that Consultative Committee has worked with success. The view my right hon. Friend takes now is that here we have, in the fifth year of the war, an organisation which is at present being unwound—we hope we are approaching the end of the war—and it would, therefore, be a great pity to introduce now a radical change in machinery which has, perhaps with some exceptions, in the main worked well. These services are in the process of dwindling. We cannot say that in peace-time they will be disposed of, but their size and activities will be nothing as compared to what they have been, and it does not seem a good moment now to introduce a radical change in the machinery.
  I would like to say a few words about the National Fire Service and the police. In pre-war days the fire service was the responsibility of local authorities, but after the outbreak of war it was nationalised. Its future is now, or will be shortly, under

  493
  discussion. Obviously, its future in peace-time is a most important matter, and it seems hardly the moment now for a definite decision regarding conciliation machinery to be taken beforehand.
  Mr. W. J. Brown: Is it not precisely the moment that it should?
  Mr. Grimston: Not before the future of the service is settled.
  Mr. Brown: If it be the case that the Home Office are considering the whole future of fire prevention in Britain—because that is what it comes to—surely it is the precise moment when the Home Office ought to decide in principle, whatever the details may be, that one of the characteristics of employment in that service should be that there should be adequate conciliation machinery, and appeal to arbitration where a case cannot be settled.
  Mr. Grimston: I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree that there must be adequate conciliation machinery, but if discussions are going on as to a future set-up it is a pity to make up one's mind on one item of that set-up before having completed the whole. That is my right hon. Friend's position. I am sure that he is willing to admit that the question of arbitration is arguable, and I am also sure that in considering the future of the service that subject will be bound to come up for consideration. Now I come to the police. As far as the regular police are concerned, their conditions and conciliation machinery are governed by the Act of 1919. Any alteration in that would be a matter for legislation, and although I do not want an easy "get-out" on this I think I should be called to Order if I discussed legislation on a Motion for the Adjournment.
  Mr. Brown: There is nothing in the Police Act of 1919, which I have read with some care, which prevents a decision to-morrow by the Home Secretary that there should be facilities for arbitration in the regular and auxiliary police services.
  Mr. Grimston: I am advised that it would mean an Amendment of the Act.
  Mr. Brown: That advice is wrong.
  Mr. Grimston: Well, we must leave it there for the moment. The pay and conditions of the Police War Reserve are assimilated to the Civil Defence Services, and they have their own machinery,
  494
  known as the Auxiliary Police Association. Both that Association and the Police Federation have approached my right hon. Friend on questions of pay and arbitration, and he is going to invite both those bodies to discuss these matters with him.
  I agree entirely that many of the matters under discussion are not fit subjects to be brought up on the floor of the House, therefore, partly for that reason, and whilst the hon. Member has every right, and perhaps duty, to bring these matters before the House, I think he will agree that, having regard to the fact that my right hon. Friend is going to meet these two bodies, it would be a little indivious for him to make a prior pronouncement on any of the points that are going to be discussed.
  Mr. Brown: In view of the very large delay, 16 months in one case and 13 in the other, can the hon. Gentleman tell us when the Home Secretary is going to meet them?
  Mr. Grimston: I cannot give a date, but I understand that it will be quite shortly. As my right hon. Friend is going to meet these bodies, I hope that that will give the hon. Member some satisfaction and that, for the reasons that I have stated, he will be content for the moment to let the matter rest there.
  6.26 p.m.
  Mr. E. P. Smith: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to a statement in the "Fire Fighter" for September, made, I think, by the Secretary of the League of Firemen, an ex-Service organisation either formed or to be formed of members of the N.F.S., in which it was stated that no man would be admitted to membership unless he had become a member of his civilian trade union, whatever that might be, and does he think that entirely desirable in the case of an ex-Service organisation?
  Mr. Grimston: I should require notice of a detailed question of that sort. I have not seen the passage in the paper to which my hon. Friend refers. Coming back to the question of the hon. Member for Rugby, I understand that my right hon. Friend hopes to meet the organisations within the next month.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-seven Minutes after Six o'Clock.

BRITISH ARMY
  Deceased Soldier's Effects
  Deceased Soldier's Effects
  Press Correspondence (Censorship)
  Press Correspondence (Censorship)
  British Forces, Italy (Supplies)
  British Forces, Italy (Supplies)
  N.A.A.F.I. Stores (Pilferage, Belgium)
  N.A.A.F.I. Stores (Pilferage, Belgium)
  Mediterranean Hospitals (Stethoscopes)
  Mediterranean Hospitals (Stethoscopes)
  Personnel Overseas (Parliamentary Candidatures)
  Personnel Overseas (Parliamentary Candidatures)
  Battalion Commander (Inquiry)
  Battalion Commander (Inquiry)
  Newspapers (Aerial Transport)
  Newspapers (Aerial Transport)
  Home Guard
  Home Guard
  African Troops
  African Troops
  India and S.E.A.C.
  India and S.E.A.C.
  Dress Regulations
  Dress Regulations
  Reserve of Officers
  Reserve of Officers
  British Military Mission, Moscow
  British Military Mission, Moscow
  Roads (Closing)
  Roads (Closing)
  Requisitioned Properties
  Requisitioned Properties
  Corporal (Suspended Sentence)
  Corporal (Suspended Sentence)
  Cairo (Leave Arrangements)
  Cairo (Leave Arrangements)
  Hospital Staffs (Repatriation)
  Hospital Staffs (Repatriation)
  Western Command (Rations, Misuse)
  Western Command (Rations, Misuse)
  Chaplains
  Chaplains
  Court-Martial Procedure
  Court-Martial Procedure
  Home Posting (Soldier's Objection)
  Home Posting (Soldier's Objection)
  Indian Soldiers, Britain (Leave Passes)
  Indian Soldiers, Britain (Leave Passes)
  Hospital Cases, India (Pay)
  Hospital Cases, India (Pay)
  HOLLAND AND FRANCE (FOOD SUPPLIES)
  HOLLAND AND FRANCE (FOOD SUPPLIES)
  WAR DECORATIONS AND MEDALS
  WAR DECORATIONS AND MEDALS
  PRISONERS OF WAR
  PRISONERS OF WAR
  MEDICAL RADIO APPARATUS
  MEDICAL RADIO APPARATUS
  ITALY (ALLIED COMMISSION)
  ITALY (ALLIED COMMISSION)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Floor Coverings
  Floor Coverings
  Hats
  Hats
  COUNCIL FOR ART AND INDUSTRY
  COUNCIL FOR ART AND INDUSTRY
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS
  Evacuated Employees
  Evacuated Employees
  Location of Departments
  Location of Departments
  Disabled Ex-Service Personnel
  Disabled Ex-Service Personnel
  SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS (PUBLIC GRANTS)
  SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS (PUBLIC GRANTS)
NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Voluntary Contributions (Income Tax)
  Voluntary Contributions (Income Tax)
  Appeal Tribunals
  Appeal Tribunals
  Individuals' Contributions
  Individuals' Contributions
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Wireless Sets, Blind Persons (Purchase Tax)
  Wireless Sets, Blind Persons (Purchase Tax)
  Sterling Balances (Britain and India)
  Sterling Balances (Britain and India)
  British Advertisements, Russia
  British Advertisements, Russia
  HANSARD, HOUSE OF COMMONS (REPRINTING)
  HANSARD, HOUSE OF COMMONS (REPRINTING)
  PETROL PUMPS
  PETROL PUMPS
  COAL INDUSTRY (BRITISH MACHINERY)
  COAL INDUSTRY (BRITISH MACHINERY)
  INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS
  INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS
  JAMAICA (REORGANISATION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT)
  JAMAICA (REORGANISATION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT)
  FORESTRY COMMISSION (SURPLUS PLANTS)
  FORESTRY COMMISSION (SURPLUS PLANTS)
  MILITARY SERVICE (RECRUITMENT)
  MILITARY SERVICE (RECRUITMENT)
  FURTHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING SCHEME
  FURTHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING SCHEME
EDUCATION
  Family Allowances (Nursery Schools)
  Family Allowances (Nursery Schools)
  Teachers (Emergency Training Scheme)
  Teachers (Emergency Training Scheme)
Preamble
The House met at two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
2.9 p.m.

EXPORTS.
VISCOUNT WIMBORNE VISCOUNT WIMBORNE rose to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the position of British exports as revealed by figures recently issued by the Board of Trade; to ask what measures the Government propose to take to stimulate our export trade after the war; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, there are many anxieties with regard to the post-war world but there is one, I think, which predominates above all others, that is, how is this country going to pay its way after the war? We have had debates on the subject in this House before, notably one initiated some weeks ago by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, but we have not discussed what, in my opinion, is the root of the matter: the export trade. It is because I think this House ought very seriously to consider that matter that I am moving this Motion this afternoon.
Since I put the Motion on the Paper we have had the King's Speech, and I, for one, was most gratified to see that in it there were two references to exports. It said that the Government would "try to create conditions favourable to the expansion of our export trade," and I hope that this afternoon the noble Earl who, I understand, is to reply to this debate will be able to tell the House how the Government propose to create those conditions favourable to the export trade. Manufacturers and traders all over the country are eagerly awaiting the Govern-merit's policy in order that they may lay their plans for competing in our overseas markets. Those plans cannot be laid in a day, and the sooner that the Government announce their policy the better it will be for all concerned. It is almost platitudinous to say it, but I think it should be said and it cannot be said too often, that this country cannot exist without exporting. The only way in which we maintain in this country a population
86
of over forty millions when in the natural course of events it really would sustain about eight millions is by our export trade.
It must be obvious to any one that during the past five years, during the period of the war, our export trade, must have suffered very much. But it was not until the Board of Trade published some two months ago the "Accounts relating to the Export Trade of the United Kingdom for the years 1938, 1942 and 1943" that the real extent of the damage became apparent. This document contains a mass of figures and information. I do not propose to weary your Lordships by going into it in great detail, but the salient facts which emerge are as follows. In 1938 the total value of our exports amounted to £470,800,000 sterling and according to these accounts in 1943 the value of this trade was only £232,200,000–a fall of 50 per cent. But this does not present quite a true picture because prices of exports have risen during the period. It is when we come to consider the volume of exports that the true position is revealed. According to these accounts our exports in 1943 were only 29 per cent. of our exports in 1938. And 1938 was a bad year. If you take the two years 1937 and 1938 as a basis you will find that our exports in 1943 were only 27 per cent. of the average of those two years. In the introduction of the accounts there appears the following sentence which I should like to read to your Lordships:
"By 1943 nearly three-quarters of our prewar export trade had been sacrificed to the needs of the war effort and a considerable portion of the exports recorded are not truly commercial."
That is all I intend to say about the accounts, but I do warmly recommend any of your Lordships interested in the subject to study them in detail.
Then what about our invisible exports —our shipping services, our overseas investments and the like. The White Paper published last week, Statistics Relating to the War Effort of the United Kingdom (Command Paper No. 6564), tells us that in December last the oceangoing merchant fleet of this country and the Colonies, but excluding tonnage under the flags of the self-governing Dominions, had fallen by 29 per cent. So far as our investments are concerned,

