Sitting of 1 March 1944

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

  PRISONERS OF WAR AND INTERNEES, FAR EAST
  Sir John Wardlaw-Milneasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a neutral commission to examine Japanese camps for prisoners of war and civilians has been proposed and definitely refused by the Japanese Government.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): Representations have repeatedly been made to the Japanese Government for permission for representatives of the Protecting Power and of the International Red Cross Committee to visit all internment camps in Japanese and Japanese-occupied territories wherever they may be. As I told the House in the statement which I made on 28th January, the Japanese Government has hitherto refused permission to visit camps in the Southern occupied territories in which, as I pointed out, perhaps 80 to 90 per cent. of all our prisoners of war and civilian internees are confined.
  Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: May I ask whether it is the case—as I suppose it is—that my right hon. Friend is still pressing the Japanese Government in this matter, as there is much distress in this country about the position of these prisoners of war?
  Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. We have been in constant communication about it; in fact, the latest communication I sent to the Protecting Power was on 26th January last.
  Mr. Sorensen: Does the right hon. Gentleman know whether the Vatican representatives have been in contact with Japan, regarding the Southern camps? If so, can he give us any information in regard to their report?
  Mr. Eden: I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend will give me notice of that question. The Vatican do keep us fully informed of their activities, but I would not like to give an answer without consideration.
  Mr. Tinker: Has there been any refusal on the part of the Japanese to improve matters? Do they give any reason at all for the present state of affairs?
  Mr. Eden: No reason which I think anybody would regard as satisfactory.
  Mr. Mathers: Has there been any reaction from the Japanese, to the world exposure of the position?
  Mr. Eden: Perhaps my hon. Friend would put that Question down, as I would rather not give an answer without notice.
  Sir J. Wardlaw-Milneasked the Secretary of State for War if he can make a statement regarding the Red Cross conference in America to which Sir Ernest Burdon, Deputy Chairman of the War Organisation of the Red Cross, recently led a mission.
  The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Arthur Henderson): As the answer is rather long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the answer:
  I would refer my hon. Friend to the full statement on this subject which my right hon. Friend made on 19th October last in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for High Wycombe (Sir A. Knox). The British Red Cross Mission continued active discussions with the American and Canadian Red Cross Societies leading up to the final Session of the Conference on 1st December. This Session, which was attended by representatives of the Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and India, gave formal approval to joint action by the Red Cross Societies of the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada to secure a regular and common service of relief supplies for all prisoners of war and civilian internees in the Far East, belonging to the United States, the British Commonwealth of Nations or the Netherlands.
  Following this meeting, Sir Ernest Bur-don returned to London and resumed his duties as Deputy Chairman of the War Organisation, his place at the Head of the British Red Cross Mission in Washington being taken by Sir Kerr Fraser-Tytler, who had arrived from England at the end of November. The work of the Conference has been followed by a continuous exchange of information and ideas between the American Red Cross, the British Red Cross Mission (whose offices are in the American Red Cross Headquarters) and the Canadian Red Cross; and I am assured that the collaboration which has been established is of the closest. The British Red Cross Mission visits Canada from time to time for discussions with the Canadian Government as well as the Canadian Red Cross. The permanent machinery set up in Washington ensures that any and every opportunity which may offer for the despatch of relief supplies to the Far East will be used to bring the maximum benefit to prisoners and internees.
  My hon. Friend knows, however, that the work of the Red Cross Societies cannot become effective, so far as the prisoners and internees are concerned, unless the Japanese Government will permit facilities for the transport and distribution of relief supplies; but, despite all our efforts, those facilities are still withheld, except on the comparatively rare occasions when diplomatic or civilian exchange ships sail.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Aerodrome Site, Northern Ireland
    Dr. Littleasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has appointed a competent person to survey and report on the damage done to farms in County Down in connection with the construction of an aerodrome which has now been abandoned; and to assess the damage and pay the farmers concerned compensation for the loss sustained through injury to their properties.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): A committee comprising representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Finance of the Government of Northern Ireland and of the Air Ministry, has been formed for the purpose of advising on all aspects of this case and has started work.
    Dr. Little: Have the damages yet been assessed by a competent surveyor; and will my right hon. and gallant Friend see that these farmers get agreed compensation at the earliest possible moment?
    Captain Balfour: Early payment, on general account, to all owner-occupiers is being made in appropriate cases. The committee to which I have just referred started work on 21st February. Its task is to decide what areas can be derequisitioned forthwith, what areas may be derequisitioned after restoration to agricultural use, and what land must be purchased.