87
we all know that in the early part of the war, before the institution of Lend-Lease, we were forced to part with a very large portion of our foreign investments. I believe the figure was in the neighbourhood of £1,000,000,000. No doubt, as always happens in these cases, we had to part with those investments which were most profitable and therefore easily saleable. To put it in a nutshell, if the war were to end to-morrow we should find ourselves with only a quarter of our pre-war export trade, with our merchant fleet reduced by nearly one-third and with most of our foreign investments dispersed. The greater part of that immense wealth built up over the past few hundred years, and notably during the nineteenth century, has been dissipated in less than a generation and we start again from scratch—not I fear a very promising outlook.
The question is, of course, how are we going to tackle the problem? It is such a vast subject that if I were to attempt to deal with it at all adequately, I should have to address your Lordships at interminable length. I therefore propose to devote myself to a few aspects only. Other noble Lords who are to take part in the debate later on may dot the i's and cross the t's. Let us for one moment take a look at our financial commitments after the war. Take only one point. We are going to be asked to approve, and to finance, a great system of social insurance, or national insurance as I think it is now called. If that is going to be a success, if it is going to be workable, it must depend upon there being little or no unemployment. In fact, Sir William Beveridge has said that his scheme would not work if unemployment rose about 8 per cent. The only way you can cure unemployment is to see that all our industries and all our factories are working, and the only way to get them to work is to regain and indeed extend our export trade.
I sometimes think this country is apt to put the cart before the horse. In a genuine anxiety, which I share as much as any one in your Lordships' House, to ensure freedom from want and to give security to all, we sometimes forget to ask ourselves how it is going to be paid for. In my submission, the answer is that it can only be paid for if we re-establish
88
our export trade and that is going to mean a great deal of very hard work. No one in this life has ever got something for nothing, and if our population are to be kept from the cradle to the grave they will have to work for it; and in my view it will be the duty of the Government of the day to make this absolutely clear to the people of this country. It seems to me, therefore, that after the war we shall have very heavy commitments—I have not mentioned the Armed Forces and other commitments which your Lordships will realize without my having to tell you —and very little with which to meet them. There will be a period when there will be an enormous demand because the whole world has to restock and that will set the wheels of industry turning for perhaps a few years, but in my view that will be a flash in the pan. Then will come the struggle to get our fair share of overseas markets. It is to that day that I am looking forward, and for that reason I am asking His Majesty's Government for information about their plans for the export trade.
This is a great age of plans. There is a post-war plan for almost everything but I have not yet seen what I would call the master plan, the plan without which all other plans in the long run will fail. I have seen exhortations by responsible people that we should increase our export trade by 50 per cent., but so far I have not seen any explanation of how that is to be done. The Government will have to lead and the Government will have to help; by help I mean help and not interference. Controls must be necessary controls and not controls for the sake of control. In my submission you cannot run industry from Whitehall, but equally it is almost impossible to run industry without help from Whitehall. I do not wish to turn this debate into a debate on the coal trade—I have not sufficient knowledge for one thing—but the more one studies the subject the more it becomes evident that the future of our export trade depends on one trade more than any other, and that is the coal trade. British industry was built up on cheap coal and it is still organized on that basis. Before the war the average price per ton of coal, free on board in a Welsh port for export to the River Plate, was in the neighbourhood of 21s. To-day the same coal costs 39s. 6d. It does seem to me that if we cannot get full production of

89
coal at a price which will enable the industry to compete in overseas markets we shall be in a very grave position. I think the Government should turn their attention to the coal trade as soon as possible.
Then there is the rather difficult question of Lend-Lease. This great conception has probably been the most important factor in enabling us to sustain our war effort, but it has cut both ways. Therefore the announcement made by the Prime Minister in another place last Thursday was most welcome. I can only hope that the adjustments which he stated are going to be made are a beginning, and a beginning only, of a re-examination of the whole position in the light of present-day needs. If the noble Earl can give us more details of that I am sure your Lordships will be very glad to have them. We must, I am perfectly certain, make some arrangement with the United States about export trade. After all, we export in order to live, while America exports to get rid of her surplus production. Jointly I think we can dominate the trade of the world, but if we indulge in unrestricted competition I fear it may he disastrous to both.
Another way in which the Government can help the export trade is by putting the case to the workers of this country. We well know what they can do. The recently published White Paper is splendid evidence of what they have done. The war, however, is a simple issue. Everybody knows that if we slacken in wartime we may be defeated. It is not, however, so easy for some people to see that if we slacken after the war we may in the long run be in as almost as had a position as if we had been defeated. I saw a suggestion the other day that just as in wartime pilots are given facilities for going to aircraft factories to explain to the work-people how their products are getting to the battlefield, so in peace-time commercial attachés and others might be encouraged to do the same thing, to go to the factories and tell the workers how their products are faring in the markets of the world. That is not my suggestion—I saw it in. a newspaper—but I think that something of that sort might be feasible.
There is also the important question of our representation abroad, both commercial and diplomatic. Unfortunately I was not able to be in the House last Thursday when the noble Viscount, Lord
90
Elibank, raised his most interesting Motion, but I did read the debate with great care and, like the noble Viscount, I was a little disappointed with the reply of the noble Earl. As the noble Viscount said at the end of the debate, the machinery seemed to be so complicated that it was difficult for anybody to understand it. I must say it is a mystery to me how the Department of Overseas Trade has functioned at all, sandwiched between the upper and nether millstones of the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade. I should like to see it raised in importance, with possibly a Minister of Cabinet rank at its head. Anyhow the Foreign Office must become more commercially minded. Commercial attachés and their staffs must be men of first-rate commercial ability, understanding the needs of foreign consumers, and, more important still, the strength and weakness and the difficulties of our home manufacturers. There is a lot that can be done in that direction.
Finally, the manufacturers and the traders of this country have got to do their part. We have got to produce what the other fellow wants, not what we think he ought to have. In this the Government can help by precept and example and propaganda. We were for too long, I fear, the only workshop of the world. We had the goods and the other fellow had to come to us to get them. About a century ago when Russia was equipping the country with railways the Tsar sent no less a person than a Grand Duke, one of his own relatives, to this country to place orders for rails with the various ironworks. Exporting then was easy, but it has since become increasingly more difficult, and it it going to be even more difficult when the war is over. What we need is the highest grade of salesmanship, and manufacturers will have to exercise all their ingenuity and workers all their skill in order to produce the right goods. In that connexion there are quite a number of key men in the Forces, and I think the Government might consider very seriously the possibility of putting these individuals in the first priority for release from the Forces after the end of the war with Germany, or indeed before that. It is the young men who will he needed in our export battle. I am afraid, my Lords, that a lot of what I have said has been obvious, but I make no apology for saying it because I think this vital issue must be faced and faced immediately. All I

91
hope is that what I have said may enable His Majesty's Government to tell your Lordships' House what are their plans for regaining and increasing our world markets, because on that, and on that alone, depends our future prosperity. I beg to move.
Moved, That there be laid before the House Papers relating to the position of British exports as revealed by figures recently issued by the Board of Trade.—(Viscount Wimborne).
2.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government, whether, in taking measures to stimulate our export trade after the war, due precautions will be adopted to prevent British agriculture and Britain's rural population directly and indirectly dependent upon it, from slipping back into the state of relative penury which obtained prior thereto; if so, what will be the nature of such precautions; and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, we have listened to an extremely interesting and, so far as I am aware, accurately presented case in regard to our export trade after the war. I, for my part, although I have on the Paper a Motion which would appear to be in the nature of an Amendment to the Motion moved by my noble friend opposite, find myself to such an extent in accord with what he has said in support of his Motion that there is very little that I feel competent, or able, to say in criticism of it. He first of all referred to the King's Speech. It is rather significant that the emphatic declaration in that Speech with regard to export trade is linked in the same sentence with a reference to the importance of maintaining and developing the welfare of our chief national industry—namely, agriculture. My noble friend asked for an early announcement by the Government as to what their policy is. I feel that we shall all endorse that appeal.
He mentioned that there has been a fall of 50 per cent. in our export trade during the war, and stated that if the war were to end to-morrow only a quarter of our pre-war export trade would be available. I have no doubt that those figures are accurate. My noble friend makes one very interesting suggestion—which I would like to endorse—that the time has
92
arrived when it would be to the advantage of the country and its trade that there should be some official enlightenment of our factory workers (and he includes with them the coal miners) regarding our international trade. The part of his speech with which I express the fullest possible sympathy is the last part of it in which he drew attention to what manufacturers in this country might usefully do to help themselves. Important export trade undoubtedly and incontrovertibly is, but do not let us exaggerate its scope or the extent to which the well-being of Britain is dependent upon it; especially in so far as it impinges upon the economic stability of the most vital of all our industries, agriculture.
Our export trade is sometimes spoken of as though it were the be-all and end-all of Britain's prosperity. But, in the light of pre-war figures, it only represents, as I think my noble friend has admitted, some fourteen per cent., or one-seventh, of the total production of the country. If it is to be further developed, as we all ardently desire, it will need not only Government sympathy and assistance—and it has a large measure of that already through trade commissioners and commercial attachés, for, as my noble friend says, we all, nowadays, need help from Whitehall—but also a much bigger effort than in the past on the part of our manufacturers, or, at least, on the part of a large number of them, to supply the goods which potential customers overseas actually want and are prepared to absorb.
In the past, there has been too much of the take-it-or-leave-it attitude on the part of many of our exporting British manufacturers; too great a tendency to assume that the tastes and requirements of potential overseas customers are identical with those of people here at home, and, in many cases, to rely upon trade literature to obtain custom, or to send abroad as their trade missionaries people not fully informed or with insufficient authority to make decisions on the spot. They have been confronted with the competition of keen foreign traders studying meticulously in loco the exact requirements of the local population. This, I found to my chagrin, during the five years I was Governor-General of New Zealand, operating in regard to a large number of commodities including motor cars, men's hats, felling axes, barbers' cutlery, radio sets and tennis shoes. As regards the last, I speak

93
with some hesitation because the competition came from the Japanese, whose workers, relatively speaking, were so poorly paid that it seemed almost impossible to attempt to compete with them in respect of that commodity.
There is a body in this country called the Gauge and Tool Makers' Association—whose publications have lately come into my hands—who, whilst studying the needs of overseas customers, are taking full advantage of the valuable assistance which our Government are already providing, and of the information which London representatives of Empire and friendly foreign countries are only too ready to supply. I refer to that body particularly because I want to be perfectly fair and to indicate that there are at least some manufacturers, and some associations of manufacturers, who are fully alive to the necessity for improvement in our methods of seeking and obtaining markets overseas. I venture to quote one paragraph from the illuminating memorandum which this association has only recently issued. It is as follows:
"Many of the trade counsellors and commercial attachés were quite frank in their criticism of British export service, and stressed the need for improvement if Great Britain was to meet competition successfully from other exporting countries after the war. Emphasis was laid upon the importance of having catalogues and other trade literature translated into the approprate foreign languages, instead Of merely sending them overseas in English; and the Export Committee was urged to recommend members of the association to send out men of director status and technical ability who could converse with reasonable fluency in the language of the particular country. It was also pointed out that many British exporters were only prepared to quote f.o.b. prices, whereas the Americans. Germans and Swedes, gave c.i.f. figures; and, in short, it was clear that British manufacturers must devote greatly increased attention to market research and be ready and willing to meet the exact requirements of the overseas buyer. The pre-war tendency towards a take-it-or-leave-it attitude will not do if Great Britain is to regain her export markets."
As will be seen from my Motion, however, the main purpose of it is to call attention to a remarkable and epoch-making speech recently made by Mr. Hudson, the Minister of Agriculture, at a luncheon of the London Rotary Club, and to inquire whether, and to what extent, it reflects the views and the policy of His Majesty's Government. By way of preface I would only remind the House that there is no other great civilized coun-
94
try in the world where in the past there has been so great and glaring a contrast between the affluence of the manufacturing, and to a large extent of the distributing, classes and the poverty of the rural community. I shall refer to some excerpts from the somewhat lengthy speech made by the Minister of Agriculture. He said:
"… one of the difficulties facing agriculture to-day is the existence of many people, unfortunately many influential people, to whom it seems that there is an antithesis between our export industries and home food production. Such people argue that our export trade is vital to our livelihood as a nation, and that if we wish to export we must be prepared in exchange to import all the food and raw materials that other countries wish to send us. In the past there may have been some truth in such an argument, but to-day, far from their being any conflict between the export industries and home agriculture, it is vital to the future prosperity of our country that the two should march forward hand in hand."
He went on:
"When the world prices of food and raw materials fell, primary producers were left without the means to buy on a big scare and unemployment followed, and big stocks of foodstuffs were wasted because the demand collapsed.… It is necessary to look realistically at the situation in which we shall be placed after this war. From a creditor nation we shall have become a debtor nation. No longer shall we be able to rely upon the accumulated wealth which our ancestors built up overseas. What is going to happen to the terms of trade? Are we still likely to be able to get food and raw materials at the same cheap cut-throat prices? Personally, I think that in the long run this is unlikely."
He then referred to the resolutions of the Hot Springs Conference on Food and Agriculture, and went on to say:
"… we must remember that if primary producers get more for their products they will have more money available with which to buy industrial goods.… It will need all our energies … to me sure that our standard of living is not only maintained but goes on rising. That we can do, but only on certain conditions. The first is that we make use to the greatest possible extent of our own natural resources here at home. These natural resources are the land, what we can get from under the land, which is mainly coal, together with the skill and industry of our workers. Secondly, we must concentrate especially on trading with those countries that are particularly ready to trade with us. We should certainly make a start with our Dominions and Colonies."
In passing, I may say that I hope and believe that the noble Earl who is going to reply to this debate, having only recently returned from a Parliamentary Delegation to Australia and New Zealand, will

95
entirely agree with those views. The Minister went on:
"Export we must and will after the war. But exports are not, as some people think, an aim in themselves. They are a means to an end—that is, to enable us to import the things which we need. To say, as some people do, that we must import certain things whether we need them or not in order that we may export is nonsense. To say that we must export to get the essentials we require is sound common sense."
I come now to the significant part of the whole of this interesting declaration:
"We want both food and raw materials, but many of the raw materials we most require we cannot produce here at home, whereas the farmers and the farm workers of this country have shown that much of the food we need can be grown here. If, therefore, we must economize, it seems only sensible to do so on imports of food rather on imports of raw materials."
There is only one other sentence which I shall quote:
"Agriculture can make an important contribution by enabling us to economize for the time being on food imports and bring in more raw materials for our industries."
I discovered on inquiry from the Board of Trade that during the pre-war years our imports of food, drink and tobacco represented about 45 per cent. of the total value of our imports, and I have learnt this morning that food and drink represent about 43 per cent. out of that total of 45 per cent. As against that, raw materials imported represent about 29 per cent. only, but a large part of the imports classified as "wholly or mainly manufactured" are in fact wanted for further manufacture in this country. It is, of course, inevitable that for a time at least, and perhaps permanently, some part of our pre-war exports will not find their normal overseas markets. Apart from the realization during the war of something over £1,000,000,000 of our oversea assets, to which the noble Viscount has referred, it should be remembered that secondary industries have been established or expanded in many countries overseas, including our own Dominions, which normally sent us their primary products in exchange for our factory exports. Why not look to our own countryside, with the new needs of our intensified and highly mechanized husbandry, with its greater purchasing power, to fill this gap, and so, incidentally, create a friendly economic partnership between town and country such as has never existed before?
We agrarians, with a present-day output from our own industry of over £600,000,000 worth of produce a year, need ever-increasing supplies of machinery, fertilizers, electricity, concrete, oil, tools, water-pipes, metal equipment (I may say metal equipment of every description), apart from our own domestic needs. In the past the urban proletariat have been alarmed and to some extent misled by two bogies, and one or both of them will no doubt be revived hereafter: one is that of dear food and the other is that of farm rents, all Governmental benefits to agriculture being deemed ultimately to accrue to the landowner. As to the first it has tended to reduce England's green—much too green—and pleasant land to an economic wilderness and to threaten her safety and her security in time of war. As regards the second, not only has land in Britain been, for its quality, equipment and proximity to markets, the lowest rented land in the world but, as Scottish experience has shown, the adjustment of rents by an appropriate tribunal is perfectly easy if it is thought desirable, and as long as a sense of equity prevails in this great democracy is not likely to operate an injustice or unfairness between man and man. To sum up, was Mr. Hudson right in his recent manifesto on our export trade, and, if so, what do the Government mean to do about it? Our farmers, subject of course to a degree of efficiency which we are all prepared to admit as a condition of Government help, badly need reassurance with a long-term policy to which the leaders of all political parties will be prepared to adhere. I beg to move if I am allowed to—I am not quite sure.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): If the noble Viscount will allow me to intervene, we have had this point before, and I would remind your Lordships—my noble friend I am sure will concur—that the view which has been thought right is that when one Motion is before the House no other substantive Motion can be moved at the same time. Of course, Amendments are another matter, but if my noble friend wishes his Motion which is on the Paper to .be dealt with it can of course be dealt with after the present Motion is disposed of.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble and