    Enemy Air-raids
    Mr. Ivor Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Air whether the renewed air-raids on London have disclosed any new tactics or new forms of attack on the part of the enemy.
    Captain Balfour: The tactical methods employed by the German Air Force in the present series of attacks on London display certain features which have been developed since the winter of 1940–41. This was to be expected, and none has come as a surprise.
    Commander Locker-Lampsonasked the Secretary of State for Air whether accurate statistics are being kept of the number of enemy aircraft brought down by our planes and by our ground defences, respectively; and whether such statistics show which weapon is the most effective and which requires to be strengthened.
    Captain Balfour: A careful record is kept of the results achieved by the various forms of defence against enemy air attack, and while it would not be in the public interest to give details I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that full use is made of this information in planning our defence arrangements.

  HOUSING

    War-Damaged Houses (Repairs)
    Lieut.-Colonel Dowerasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works whether, in a case where, after £100 has been expended on repairs on a single house in a period of 12 months, further urgent repairs become necessary during the 12 months not caused by fresh

    1399
    war damage, it is necessary to obtain a certificate of essentiality from the local authority and a licence from his Department before the repairs can be carried out.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Hicks): A licence is required from the Ministry of Works, if the cost of the further repairs, together with the cost of the work already carried out on the house in the preceding 12 months, exceeds £100. If the cost of the further repairs does not exceed £500, a Certificate of Essentiality may be obtained from the local authority. Such a certificate, if granted, will assist in obtaining a licence and any controlled materials.
    Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Does not my hon. Friend realise that if has been spent in 12 months, and if there are urgent matters like roof leaks or burst pipes to be attended to, there is a serious waste of time before a licence can be obtained?
    Mr. Hicks: It is not necessarily true. It is a question of putting in an application for a licence. That is not to say that the work will not be licensed.
    Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Does my hon. Friend realise that it takes a good long time to get a licence?
    Mr. Hicks: I do not think that is true.

    Temporary Houses
    Mr. Graham Whiteasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works if he is in a position to state the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to the ownership and life of temporary houses to be erected at the end of the war in Europe.
    Mr. Hicks: I cannot add to what my Noble Friend has already stated in another place, namely, that the Government have decided that temporary houses, if approved, shall be publicly owned and licensed for a period. If and when the temporary houses are approved, the Government will have to determine the period of life for them.

  AIR RAIDS (DEBRIS CLEARANCE)
  Mr. Astorasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works what arrangements are in operation whereby
  1400
  bulldozers, under the control of his Department, can be made available to clear up debris after air-raids; and whether he will, as a matter of urgency, consider improving them.
  Mr. Hicks: The local authority responsible for the clearance of debris notifies the Emergency Works Officer of the Ministry of Works if any additional plant is required. All such requests for plant have been met, where necessary, by transfer from new construction works. It is not considered that any variation of the arrangements in operation is necessary.
  Mr. Astor: Is my hon. Friend aware that the system used for clearing up debris is all too reminiscent of the Walrus and the Carpenter—50 maids with 50 mops, sweeping for half a year? Will he seriously consider trying to make mechanical appliances speedily available after raids?
  Mr. Hicks: I cannot say about the first part of the question, but I will say that the demand for all this plant is greater than the supply and that it would not be possible to make arrangements which would involve plants being kept for an emergency.