97
learned Viscount. I may remind your Lordships and the noble and learned Viscount that it was of course for the convenience of the House that I did not ask that my Motion should be put separately. Of course, with what the noble and learned Viscount has said I entirely concur, but at the end of the debate, if I understand aright, it will be open to me to move my Motion.
2.53 p.m.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, the noble Viscount who introduced this debate in what to me was a most convincing speech referred to a statement made recently by the Prime Minister on the subject of our export trade and, if I may, I would like to call your Lordships' attention to two or three salient points in that statement, because I. think they form an appropriate background to the debate to-day. In making his statement the Prime Minister called attention to the fact that the Lend-Lease Act was an Act which was passed for the defence of the United States. A great many people whom I talk to seem to think that it is an Act passed for the assistance of this country but, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, it was passed for the defence of the United States. The Prime Minister then pointed out that the deprivations which we have accepted for so many years of war will become self-defeating if they are continued too long, and that therefore there must he some easement of the position for our civilian population as soon as the German war is ended. That, I think, will be very welcome news indeed for the civilian population.
After stressing that we must begin at once—not at the end of the war with Germany but at once—to improve our export trade, the Prime Minister pointed out that from the beginning of 1945 we shall not receive any longer under Lend-Lease manufactured articles for civilian use which enter into our export trade, and also—and I think this is perhaps the most important point of all—that from the beginning of 1945 we shall not receive any iron and steel or certain non-ferrous metals. Well, that of course will at once free our exports of goods which are made from those metals, and that I think is a matter of first-rate importance, which certainly does hold out a great deal of hope and comfort for those concerned. We shall also not receive under Lend-Lease finished articles similar to those
98
which we shall export. If we do receive any such articles from the United States they will not be under Lend-Lease but we shall pay for them. We shall only receive Lend-Lease war materials for domestic consumption, for the manufacture of munitions, and for the maintenance of war-time economy, but we shall pay cash for any additional raw materials which we require for our export trade.
I think there are two considerations arising from that statement which are equally of importance and of comfort. Certainly, as I have said, it holds out the prospect of a considerable release of those concerned with our exports from the shackles which have been confining them up to date and, secondly, it does show that the Prime Minister has this matter of the necessity of reviving our export trade very much at heart and is fully seised of all that is involved in that matter. That being so, I think we can safely rely upon his putting his impetus and stimulus behind the revival of our export trade, and that will be attended with the usual happy result I am sure. As regards our export trade, what is the problem? We have to aim at a standard of exports which will enable us to make both ends meet. It is not so much a question of enabling us to live well as of enabling us to live at all, and to that end we must marshal our national, our scientific and our industrial resources to maintain, let alone improve, our standard of living. For our dependence upon imports for the maintenance of our standard of living is really the hard core of our economic situation.
Now what is the target figure. We are told that we must aim at no less than 150 per cent. increase over the 1938 figures. Various figures are quoted I know, but I have seen the figure of 150 per cent. quoted. That means an increase of £700,000,000 per annum. Well, if the task is of that order—I will not say of those exact figures, but if it is of that order—then it certainly is one of the very biggest jobs that we have ever had to take on in this country. That being so, I think it is very satisfactory that quite recently Mr. Richard Law said that our export trade would have to be given very high priority over everything else. And indeed it deserves that high priority, because not only do our national and our

99
social security depend upon our export trade, but also a prosperous agriculture and a prosperous merchant shipping. Your Lordships have always endorsed most warmly and most generously whatever has been said in your Lordships' House about the necessity for a prosperous Mercantile Marine in the future but again that entirely depends upon the state of our export trade.
The matter does not only begin and end with the word "exports." To export the volume which will be necessary will entail a very high standard of efficiency in production. Remember that in the pre-war years four countries—America, Canada, Sweden and Germany—had all overtaken us and passed us in this matter of efficiency in production. If any one feels inclined at this moment to doubt that statement I invite him to consider the reports of our experts who have visited the United States to investigate the cotton industry there, and also—although unfortunately it has not been published, but a great deal of it is common knowledge—to consider what was said by the United States experts who came here to consider our mining industry. The doubters might also consider what our motor car manufacturers have said upon the subject of steel.
The noble Lord, Lord Woolton, has warned us in your Lordships' House that our manufacturers must use scientific knowledge in peace with the same eagerness as they have done during the war years. And indeed, when we consider the falls which have taken place in our exports during the war years, those words of the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, certainly come home. The falls are staggering. The export of machinery dropped by £29,000,000 in spite of the abnormal exports to Russia. Cotton fell from £50,000,000 to £34,000,000. Instead of exporting 44,000 cars, during the last year for which we have figures we exported 29. Iron and steel exports dropped by £35,000,000 and coal by £31,000,000. Well, if those figures are not of very much comfort to us, they are not very cheerful to other people, because I remember the noble Lord, Lord Catto, having said: "Britain is the world's best customer. If we cannot export we cannot import, and that is bad for us but bad for the rest of the world and especially bad for those producing more than they can consume."
100
We have to consider in this matter that in past years the world tendency has been for self-sufficiency as opposed to foreign trade. This search for self-sufficiency has reduced international trade. In my opinion, self-sufficiency is a policy which, to some extent at any rate, makes for war, while I think that international trade is a powerful deterrent of war. We not only have this past trend towards self-sufficiency to consider, but we have to remember that when the war is over many nations will be our competitors instead of prospective customers because, owing to the war, we have had to build up industries in safe countries. South America has been very largely lost to us because of trade arrangements with the United States; Australia, New Zealand and Canada have all had to become self-sufficient; South Africa is looking to North Africa for exports, and Russia and India are looking to China.
What are the possibilities open to us? Certainly there are great undeveloped resources within the British Empire offering a British market, but I feel very doubtful if the Dominions and the Colonies will in future be able to absorb very much more than our pre-war volume of exports. The Dominions now produce for themselves much that at one time they bought from us, and I feel that we must not place too much hope in those Dominion and Colonial markets. We shall have to rely upon foreign customers to absorb the bulk of our exports. That being so, we must hope (and, in fact, we must give encouragement to them to do so) that other countries will pursue policies of full employment, and especially—and here I very warmly agree with what the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, said on the subject—we hope that they will follow policies which will enable food producers to sell their products at a good price, because that has been one great cause so far of industrial and economic distress in the past—the wretched, miserable, insufficient prices all too often obtained by the primary producers for their products. If the food producers can sell their products at a good price it will most certainly stimulate the demand for imports, and that is surely what we want—not to take business from other countries but to see world markets expand by a greater world selling capacity. Before the war we saw extreme nationalism producing trade stagnation. Surely we have

101
learnt the lesson and in the future we will abandon any idea that we can get rich at other people's expense or become prosperous by making other people poor.
There is another point to which I would like to call attention in regard to invisible exports. Incidentally, I know it is said that exports represent only a fraction of the total volume of industrial output, but they are to our trade what vitamins are to our diet: they are the essential part of it. They enable us to pay for our imported food and raw materials which keep the whole of the 'industrial machine going. The pre-war excess of imports over exports was, of course, balanced by our invisible exports. I am not going into that—it is a well-known story—but there is one point in connexion with it to which I do venture to call attention. A very large factor in these invisible exports by which we redressed the adverse trade balance was the interest on our foreign investments; in fact that accounted for about one half of the invisible exports which redressed the adverse trade balance. I hear many people to-day talking as if it is only since the war that we have had to sell our foreign investments, so that that source of revenue will not be open to us in future; but that process began a very long time ago. In fact since 1930 we have made both ends meet only by selling foreign investments. That being so, what is the answer? It is not merely the drop in foreign investments which is going to cause us trouble in the future, because that process has been at work in pre-war years. To keep our invisible exports at a high level we must assist to promote an expanding world economy as well as increase our own exports, because in that way we shall increase our invisible exports.
We have to remember, of course, that many customers have learnt to do what we did for them. Science and technology now have enabled what is produced in one country to be produced practically in any other country, and of course the classic example of that is Manchester and the cotton industry. We shall end this war with abundant .prestige and good will, but we shall have to add certain things to those factors to get ahead. We shall have to add efficiency, adaptability, initiative and above all foresight. And Government policy surely must be such
102
as to support and to brace our trade and our commerce. Manufacturers, trade associations, Government Departments must all work closely together. I think it is very important to establish some cor-ordinating body so that all Government Departments speak with one voice in these matters. The Government must produce their policy; equally the business community must be ready with its plans to fit into that policy. If it does not do that it cannot complain if the Government do the planning for them.
I notice what the noble Viscount had to say on that subject. I find that industrial associations have come forward with their plans, but when they have done so they have not always met with a very encouraging reception. There are many complaints about what has happened. I noticed quite recently that a newspaper spoke of confusion and bitterness of thought in the industrial area commonly known as the North-East Coast caused by the failure of the Government to respond to ideas put before them. Again in a newspaper I see that a Sheffield firm quotes inquiries from seventeen countries about which they can do nothing concrete for lack of Government decisions. A Scottish manufacturer says he has his post-war plans ready but as he cannot quote dates no export buyer will order. The Director of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce describes the present situation in regard to export trade in one word—"frustration." He says an export order involves an essentiality certificate, an export licence, raw material permits, Lease-Lend approval, and labour allocations. And if all these booby traps are surmounted probably he finds that shipping space is not available.
Side by side with all this we have reports of men redundant on Government contract work, but being paid "standing time," of key men badly needed by their old employers to make post-war plans doing nothing of importance where they are, and of factories cluttered up with raw materials which have been lying about for four years and which Government Supply Departments seem unable either to use or to clear away. One could go on with a very long list indeed of these complaints. They are vindicated and indeed there could not be so much smoke without a certain amount of fire. I fear a very substantial foundation for these

103
complaints comes to hand from all quarters and that manufacturers and business men are finding great difficulties in forming their plans owing to the reception which they receive from Government Departments.
I want to say one or two words on the subject of the United States of America. It would, indeed, be to neglect the weight of the elephant in this problem if one were to make no reference whatever to what is happening in the United States. But I do not think we ought to have any quarrel with the United States over these matters. For my part I admire their foresight and their enterprise and the advantage which they are taking of the opportunities that are going begging at the present moment. We ought not to complain; we ought to do the same. As I say, I have no quarrel and wish to say nothing to cause any feeling of any sort whatever. Nevertheless, we are entitled to state our case and our business community is entitled to have its case stated for it in Parliament. What are the facts? The American exports, excluding Lend-Lease entirely, are at a rate in excess of what they were pre-war. As the noble Viscount has told us, over the same period of time our exports have shrunk 50 per cent. and the downward trend of our exports has been continuing. I am told that at the end of the German war American industry will be very largely decontrolled at once and 50 per cent. of current war production will be freed for the home and export trade. The United States will, of course, have a very large surplus for export. She has built up a tremendous synthetic rubber industry of which she will have a large surplus, some 400,000 tons in excess of her own pre-war needs, while in aluminium her production is now larger than the whole pre-war production of that metal. Therefore she will be driven to export.
There is very little I need say about the effects of the Lend-Lease Act upon these matters. There would have been a great deal to say until the Prime Minister made the statement to which I have called attention. Since that statement was made we know that from 1945 onwards the position is going to improve. But I will say this about the Lend-Lease Act. In the negotiations which led up to the passing of that Act I think this country might at least have retained its
104
right to export token shipments and by that means it could have kept our manufacturers in touch with customers overseas, instead of their being compelled to lose touch as has been the case. Here is one instance of the results of Lend-Lease. A South African business man writes:
"Lend-Lease, while an excellent tool for the assistance of Britain in her war effort, has now left her rather in the state of carrying a mortgage towards America. Most of our orders have been diverted by the Allied Supply Council from British manufacturers to America. When you get an American machine you have to carry spare parts and the natural tendency is to buy more American machines when replacements are required. The statistical returns we have had to make with regard to every aspect of our business are given to an Allied Supply Council but must be available to American trade research bodies."
Then he adds:
"There is starting this month (October) a two-weekly civil flying service from South Africa to America. This is going to open up ways of establishing trade contacts, but it is impossible for any civilian to travel to Britain."
There is an instance of how Lend-Lease has affected our own business men.
Those are things which have to be very carefully reckoned with. Old contacts have been lost to this country, new contacts with the United States have been opened up, and the Americans have got their feet in that particular door. I believe we shall best solve our mutual problems with America by a clear understanding of our respective difficulties. We have to balance our imports and exports. America has to find ways of utilizing vast resources and surpluses and surplus labour. I think it is a hopeful sign that Mr. Cordell Hull —although he is not now in office I think the President indicated he wanted to keep him around Washington to advise—realizes the responsibilities involved and he has spoken of the necessity to cooperate to provide a basis for expanding trade and commerce among nations on a sound and equitable basis. He also uses these words which I think are particularly of good augury:
"If we are to have a job for all our workers and markets for all our goods, people in other countries must have opportunity to pay us with the fruits of their effort for the things we want to sell them."
That really is the language of commercial sanity. At any rate that is the language of Mr. Cordell Hull and we can set that statement and other statements against