  COLONIAL EMPIRE

    Agricultural Land (Mortgaging)
    Mr. Astorasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what restrictions cm the mortgaging of agricultural land are in existence in the Colonial Empire; and whether he can give details as to the principles involved and the methods by which they are enforced.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Emrys-Evans): I have been asked to reply. No comprehensive account is at present available concerning restrictions on the mortgaging of agricultural land in the Colonial Empire. The subject is complex, and there are immense variations in the different dependencies according to the nature, of the title to land. Where freehold exists there are, generally, no restrictions on mortgage, but the general trend of policy is now against the issue of freehold titles. Land in tribal areas is normally subject to restrictions; the principle of the restriction is generally that such land should not pass out of the possession of the native communities concerned.
    Mr. Astor: Is it not a well-established precedent of legislation in the Empire that there are restrictions on the mortgage of agricultural land, and not on agricultural leases?
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: There are restrictions in one or two cases.
    Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: Are there not definite restrictions, in certain Colonies, such as Uganda?
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: I do not know about Uganda, but there are in Zanzibar.

    Fishery Research Stations
    Major Lyonsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will set up in East Africa as soon as circumstances permit, regional research stations for fresh water and marine fisheries, respectively; and whether Nyasaland, Northern Rhodesia and the Seychelles will be brought into any such schemes.
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: The establishment of regional fishery research stations in suitable parts of the Colonial Empire, including East Africa, as soon as circumstances permit is under consideration. The location of these stations and the Territories which each of them should serve will be considered in consultation with the Government concerned.
    Major Lyons: Will the Minister nor ask the Department to speed up this matter, because the delay is a little alarming?
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: All those considerations are held up to some extent by war conditions, but my right hon. Friend is doing everything he can in the matter.

    Currency
    Major Lyonsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether be will appoint a committee to inquire into the desirability of having one common currency for Great Britain and her Colonies.
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: The existing arrangements provide fully for the prompt and easy inter-controvertibility of United Kingdom and Colonial currencies. There would be very serious practical difficulties in the introduction of a common unit of currency. In these circumstances no useful purpose would be served by the appointment of such a committee.
    Major Lyons: Have the countries and the Colonies concerned been asked their views on this matter?
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: No, Sir. I do not think the Colonies have been asked. There has been no demand in any of the Colonies, either from the public or from the Governments.
    Commander Locker-Lampson: Has not the time come to have one cosmic currency, a currency for the world?

    Malaria (Research)
    Major Lyonsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, as an economy effort, he will establish a malaria research and survey institute for the Central African Colonies, on the lines of the one in India, to be financed by the Colonial Research Fund, or one each for West and East Africa, respectively.
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: Research on malaria is being actively carried out at present as far as circumstances permit. Much work on malaria control has been done and is being done both in East and in West Africa. The general organisation of medical research in the Colonial Empire which will include the most suitable means for investigating the problems of malaria and its control is at present under consideration by the Colonial Research Committee. I cannot at the moment make any further statement on the matter.
    Major Lyons: Does not my hon. Friend think this matter so pressing that it ought to be dealt with more speedily?

    Development and Welfare Grants (Unspent Balance)
    Mr. Rileyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act of 1940, £16,000,000 was provided for this work down to 31st March, 1944; that only £1,300,000 had been actually spent up to 23rd February; and will he give consideration to the possibility of utilising some of the unspent balance on acquiring land in the West Indies, British Honduras, the Seychelles and Kenya, in order to satisfy the land hunger of the people in those Colonies.
    Mr. Ermys-Evans: Provision for expenditure under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act is made in annual estimates, and balances unspent in any

    1403
    one year are not available for subsequent expenditure. My right hon. and gallant Friend is well aware that expenditure so far has been much less than the limits Laid down in the Act, and is doing what is possible in the face of war-time obstacles such as shortage of man-power and of materials, to increase the rate of progress with schemes, including schemes of the character referred to by the hon. Member, of which several have already been approved and others are in contemplation.
    Mr. Riley: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it very extraordinary that of the £16,000,000 voted under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, 1940, for the work up to March of this year, only £1,300,000 has been spent, and nearly £14,000,000 is unspent? Could not something be done to conserve that money for the purpose for which it was intended?
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: No, Sir. We are doing everything possible in the conditions existing at the present time, but wartime conditions make it impossible to spend that money.
    Sir Alfred Beit: When my hon. Friend said that the balances which are unspent are no longer carried forward to another year, does he mean that when it is impossible to carry out a plan owing to the shortage of labour, that plan lapses?
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: I should like notice of that question. I do not think that is the case. I imagine that the plan would come up again in the following year.
    Mr. Sorensen: Will the hon. Gentleman realise that this matter has caused grave concern?
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: I did point out that war-time conditions alone are the difficulty.
    Mr. Edmund Harvey: Do war-time conditions prevent the purchase of land for land settlement schemes, even if the schemes have to be left over until later?
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: If the hon. Member will read my reply, he will see that this is being done in a number of cases.
    Mr. Riley: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Motion for Adjournment.
    Dr. Morgan: The whole thing is an organised hyprocrisy.

    Co-operative Marketing
    Mr. Rileyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will give favourable consideration in the near future to the co-operative marketing of colonial produce on the lines indicated in the Report of the West African Cocoa Commission, 1938.
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: The subject of co-operative marketing is constantly receiving attention both here and by Colonial Governments, but the lines which such developments will follow will naturally vary according to local circumstances. In West Africa the Co-operative Societies have been assisted during the period of war-time control, and in considering long-term plans for the West African cocoa industry, the recommendations of the West African Cocoa Commission will certainly be borne fully in mind.

  TRINIDAD ("THE CIVIL SERVICE REVIEW")
  Mr. W. J. Brownasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that, following on the publication in "The Civil Service Review" of Trinidad, of criticisms of the administrative methods employed by certain high officials, the Governor of Trinidad requested the members of the editorial board of that paper either to make a public apology or to resign from their posts in the Trinidad Civil Service; and whether, in view of the fact that the criticisms referred to were fair comments on matters of public importance, he will take steps to ensure that there is no further intimidation of public servants in this way.
  Mr. Emrys-Evans: This matter was investigated by a Committee of Inquiry composed of a Judge as Chairman and two unofficial members of the Executive Council. The Committee found that the article contained allegations and derogatory statements couched in grossly improper language against two higher officials of the Colony, and that the officers appearing before the Committee were responsible for the publication of the article and were consequently guilty of misconduct. The officers responsible ultimately expressed regret for the language used, and it was decided that they should be reprimanded. In these circumstances my right hon. and gallant

  1405
  Friend cannot accept the suggestion that the article was confined to fair comment on matters of public importance.
  Mr. Brown: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that no administration ever regards criticism as fair comment; and does he also realise that criticism of the Administration, by the Civil Service, is one of the very best ways of keeping the Administration up to scratch?
  Mr. Emrys-Evans: Not criticism of this kind.
  Dr. Russell Thomas: Is criticism allowed in Zanzibar?

  MALTA

    War Bonus
    Miss Wardasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the adoption of the uniform rate of bonus for all employees whose salaries do not exceed £850 by the National Agreement of 25th November, he will apply the straight bonus system to Malta and disregard the findings of the MacLeod Report which was issued on 30th October.
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: The Governor of Malta has reported that at a Conference on the 9th February the proposal for a uniform rate of bonus was put forward by the delegates of the employees who stated that they would submit written representations on the subject. Pending consideration of these representations my right hon. and gallant Friend does not feel able to come to a conclusion in the matter.
    Miss Ward: May I ask my hon. Friend whether these representations could be speeded up in order that His Majesty's Government may reply?
    Mr. Enirys-Evans: The representations have not yet been received by His Majesty's Government.