105
certain remarks by American business men which are not always quite so happily phrased.
I notice that The Times has recently spoken of American business men who, with a few exceptions, seem still to look upon foreign trade as a device for exporting unemployment, and that they are busy with vigorous designs to push American exports in every field and even to resort to the old mischievous methods o political pressure, subsidies, differential prices and tied loans. There are the two voices, the official voice of Mr. Cordell Hull, which is supported by a certain number of trade and business associations in New York, and this other voice of certain American business men. When such a great American as Mr. Cordell Hull speaks as he has done in this matter I for one shall be very slow to believe that the voice of self interest alone is to prevail in the United States and that the necessity for co-operation in these matters will be entirely overlooked. Other speakers and myself have called attention to many of the difficulties and troubles and anxieties which lie ahead for our manufacturers and for our business community. I only want to say in conclusion that, although it may be a difficult task, I have the most complete and utter confidence that we shall surmount it and come through triumphantly. We have made it almost a national custom to start off at tremendous odds and we have been told time and again that we shall never win against them, but time and again we have come through successfully. I have complete confidence that the quality of workmanship of our workmen, the inventiveness of our scientists and technicians and the character, experience and courage of our business men will successfully pull us through and that we shall recreate our export trade to the point needed.
3.23 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE) (Lord Cecil): My Lords, I think the time has come when I should consult your Lordships about the business of the House and the procedure to be followed in regard to this debate. The subject of the Motion is of enormous importance and of great interest, and as a result no fewer than fourteen noble Lords have put down their names on the list of speakers. It is perfectly clear that we have not the
106
faintest chance of getting through that long list before we have to adjourn. Therefore we shall have to complete the debate on another day. The natural course would be to continue the debate to-morrow, but there is a difficulty about that. There is already on the Paper for to-morrow a very important Motion in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and there is already a long list of speakers on that Motion. If we were to attempt to fit in with that debate the adjourned debate on the present Motion we should he in exactly the same difficulty to-morrow as we are in this afternoon. Therefore the suggestion I Make to your Lordships is that we should adjourn this debate at an appropriate time until Thursday and that we should start the adjourned debate at twelve o'clock on that day. There is already a certain amount of business on the Paper for Thursday. There is a Motion in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, on U.N.R.R.A., there is also a Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Portsea, and there is another in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morris. Lord Morris has been good enough to say that to meet the convenience of your Lordships' House he will postpone his Motion until a later date. That leaves the Motions of the Earl of Huntingdon and Lord Portsea. I think they will not take the whole day. Therefore I would suggest that we should adjourn the debate, say at five o'clock this afternoon, and resume it at twelve o'clock on Thursday and afterwards proceed with the business already on the Paper for that day.
LORD SOUTHWOOD: My Lords, so far as my noble friends on these Benches are concerned we think that is the best arrangement that can be made.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, that will also suit my noble friends on these Benches.
3.26 p.m.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, I welcome the Motion of the noble Viscount as it gives me an opportunity of directing your Lordships' attention to two aspects of the export trade—research and salesmanship. Before I get on to that topic, however, I should like to make a few general remarks. It may be possible to increase the production of every sort of commodity, but we have got to get the

107
markets for those commodities. Are the Government, which means the Treasury, going to help in this respect? For instance, Russia will require at least four years to reconstruct herself. During that time she will not be able to pay either in money or goods. Are we going to give her credit or not? It is very important that we should know that. Russia wants to deal with us—we are much nearer to her than is America. She wants agricultural implements, she wants textiles and machinery, and she is one of the richest countries in the world. It would seem a pity if we do not take advantage of the opportunity to help her as much as we can with money and credit. After all, we are sending food and materials to the value of millions of pounds to countries ravaged by Germany. We have to do that, and it is a great asset in one way—an asset for our moral rectitude—but in the case of Russia we have the chance of a great asset which may help in the future employment of our people.
There is no harm in mentioning, as the noble Lord, Lord Winster, has done, that there is an enormous amount of raw material in this country under Government control which could be used now if we want to start our trade. In my opinion that material should be released now, but the Prime Minister has got that matter in hand and he will know the right time to do it. But in order to carry the manufactured goods which this raw material will provide we shall want merchant ships. Surely the time has arrived to release some merchant ships from Government service to carry goods to the countries which are clamouring for them. Thanks to the Navy, the seas are much less dangerous now, and I think the risk would be well worth taking. I know that American ships are entering the Persian Gulf with goods for Iran. Are we always going to be too late?
I now turn to the topics of research and salesmanship and I make no apology for doing so. I am admittedly a layman, but it seems to me that the bulk of the export trade depends upon the wishes, the desires and the needs of laymen overseas and I submit that a layman is as competent to assess these wishes as the most skilled and experienced industrialist. A short time ago I spoke on the question of social insurance and I confessed to some alarm regarding the financial burdens in-
108
volved in these proposals. I objected to putting the cart before the horse by spending millions of money which we do not possess instead of waiting until the country is in a position to afford it. I still believe that by pressing forward the expansion of the social services at this time the Government are laying up for themselves the painful reaction of the anger of a disillusioned people. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a speech at the Mansion House, said that we should have to increase the volume of our export trade by one and a half times. The implication, of course, is that we must do that to ensure the success of the social insurance schemes. Therefore as this legislation is now to go through—apparently there is no question about that—surely it will help at any rate to ease the dangers I see ahead if we have as a corollary to the social insurance schemes a plan of economic development which will help the successful operation of our export trade.
It can be said that the articles or commodities involved in the export trade fall into two categories. There are those which overseas purchasers or potential purchasers know that they will need and there are those that they will need as they become available. Motor cars may be taken as an example of what they know they will need, and long distance television as an example of what they will need directly supplies are available. Motor cars can be improved by research and the latter will be produced by research. I cannot stress too strongly the important part which research must play in the successful operation of export trade. Everything should be done to encourage the scientist and inventor. We must cease to regard them in large part as cranks and adventurers, and, above all, we must bring into our industrialism a willingness to adapt our methods of production to include, without any delay, their improvements, designs, and creations.
Now I come to the question of salesmanship. In the past there has been criticism of the lack of drive and method of British sales agents abroad and in the Dominions. It has been said that although many of these agents are good men with plenty of initiative, they have been hampered by the lack of imagination of the firms that employed them. I know that there are many exceptions, as my noble friend Viscount Bledisloe has pointed out. There are firms which, realizing the im-

109
portance of adaptability in dealing with foreign and Dominion customers, have succeeded better than firms whose take-or-leave-it attitude is inflexible and unbending.
On one occasion I went on a trip from Hankow on the Yangtse to the railhead of the Hankow-Peking Railway, then in course of construction. At a wayside station, silk bales were being unloaded, which were large and square in shape—about four feet six inches square. Now the chief method of transport in the interior of China is by wheelbarrow, each barrow having a raised division in the centre. The German bales were of the same size and appearance as the British; but they were in two halves, and all you had to do was to slit them down the centre with a knife and put each half on a barrow on either side of the raised centre. The British bales had no such arrangement, and they were left lying on the station until some kind of other and much more expensive transport could be provided. The Germans studied the conditions on the spot. The British could not be bothered, and, no doubt, they lost trade. Then there is the time-honoured story, relating to India, which is quoted by Mr. Bernard Newman in his recent book, Balkan Background. An Indian firm was importing large quantities of egg cups, and a German manufacturer got the contract, in spite of the fact that his product was of a very much inferior quality, because his cup fitted the small Indian egg, whereas ours did not. These examples can be multiplied over and over again, and they go to show that we must make a real endeavour to assess the needs and the wishes of our overseas markets, and be prepared to direct our research and adapt our machinery with a view to supplying them.
I have dealt with the necessity of encouraging research, and of developing our willingness to adapt our products to our markets. I want now to refer to the methods adopted in the past, and those to be applied in the future in order to develop a system of salesmanship, which will bring clearly to the notice of our customers the quality and suitability of our products. I do not want to be misunderstood. This country is indebted to many industrialists who have, by maintaining direct branches, or selling agents, overseas, contributed so greatly to the success of our export trade, but, even
110
taking this into consideration, there is still, I submit, a great deal which can be done. Your Lordships will remember—as has been stated by other noble Lords who have spoken—that a great and serious reduction took place in the volume of our export trade between the two wars. For many years now it has been on the down grade, and, as I have said, if we are to have all the increased social benefits which we are looking for after the war we must reverse this downward trend.
One often hears speeches in your Lordships' House stressing the difficulties of this or that problem, but involving no tangible suggestion whereby they may be solved. I have, therefore, tried, in conjunction with others, to arrive at some scheme which may materially help our export trade, and I submit to your Lordships a proposal which, if adopted, would result in the setting up overseas of general display centres for British products. Perhaps I might refer to these as "British Houses." Each "British House" would consist of a substantial building, on the various floors or portions of which would be displayed samples of and literature relating to products of various types. A portion of the building, for example, would be used for the display of British textiles, and, in this way, the overseas purchaser, or potential purchaser, could, without undue inconvenience, make himself acquainted with the various textiles manufactured in this country. In charge of each part of this building would he a man reasonably well skilled in the articles displayed in that part. He need not, I submit, be a highly skilled technical expert. It is sufficient that he should know enough of that industry to enable him to discuss the matter intelligently, and to report upon the reaction of inquirers. The control of each "British House" would be in the hands of a man of energy and initiative, able to organize the display, and to arrange any necessary publicity, and enthusiastic as to the future of British trade.
The number of these houses would, of course, require to be limited. As an example, one set up in the City of Wellington, in the Dominion of New Zealand, should be sufficient to suit the convenience of purchasers in that country. It is far easier for a retailer in, say, Dunedin or Invercargill to travel to Wellington than it is for him to travel to this

111
country in search of British merchandise. It is not the intention that these "British Houses" should interfere in any way with existing selling agencies. They would be supplementary to them, and an inquirer at the "British House," if interested in the product of a certain manufacturer in this country already represented there, would be directed to the local branch or agent who would naturally handle any order resulting from such inquiry. If the British manufacturer was not so represented locally, the "British House" would, itself, handle the order upon a reasonable commission basis. There would be nothing to prevent manufacturers in this country, not already represented by local branches or agents, setting up such branches or agents, and, at the same time, continuing to display samples and matter descriptive of their goods at the "British House."
In my opinion the setting up of these houses would achieve several purposes. In the first place, they would ensure that every manufacturer in this country, however large or small, would be provided with a ready and cheap means of displaying his wares overseas. In the second place, they would enable local purchasers and potential purchasers to see what this country is producing, and to see that without any undue inconvenience to themselves. In the third place, an organization would exist which would be able to provide valuable information to manufacturers in this country. It would be able to assess local needs, to advise on the trends which industrial policy in this country should follow, and to report upon defects in the quality and suitability and servicing of British manufactures.
I wish that someone with more influence in this House was putting these proposals forward, because then they would be widely reported. This is not a new idea, but these are new and urgent times. I should like to know the reaction of the great exporting firms to some scheme of this kind. I have referred only to the Dominions, but I and my friends would like to see such houses set up in some foreign countries. I am not appealing to the Government in this matter; I am appealing to British business firms—some of which are, I know, at any rate in favour of consideration and inquiry—to
112
take the matter up. If I were to ask for inquiry by the Board of Trade, it would take a year to get some reply. I am merely asking that this scheme should be seriously considered by, for instance, chambers of commerce throughout the country, and perhaps by the Federation of British Industries; that any criticism of it should be frank and open and available for answer; and that the scheme should be put into operation unless some satisfying reason is adduced for its impracticability or some other scheme adopted which would secure better results. After all, we want markets, and I submit that these proposals may help to get them. We owe this to the factory workers of this country. In their war effort they have been stimulated by the success of our arms; in peace let us ensure that they will likewise be stimulated by the success of our overseas trade.
3.44 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, was surely justified in laying emphasis, in a debate of this kind, on the importance of research as one of the factors which can be made to help our export trade. I am glad that throughout this year there has been repeated promises by Government spokesmen on the intention of this administration to help in many ways to achieve this end. It is because this matter has been raised that I take the opportunity of drawing it to the attention of the noble Earl who is to reply for the Government, and of asking whether it will be possible for him, when he replies at the end of the debate, to tell us of the intention of the Government to introduce an Enabling Bill whereby any industry will be permitted, under appropriate safeguards, to make a statutory levy to assist research, thereby giving the assistance which will enable our progressive industries to help themselves.
The noble Viscount whose Motion we are discussing, and who spoke in happy vein, with earnestness and moderation, wisely said that the field covered by the Motion was so vast that he would confine himself to a very limited number of points. It is true that the field is a wide one. Circumstances recently caused me to be completely immobilized. Then I had the opportunity of having read to me, among other things, a good deal that has been written on the question of

113
exports, and I have had plenty of time for reflection. I came to the House today feeling that the most important matter to which reference could be made, as raising some hope of our achieving an increased expert trade, was the evidence of a change of outlook in the United States, of a recognition that isolationism is dead and that the United States of America, if she wishes to achieve that full employment which we hope to attain here at home, must recognize that she must increase her export trade, and that a prosperous Britain would be her most promising customer. That is the greatest single factor which raises hope for the achievement of what we all want to see in this field.
In a debate of this character it is fortunate for us that it should be the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, with his great wealth of agricultural knowledge, who has put before us the case of agriculture. It is natural that there should be reference to all the axioms of economic controversy which we have heard all our lives. There is the old argument, for instance, that unless we import we cannot export, and that unless we throw our markets open to the food production of the world we shall not achieve industrial prosperity here at home. It has fortunately come to be recognized, however, that that need not be done at the expense of the impoverishment of our own or overseas agricultural producers, which latter is equivalent to importing unemployment.
Having during what has now become a long life been one who has from his early days travelled round the world trying to achieve commercial exports, and being thus a salesman myself, I have had practical knowledge of the matters which we are discussing. I must confess that I have grave misgivings, remembering the difficulties which will always be inherent in this task, as to whether we can succeed in bearing the burdens on the costs which our ambitious schemes of social service are going to impose upon us. I am whole-heartedly in favour of those schemes, but I think that it would be wrong if, in a debate of this importance, reference were not made to them and voices were not raised to remind all who are studying the matter that there must be some misgivings as to whether, with these fixed charges on our production costs, we can obtain that vas: volume of exports which alone will make it possible
114
to implement the full employment policy of the Government.
For that reason I welcomed the fact that in the vigorous speech which we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Winster, there was no reference to the demand—or perhaps it would be more fair to say the aspiration—of the Labour Party for the immediate introduction of a forty-hour week. I challenge noble Lords on the Benches opposite to say whether they honestly believe that the production costs in the post-war world which we can now foresee will enable us to bear the burden of such a charge as would be imposed by a working week of only 40 hours out of the available 144, excluding Sundays. I suggest that is too ambitious a programme at this stage. Secondly, I hope that some noble Lords on those Benches will express doubt about the claim of the Trades Union Congress that full employment can and must be provided in this country irrespective of whether a satisfactory export trade is achieved or not, and that at the same time we must maintain the present and achieve an increasing standard of living. That is misleading and does great disservice to industrial harmony. It is just economic fallacy.
Lord Winster enlivened this debate by giving a catalogue of the fences which those who line up for the export steeplechase will have to encounter. That brings me to the suggestion that I want to make —namely, that the Government must do their part in facilitating the means of improving our export trade and in removing some of the impediments which exist today. I propose to confine myself to two or three points only, and I am going to make what I hope will be regarded as a constructive suggestion to the noble Earl who will reply. I suggest that, recognizing the difficulties of most industries in achieving a speedy recommencement of exports, the Government should determine the priorities of industries selected from the point of view of their prospect of achieving a quick result in acquiring foreign exchange. I say that because I believe that there must be speed in the achievement of exports to obtain the hard currency which will pay for the import of raw materials which are essential for the reconversion of our industry. For that reason surely it is better, rather than to attempt rapidly to bring all industries into action, to concentrate on giving

115
priority to certain industries which offer the greatest promise and forthwith release labour into those industries. Looking over the field, I suggest that one industry stands out as having all the qualifications which are necessary to obtain hard currency quickly. Consider, for instance our exports to the United States. We all know that in recent times the largest export has been whisky, and the next largest has been wool textiles. Wool textiles go all over the world, and whisky also. Personally, were I a Scotsman I should prefer to promote the prestige of Scotland on the virtue of her samples of Scottish woollens rather than on the contents of her bottles of Scotch whisky, though others would no doubt strongly take the opposite view. Anyhow, there can be no question about the merits of Scottish woollens.
LORD TEVIOT: Or Scotch whisky.
LORD BARNBY: I see that Lord Teviot challenges my remark.
LORD TEVIOT: I was only suggesting that whisky is perhaps on a par with woollens.
LORD BARNBY: I would like to impress upon the noble Earl who will reply for the Government that wool textile is an industry which to-day is working appreciably below capacity, and can be most rapidly expanded with little reconditioning of machinery for passing from war to peace production. It merely needs the transfer of work from war production to peace production, and immediate release of labour to expand the industry for peace production. The Government happen to be committed to large holdings of raw wool, and in no circumstances does this come into any conflict with Lend-Lease. Lastly, it is the one industry which in world markets will not compete with any export from the United States. It is the one leading industry upon which we have depended for hard currency and which manufactures goods which the United States does not export. It is for that reason that I put forward the suggestion that certain industries should be nominated by the Government for priority, and that among those wool textiles should he put very high.
I will conclude with a reference to one point which has been emphasized most recently by the report of a mission that
116
the Minister of Production sent out to the United States to study American methods in cotton textile production. I suggest that anybody going out into the markets of the world recommending British cotton goods is going to be at a serious disadvantage when confronted with the statement, "You ask us this high price for your merchandise; what about the low efficiency of your industry?" The Government must and can help in giving very generous terms in the promised statement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to make in the early part of next year with regard to the obsolescence allowances for machinery generally, and also buildings. I suggest that my noble friend should consult with the President of the Board of Trade with a view of other industries being given the privilege of sending out missions to the United States to study methods there and bring home to this country the knowledge of the advance in practice made in the United States compared with this country. In that regard I certainly would suggest that the wool textile industry should be one of those industries. I have sympathy with my noble friend whose task it will be to try to assemble all the points put forward in this discussion, for it will be no easy task. I conclude by suggesting to him that if he looks up a letter from a member of this House, Lord Davidson, which appeared in The Times on October 16, he will see there a catalogue of appeals for declarations by the Government, which was backed up by a leading article in The Times that day, that will certainly give him sufficient material to reply to when he comes to sum up this debate.
3.56 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, before I begin the very few remarks I am going to make I feel I must refer to my noble friend who has just sat down. We are all very glad to see him back here after going through such a dreadful ordeal, and I am delighted to see that he has still got the same vigour, in spite of the distressing time he has been through.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD BARNBY: May I intervene to thank the noble Lord for his most generous reference and the House for its most generous support?
LORD TEVIOT: I must apologize to the noble Viscounts, Lord Bledisloe and