    Industrial Disputes (Negotiating Machinery)
    Miss Wardasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction on all sides at the failure of the MacLeod Report to recommend the establishment of some form of negotiating machinery even if the
    1406
    setting up on the identical British system of Whitley industrial councils or committees at once is not a practical proposition; and whether he will now renounce this lack of industrial leadership for Malta as being mistaken policy.
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: There is negotiating machinery already in Malta in relation to some classes of the employees of the Government of Malta and the Service Departments with which alone the Macleod Report is concerned. My right hon. and gallant Friend is aware that dissatisfaction has been expressed by the employees with the view taken by Mr. Macleod in his report that the time has not yet come to extend such machinery in Malta to other classes. This subject is still under consideration by the various authorities concerned and it is not yet possible for any conclusion to be reached.
    Miss Ward: Does my hon. Friend realise that dissatisfaction is not confined to employees; and will he take the initiative of asking for a full report on the opinion of all sections of the community in Malta?
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: As my hon. Friend will see, from my reply, the matter is now under consideration.
    Miss Ward: Will my hon. Friend continue to press for a full report as to everybody's opinion; and will he at once take the initiative? May I have an answer?
    Mr. W. J. Brawn: Does the Minister realise that one of the most prolific causes of discontent among the Government staff in Malta, is the failure of the Administration to take them into active partnership as in done in this country; and will he not insist, if necessary, on overriding some of the deadheads in Malta?
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: As I said in my reply, this matter is under very careful consideration by my right hon. and gallant Friend, and I will bring the views of the House to his notice.

  NIGERIA (COCOA PRICE)
  Mr. Rileyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the current price for cocoa exported from Nigeria is £3per ton less than the price of exports from the Gold Coast.
  Mr. Emrys-Evans: The respective prices for cocoa in the Gold Coast and Nigeria are £15 and £12 10s. per ton naked ex-scale port of shipment respectively. I regret that the price of £12 for Nigeria given in the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Radcliffe (Mr. Wootton-Davies) on the 23rd of February was incorrect. The difference of £2 10s, is attributable as to 10s. per ton to the quality differential between Nigeria and Gold Coast cocoa, and as to £2 to a transport subsidy payable in the Gold Coast, but not in Nigeria, to enable the port price to be paid at up-country buying stations.

  BRITISH GUIANA (NURSING CONDITIONS, GEORGETOWN)
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has any further report respecting nursing conditions in Georgetown, British Guiana; and what proposals are to be made in regard to the abolition of the system of fines and also hours, wages and working conditions.
  Mr. Emrys-Evans: Yes, Sir. A comprehensive revision of salaries in the Medical Department has been approved with effect from the 1st January. I have not complete details yet to give the hon. Member nor any information about the system of fines to which he has referred, but the new scheme provides for improved conditions of service for nurses and for the appointment of 40 extra nurses which should enable improvements to be made in working hours.
  Mr. Sorensen: Would the hon. Gentleman make immediate inquiries regarding the vexatious and foolish system of fines?
  Mr. Emrys-Evans: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Sorensen: When can we have a report on that? The matter is urgent.
  Mr. Entrys-Evans: I cannot give a definite date.