117
Lord Wimborne, for not being here to hear their speeches. I had intended to be, but unfortunately I was delayed elsewhere. I am hoping that my speech in this debate, which in some ways is analogous to the debate on a Motion of mine some time ago, will not incur the description of "gloomy" when I sit down. I hope not to be at all gloomy, though I mean to state the realities of the position. But I have no feeling of gloom about this, and I do think we ought: to face up to reality. I had a Motion drafted and handed in at the Table with very much the same idea behind it as the Motion of Lord Wimborne. I do not think that he can have touched upon what I wanted to bring forward in that Motion, which I have now taken off the Paper. It will be remembered that we entered the war in September, 1939, our Ally Russia in June, 1941, and the United States in December, 1941. We have all recently read with interest Command Paper No. 6564, which demonstrated the terrific effort of this little country in this war, and if that is stressed by our Government in their negotiations with our Allies on post-war trade, together with the fact that we have been in the war approximately two years longer than our main Allies, I feel strongly that consideration will be given to it. I do not know whether it is been done. It rather looks as if it is too obvious not to have been done. But I would like to stress not only the fairness of doing something of this sort but also the necessity. The speeches we have already heard demonstrate that special consideration should be given to this country and the Empire—that is to say, the British Commonwealth of Nations.
Lord Winster referred to the coordination of Government Departments and trade associations. I have always felt, with regard to the modern trend of the world, that Ministers would be enormously helped if they had an Advisory Council which they could call in specially to consider with them any legislation that was going to be put forward. It might be said, "You cannot do that because you would be giving something away," but I am quite certain that there are a number of men of high standing in all the great trades of our country whom any Minister could call in to discuss any Bill that was coming before this House and how it would affect their particular trade. The Minister should call not only the em-
118
ployers' side of it but the employees' as well, into an Advisory Council of that nature. Therefore I welcome very much this idea of my noble friend Lord Winster.
He also touched on a subject which I think is terribly serious now, and that is the difficulty in re-establishing trade contacts, which in some cases existed for a generation or more. In the last two or three weeks especially, I have met with instances of that sort of thing—of the absence of facilities for the transport of representatives to other countries which are now open but which were not open before owing to war conditions. Unless we are going to be left out altogether we have got to get into touch with those people. After all, we are one hundred per cent. in the war and it is quite clear that America is not, and never has been, one hundred per cent. in the war; she has been in it at the most perhaps sixty per cent. Well, they are bound to be in front of us, but I do feel that if this situation is stressed to them there are enough fair-minded men in America who will say that consideration must be given to this country which for so many months fought alone in the general cause against aggression. It may have been done, but I feel it worth while to stress the matter at this moment and particularly in view of the very important debate which my noble friend has initiated. All we really want at the moment is this: may we be permitted to do the things that the United States of America are doing in regard to re-establishing and opening up trade in the liberated areas? We want the same facilities as they have and to get off the same starting point; that is not happening to-day. Everybody in your Lordships' House who is in touch with affairs knows that that is not happening to-day. I feel we ought really to get very busy on this because every day is a day lost in the direction of re-establishing our trade. It looks at the moment—I do not think I am putting it too strongly—as if we are really, from a trade point of view, blockaded. I know that attempts have been made to try and get going again, and they have been frustrated over and over again.
I would like to mention another thing with regard to the very valuable suggestion, as I thought it was, made by the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, in regard to giving facilities for trading in other

119
countries. I have to go to Edinburgh a great deal, and that very enterprising, bold and able man the former Lord Provost, Lord Provost Darling, who has just given up office, did something there in regard to Edinburgh which I thought was extremely wise. He had printed a sort of guide to Edinburgh. They have had many different nations in Edinburgh during the war. You can go into a shop in Princes Street and buy this guide to Edinburgh, and there is a translation in all the different languages of the people who have been there in the war—Polish, French, Chinese, and Russian. Now on what was said by my noble friend Lord Glasgow, it occurred to me that that would not be a bad idea in selling goods —showing your catalogue in every different language, thereby enabling potential customers to pick up the meaning of it and the quality of the goods so very much more easily than if they had to get it translated.
Now I would like to say one word on the subject of agriculture. I am so sorry to have missed my noble friend's speech on that subject. There is, as your Lordships know, at the moment a time limit to the present conditions in regard to guaranteed prices and other arrangements. Those of us who are engaged in agriculture know perfectly well that if you are going to farm properly you have to look ahead two, or rather three years, if you are going to do it well.
A NOBLE LORD: Longer than that.
LORD TEVIOT: Perhaps even four years. I would like to suggest to the Ministry of Agriculture that each year the four-year guarantee proceeds towards its end. That is to say, after the first year is over there remain three years. Do not let the matter go on that way. Review the situation and say: "It is going on for another four years still." Because it is going to make a lot of difference if the time is to he extended. After the first year everybody begins to get nervous, and after the second he gets more nervous still. You do not get proper agriculture under those conditions. The Government should tell us at the end of each year: "You have another four years," and I hope that will go on for a very long time. But by letting it drop at the end of the first year and then of the second year, you will not get good agricultural
120
results. You will not get the best farming if the farmer says, "It is only three years now," or "It is only two years now," and he does not know what on earth to do. I put that forward as a suggestion. I do not know whether my noble friend did so but I was unfortunate enough not to hear him. I feel that it is very, very important. The uncertainty of the future in the agricultural world to-day is quite appalling. It is not fair, it is not right. We all know—every fair-minded man and woman in this country knows—what agriculture has done, and there should be some very definite policy set forward that will relieve the minds of the agricultural people in this country in regard to the dangers that they foresee.
That is all have to say and I hope that my noble friend Lord Southwood will not think that I have been too gloomy. I will end on a note struck by Lord Winster. I am quite certain, difficult as the outlook is, that we are going to get through, but only by being careful and by working very hard. I think we are sure to get through. I agree with Lord Winster that we always embark on a big thing a little too late but, in the motto of my own family, "We are late but in earnest." That is the note upon which I would like to conclude.
4.11 p.m.
LORD GLENTANAR: My Lords, none of us who are actively engaged in industry and in the export trade could fail to support the speech and the plea of the noble Viscount, Lord Wimborne. He has been ably supported by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, Lord Winster and other noble Lords. In fact the amount of support, diverse in its approach, which he has received in this very vital matter of British exports, to which no doubt much more will be added, makes it unnecessary that I should add anything on that aspect of our debate. Lord Bledisloe, in his Motion, designed to prevent British agriculture and Britain's rural population directly and indirectly dependent upon it from slipping back into the state of relative penury which obtained before the war, has my whole-hearted support. The farmers of this country are deeply apprehensive about the future. Most of them recall what happened after the last war. They have every reason to be alarmed. They do not expect to be helped to a greater extent than may he necessary to

121
allow fair competition with overseas producers who may, from causes over which the British farmer has no control, be able to offer their products at a lower price than that at which he can produce similar products.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Winster, who spoke about the policy of self-sufficiency increasing in every country as the years go by. This may, or may not, be a good thing, but the fact is there that this is going on and the process has boon very greatly accelerated by the war. Not only our own Dominions but foreign countries have very largely developed their own manufacturing units for every kind of product. Without being in the least pessimistic, I think it is right that we should be realistic and realize that our markets, after perhaps the first flush of the post-war boom, will not be there in the same way that they were before the war and that it may be necessary for us to be more self-supporting than we have been in the past. There is another very good reason, which I shall refer to later, why we should be self-supporting. The farmer, as the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has just said, wants, above all things, continuity of policy. Farmers have to plan ahead; they have to throw their bread upon the waters. If they are going to farm properly they have to dedicate years of labour and much capital to the future improvement of their land and their stock. Labour, money, energy and forethought may be rendered of little or no value by a change in the policy of the Government of the day. That has happened before and it may happen again unless the Government decide, and let us know that they have decided, that however great the importance of exports may be, the policy of facilitating exports will not be carried out at the expense of a proper safeguarding of our farming industry.
Since the beginning of the industrial era agriculture has had a succession of raw deals, and if it gets another raw deal this time the Government which is responsible for it will be doing something for which there can be no excuse. Not only the safety of our people in time of war, but their safety in time of peace, depends upon a numerous and strong agricultural community and its concomitant, a healthy, virile, rural population. I believe I am right in saying that in this respect
122
we run graver dangers than any other country. Before the war our rural population was only about 7 per cent. of the whole population. Our ,urban, families need constant invigoration by instilling into their veins the good red blood of those whose strength arises from closeness to the soil and to the things of nature and from their hardy life in the open air. Surely it is worth making some sacrifice for this, because the health of our people depends upon their way of life and upon their food, which therefore should be grown as near as possible to the places in which our people live. I believe that there is being sensed throughout the country an awareness of this fundamental obligation to society. Townsmen are beginning to understand that their own existence depends in a great measure upon the soil.
Many Service men and women realize what all do not realize—namely, the danger in which the rural part of our population stands and will stand at the end of the war. If that danger is allowed to develop there will be many who will want to know why opportunity was not taken of avoiding it when that opportunity existed. It gives me much pleasure to be able to support not only the pleas for British exports which have been made by so many members of your Lordships' House to-day, but also the very important plea for agriculture which has been made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe.
4.21 p.m.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, after an absence of some years from your Lordships' House on duties perhaps less peaceful than those of commerce, I feel I should apologize for addressing you on more peaceful arts in the day to day details of which I must have grown a little rusty. At the same time certain particular principles seem to me to stand out to-day as they have always stood, and which are more important, more worth while, more true perhaps than ever they were in the whole of our history. It is beyond question that without exports this country cannot live. It is true that for five years we have had to exist virtually without any exports, and had it not been for the assistance of Lend-Lease by our American Allies we should by now have been reduced to the position of ill-conditioned serfs or possibly even to a level of mass starvation. The determination of our American Allies not