  RAILWAYS (HOLIDAY TRAFFIC)
  Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport if he is taking steps to avoid the confusion that took place on the railways at holiday time last year during this year's relaxation periods; can he make a full
  1408
  statement on what he proposes for the guidance of the people; and is it his intention to apply a scheme of organisation.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): I regret that I cannot hold out any hope that it will be possible to provide additional trains this year for holiday travel. It is, therefore, more important than ever before that workers' annual holidays should be spread as equally as possible over the summer months. My Noble Friend has asked the Government Departments who are concerned, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Production has asked the Regional Production Boards, to do everything in their power to ensure that this shall be done.
  Mr. Smith: If my hon. Friend had read the Question, he would have seen that I was not asking for additional trains. What I am asking for is that the people who have worked so hard shall have their relaxation organised, and shall not be left in the chaotic conditions in which they were left last summer. Will my hon. Friend give an undertaking that last summer's experience will be prevented by the Minister taking the initiative to organise relaxation?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: The staggering of the holidays of different towns, and of factories within the same town, would be one method, we think the most effective method, of organising holiday travel, if holiday travel there, is to be. We are considering other measures. If my hon. Friend has any proposals to make I would very gladly receive them and consider them. I must remind my hon. Friend and the House that conditions will be very difficult and if people travel they will have to accept discomfort, but I expect that they will bear it with the cheerful fortitude which they showed last year.
  Mr. Granville: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he made exactly the same statement last year, and that the serious conditions at London stations were not anything to be proud of? Will he consider making known to the factory managements and the workpeople of this country whatever decision the Government reach?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir. We are doing everything we can to organise the staggering of holidays. In the last resort,

  1409
  that must depend on the factory managements and the workers themselves. But I said last year, and this applies again now, that we must put war traffic first. This year, there will be more traffic than last year, and it will be even more essential. If that causes discomfort to holiday travellers we regret it, but we cannot help it.
  Sir Herbert Williams: Having regard to the fact that 85 per cent. of the people travelling on the railways do not pay their own fares, but (have them paid by the Government, is it not time that steps were taken to reduce much of this travel?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: We have been in consultation with the Services about leave travel, and they have helped us very considerably. The hon. Member will realise that we cannot cut out leave travel altogether but we are consulting the Services on that point.
  Mr. Burke: Is my hon. Friend aware that we have had staggered holidays for many years in Lancashire, and that we have the most wretched train services in the country?
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Apart from travelling, will staggered periods of rest be arranged, so that the people who have worked so hard may get some relaxation?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir. Staggering will help enormously if it is carried through.
  Mr. R. J. Taylor: In dealing with leave travel, will care be taken to see that whatever is done will not impose any hardship on the Services in regard to the leave periods?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, we will consider that aspect. We must also consider the very great strain on the train crews, who have done a magnificent job for five years.

  SHIPPING, NORTH AFRICA (CARGOES)
  Major Petoasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport to what extent ships are still returning to this country from North Africa in ballast; and if they could now be used to bring some of the produce of that country here.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I am glad to assure my hon. and gallant Friend that ships returning to this country from North Africa are now carrying all the available supplies of the commodities required for the programmes of the Supply Departments.
  Mr. Keeling: Will my hon. Friend arrange that if there should be any empty cargo space in ships from North Africa, the ships shall call at Cadiz or Oporto, where there are large quantities of sherry and port awaiting shipment?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I am not sure that that is regarded as an operational necessity.

  ROADS

    Rule of the Road
    Mr. Bartle Bullasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Tansport if, in order to help our export trade and in view of the fact that there is now little civilian traffic, he will consider, although it is right for historical reasons to drive on the left of the road, arranging now that after the war we will drive on the right of the road in Great Britain.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir, I will consider my hon. Friend's proposal that we should alter the rule of the road, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. I must, however, remind him that whatever might be the advantages, either to the export trade or in other (ways, of a generally accepted international rule, the change from left to right would in this country be a difficult and costly process. When the opportunity for international action arises, we shall have to balance these difficulties against the advantages we should obtain.
    Mr. Bull: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary think that this would be a good time to make such a change, as there is very little civilian traffic here; and whatever the international complications, does he not agree that the rest of the world would certainly not change to suit us?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: There are many countries, including India and China and other potential markets, which drive on the left.
    Mr. Bull: In China they drive on both sides.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: If we are thinking of the advantage to the export trade, we must get a generally-accepted international rule. The difficulties are mainly the reconstruction of buses, the transposition of traffic signals, and the rearrangement of the road arteries for traffic.
    Commander Locker-Lampson: Why should we do what the Germans do, and not what the Britons do?
    Mr. Silverman: What exactly are the advantages which would result from changing from the left to the right?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: It is believed by many people that it would help the export trade in motors. I pronounce no opinion: I am going to consult the President of the Board of Trade about that. It would also have great advantages as regards road safety, which it would take me too long to explain now.