123
to lose this island as a forward base for military operations alone has been able to preserve the somewhat exiguous standard of life we have been able to preserve during these five years of war.
Admitting then the necessity of providing for our export trade, it seems to me that there are two main divergencies of opinion as to how to restore it. My noble friends in the Socialist Party pin their faith to the nationalization of the production and distribution of all forms of wealth. I do not, I never did, and I expect I never shall number myself amongst the holders of that belief. It seems to me that a Government is not divinely inspired—not even our present Government—it is not more able, it is certainly not better trained and certainly not less venal than the men composing that Government in the aggregate. Therefore I cannot believe that the Socialist Party has a nostrum for curing trade merely by putting it in the hands of the Government. I believe that the driving force in industry must be a man's natural ambition to increase his culture, to improve his home, to make further and better provision for his family, in short "to better himself" as it is generally termed. He should be inspired, I think, with a feeling that his labour is worthy of its hire. He should be given a chance to show what he can do and the better he does the better should he be rewarded. In that way I think you will go a long way towards reviving industry.
A man should be helped by the Government to overcome the spectres of unemployment, of sickness, of poverty; and all those great schemes of the Government which are lumped under the term of social security are very fine. They give a man a background wherein he can develop himself. If these fears are removed it is a splendid thing. But these very schemes of social security which we shall be debating in the coming months depend upon a healthy underlying economy. It has been said by Sir William Beveridge himself, and any economist will bear this out, that if you have not that, these schemes must fall to the ground. So I feel most strongly that if industry is to thrive the first thing to do is to attract people to it. Let us not, as has been the trend for the last twenty years, instil the idea into the nation that the be-all and end-all of life is a ceiling wage above which no
124
one can raise, whether in the executive management of industry above £2,000 or £3,000 a year, or in the case of labour above £500 or £1,000 a year. Do not let a man feel that he is being clamped down. Let him feel that industry is a field of venture and competition where the successful will be rewarded, but let us by all means have a minimum below which he shall not fall.
I do not wish to bother your Lordships with any long or difficult tables of figures. The noble Viscount who moved this Motion gave us a sufficient indication of the parlous condition into which our trade has fallen, and I think his figures will be found by the Government to be incontrovertible. I only hope that the noble Earl in his reply will be able to announce some plan by which it is hoped that these disastrous figures may be in the near future improved. I would only say a word or two about our invisible exports, and I will take banking for a start. If we are to retain our pre-eminence in world banking, including the financing of international trade—and I am not one of those who believe we have yet lost our preeminence—the first essential must be a stable currency. No merchant is going to ship, say, carpets from India to South America using sterling as his means of measurement of value, unless he knows that sterling is going to remain approximately of the same value during the course of the transaction which may be a matter of some weeks. I hope the Government have made a first step towards a stabilized currency—I do not say at any particular level—in the deliberations at Bretton Woods. I take leave to doubt whether that is so, but until we know more about it and have debated the proposals I will give the Government the benefit of the doubt.
The second of our invisible exports—namely, shipping—is in a very poor state. Here I am on more familiar ground because during the last five years my duties have kept me in close and constant touch with the shipping of this and other nations. The mercantile fleet of this country, admittedly due very largely to war-time conditions, has fallen from being first in the tonnage of the world to something like third place, and the United States which started fourth is now leading us. I for one view that position with very grave misgiving. The United States have built a fleet of merchant

125
ships and, having seen them building, I know that despite many things said to the contrary those ships are good and will last a long time. They have built a fleet of medium-sized fast merchant ships with which we have nothing at all to compete. I rejoice that our shipyards are filled at the moment with tonnage building for the Royal Navy, but let it be remembered that the time is coming, and coming rapidly, when we shall have to overhaul our Mercantile Marine as well.
It is, of course, true that many new factors have emerged during the last five years which may be favourable to us as a trading nation. There is the disappearance, we hope, of shoddy Japanese goods from the world's markets. I trust that when that war is over we shall see no more of Japan as a world-trading nation. Then it seems to me unlikely that Germany will be a world-trading factor after the ministrations of the United Nations' Air Forces—at all events for a great many years. We have, no doubt, improved certain of our own methods of manufacture. The war has taught us a great many things in the way of mass production. And yet I would call to your Lordships' attention one particular case of which I have knowledge—I am of course reverting to the shipbuilding industry. For nine months I worked in an American shipbuilding yard. Now that yard, when I arrived there, was a swamp. There was not one brick laid upon another. Within nine months that shipyard had built no fewer than sixty destroyers. I see nothing in our shipbuilding industry to-day to give me hope that we can repeat—much less improve upon—that performance. And why, my Lords? Simply because—and this is said to me day after day both by industrialists and workers—we could do it but we have not the incentive.
A man will say: "Why should I labour day and night" or, it may be, "why should I put capital into a venture, when ninety-five per cent. is going to go back to the Government?" That is a most unhealthy attitude, and I am afraid it is very widespread. I have heard more than one worker say: "Of course I can work overtime on. Saturday, but it is not worth while to do so for the extra money I get—the time and a half overtime—because too much goes in Income Tax." When a nation starts saying
126
that sort of thing it is, I think, in a very dangerous condition industrially. It was Lord Woolton, I believe, who the other day made a plea for the revival of the old merchant adventurer spirit. I hope and I believe that in the making of a statement like that by the Minister of Reconstruction lies a great augury for good in the future. But it is no use just asking for that spirit. Something has got to be done about it. I sometimes wonder whether the merchant adventurers of old would have been so enterprising had they been faced with our present scale of taxes, and with the forms and formalities of Whitehall, drawn up, often enough, by persons whose nearest and closest acquaintance with the sea and with the treasure houses of the world comes from blue books fancifully illustrated from the studios of Denham and Hollywood. I doubt whether they would have found their adventuring worth while. To take one example: Sir Francis Drake, I understand from reading my history books, made over a very considerable proportion of his commercial profits—to call them such—to his Sovereign. I wonder whether that hard taskmistress would have profited so much had she been advised by the Board of Inland Revenue. I take leave to doubt it.
We are all looking forward to a victorious conclusion of the war in Europe. I do not believe that I shall be accused for a moment of over-optimism if I say that it may be over in two years' time—indeed I think I have heard shorter estimates than that. But two years is hardly time enough at all for us to reconvert our industry to a peacetime basis. The problem is one of the utmost urgency. There is no doubt about that. If it were merely a question of reconversion then it might be done. But I do not believe that there is a single member of your Lordships' House who believes that it is simply a matter of reconversion to status quo ante. I would remind your Lordships that all was not well with industry in the immediate pre-war period. We had, amongst other things, between 2,000,000 and 3,000,000 unemployed. It is the rebirth of industry that we are looking for rather than the reconversion, and I can see only two methods whereby this rebirth can be brought about. Large capital sums are going to be required to be spent on revivifying industry. One way in which they can be provided is

127
through Government loans, and I would suggest to the Government that they can consider floating loans for this purpose in the same way as loans are floated for war purposes. This may be a somewhat unorthodox view. The loans, I suggest, should be used for the re-equipping of plant and machinery, bringing factories up to date and so on. The public, of course, would be let in as an equity shareholder in industry rather than with the British Government guarantee behind it. Clearly, any method of this sort cannot be given a guarantee. I am not sure that that would be a bad thing. The Government would be made partners in industry, as would indeed the public, and I believe that a loan properly presented to the public, for the rehabilitation of industry—call it a "Works Loan" or "A Loan for Jobs," or something of that kind—is what is necessary.
The only other means I can see of raising the necessary money for starting the wheels of industry going again is a large and rapid reduction in taxation immediately upon the cessation of hostilities. And for two reasons I suggest—not only to get our industries going again, to replace plant worn out in the service of the nations and the world during the last five years, but also in order that proper remuneration may be given to encourage this merchant adventurer spirit to which I have referred. As a rather smaller matter, I would suggest to the Government quite seriously that they should consider the application of moneys accruing to them by way of Death Duties as capital moneys, which indeed they are, to be applied either for the rehabilitation of agriculture—it may be for drainage, reclamation of land, the improvement of ports so far as our fisheries are concerned; anything that the Trustee Act of 1925 would regard as legitimate capital expenditure—or for the rehabilitation and renewal of industrial plant. We have been living too long upon our capital. So long as it was possible for new capital, new fortunes, to be created, the decline in our national wealth was small. Indeed, it
128
was hardly observable. But it was there, make no mistake about that. But since our national earning power has been brought to a standstill for five years the thing has come to an almost catastrophic state.
Like noble Lords who have already spoken, I do not take the view that this country is finished. I would ask the Government to trust our people, and to trust their initiative and drive in peace as they have had to trust them in war. The Government have not been let down in wartime, and I see no reason to suppose that they will be let down in peace-time. Let them give our people a chance to show what they can do, and I think it will be found that with the help and guidance of the Government—not with their interference, because that is not the function of the Government as far as industry is concerned—our people will win victories just as important as those of Alamein and Tunisia and the beaches of Normandy.
Finally, I would throw out a suggestion to the Government which they may use if they will, or which they can pass on to their successors if perchance they should be no longer in office at the time. It is that they should consider producing a companion White Paper to No. 6564, to be entitled "Statistics relating to the Peace Effort of the United Kingdom" and dealing with the five years after the declaration of peace. During that period we shall be faced with problems no easier or less important than those which have been surmounted by our people during the last five years. I believe that such a White Paper may make even more thrilling reading than the one published last week. We have to thank the noble Viscount for introducing this Motion, and I for one support it most heartily.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Lord Faringdon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

  BLACK-OUT REGULATIONS.
  BLACK-OUT REGULATIONS.