    Empty Lorries, Journeys
    Captain Stricklandasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he has now considered the detailed statement of the hire and operational costs involved in the case of road vehicle 5S10/50, hired by his Department for the week ended 11th February last; and if he has any further statement to make on the total load carried during that week and the costs involved.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir, I have examined the record of this lorry for the week ended 11th February, as it was submitted by the operator himself. This record confirms my statement that the loads carried amounted in all, not to 16£ tons, as my hon. and gallant Friend alleged in his previous Question, but to 35£ tons. Allowing for all overheads, and for demurrage for one and a half days' delay in unloading, for which the Road Haulage Organisation was not to blame, the cost per ton was not £3, as alleged by my hon. and gallant Friend in his Question. On the basis of the figures with which he has been good enough to supply me himself, the average cost per ton would be 17s. 3d. I would, however, remind my hon. and gallant Friend that the Organisation is not primarily designed to make a profit by competing with other forms of transport, but to make the best use of transport as a whole.
    Captain Strickland: Will my hon. Friend indicate the particular detail in the very closely-examined statement that I secured for his use, on which he bases his own statement that the charges work out at 17s. 5d.? Which of the details is incorrect?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: There were 35½ tons carried, and not 16½ two loads of paper and cement. I have the journey sheet here, and I will gladly show it to my hon. and gallant Friend.
    Captain Strickland: Half of £3 per ton would still work out at 30s. per ton, if you doubled the amount carried.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that prior to the war these private companies were robbing and looting this country, and that they want to get back to that sort of thing?
    Captain Stricklandasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport how many road vehicles were sent by his Department on Friday, 18th February, empty from London, 173 miles to Northwich, Cheshire; what total unloaded ton-mileage was involved; and whether the carriage of household salt, involving neither port clearance nor emergency need, is regarded as sufficiently urgent traffic to warrant the waste of fuel on the unloaded journey outwards.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Twenty-five vehicles were sent from London to Northwich on 28th February to carry salt. The average capacity of the vehicles was between seven and eight tons. The vehicles were needed at Northwich, because the railways had been unable to handle the traffic which was offered to them, and in consequence the supplies of salt had fallen dangerously low in certain areas. The Ministry of Food assured my officers that the salt was urgently required in these areas, not only for household use, but for the production of essential foodstuffs, including the baking of bread. No outward loads were available.
    Captain Strickland: Does my hon. Friend realise that this amounts to between 2,000 and 3,000 unloaded ton-miles, in which tyres and fuel were being wasted? Were there no vehicles nearer the spot which could have handled this traffic. Did he take the precaution to make inquiries of the clearing houses, to see whether they could suppy loads?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: My hon. and gallant Friend's next question deals with clearing houses. I do not admit that empty running on a return journey, or on an outward journey, is wasted if the load to be carried is essential and urgent. The Ministry of Food assured us that in this case that was so.
    Captain Strickland: Will my hon. Friend accept my assurance that, in at least one case, the recipient of the salt assured us that he had supplies in hand and needed no more at that time?
    Mr. Gallacher: There are no scruples about these people.
    Captain Stricklandasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport, what instructions he is issuing to regional and district transport officers to prevent, as far as possible, the wastage of fuel and rubber occasioned by empty running of road vehicles under Government control; and whether, should they be unable to provide loads, he will instruct them to consult clearing houses.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: The detailed instructions given to the Officers of the Road Haulage Organisation vary from time to time according to the general transport situation. They have, however, always been designed to ensure that traffic which should be moved by road is so moved with the minimum use of fuel and rubber. I am glad to assure my hon. and gallant Friend that, in that purpose, the Organisation has achieved a high measure of success. I must remind him, however, that any attempt to load vehicles with traffic of some sort in all circumstances, because they are proceeding on a journey before or after dealing with essential traffic, would inevitably lead to additional unnecessary, and therefore, wasteful use of fuel and rubber. It would, in addition, tend to disorganise a systematic use of transport as a whole, and impair the flexibility which makes road transport an invaluable reserve for dealing with emergencies.
    Clearing Houses are the agents of consignors, and are well aware where and how they can place traffic with the Road Haulage Organisation.
    Captain Strickland: Would my hon. Friend agree that he has issued instructions to Regional and District Transport Officers that they shall try to fill up these
    1414
    vehicles on return journeys, whereas the majority of the Questions I have put to him have been with regard to sending empty vehicles on outward journeys? Will he amend these instructions to deal with outward journeys, where they run empty, as well as return journeys?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: They always fill up on return journeys, if loads are available, and I can give the hon. and gallant Gentleman many thousands of cases where that has been done.

  MINISTRY OF INFORMATION

    Prestwick Aerodrome (Broadcasts)
    Mr. Sloanasked the Minister of Information why the two broadcasts on the Prestwick aerodrome were permitted; is he aware that the most intimate details were given; and that indignation has been aroused amongst the inhabitants against these broadcasts, in view of the breach of security involved.
    Mr. McKinlayasked the Minister of Information if his attention has been drawn to a broadcast on 21st February entitled "Scottish Airport"; and why intimate details were allowed to be given of the war-time activities at Prestwick thus creating considerable alarm in the West of Scotland.
    The Minister of Information (Mr. Brendan Bracken): Both these broadcasts were scrutinised by the authorities responsible for security in these matters, and they contained only such information about the aerodrome as was known before the war or had already appeared in the British, Canadian and United States Press.
    Mr. Sloan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the exact location of this aerodrome was given, as well as the number of miles from the Continent, an estimate of the number of machines arriving each day, and all the information necessary for an enemy who wanted to bomb the aerodrome? How can he say that, as he now says, that that was information that was given before the war?
    Mr. Bracken: As I have already told the hon. Member, these broadcasts were scrutinised by the security officer. Let me point out to him that the Germans possess snaps of Scotland, and that it is quite easy to calculate the time it takes to come from some point in Germany or

    1415
    France to Prestwick, without these broadcasts.
    Sir T. Moore: In view of the fact that Prestwick is one of the brightest jewels in my constituency, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the people of Prestwick are perfectly prepared to bear the same burden in war as London and elsewhere?
    Mr. Bracken: I will bear in mind the hon. and gallant Member's tribute to his constituency. That sort of Moore's Elegy will certainly be read with interest.
    Mr. McKinlay: Is it the intention to cease prosecuting persons in the West of Scotland for careless talk, or, as an alternative, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to proceed against the security officers who sanctioned these broadcasts?
    Mr. Bracken: First of all, I would have nothing to do with the prosecution of those most eminent people called the Scots. Secondly, the security officer who read these two broadcasts is a highly experienced man, and he knows perfectly well, for instance, that, in General Marshall's report on American Army activities in Britain, there is a long passage dealing with Prestwick, which has also been published throughout the United States.
    Mr. Sloan: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible date.

    Atlantic Charter (Publicity)
    Mr. Burkeasked the Minister of Information if the Atlantic Charter has been the subject of any broadcasts within this country during the last 12 months and, if so, upon how many occasions; whether any public meetings have been arranged by his Department dealing with the principles of the Charter within the same period; and, if so, how many and in which regions.
    Mr. Bracken: There have been no specific broadcasts about the Atlantic Charter in the past year, but references to it have been frequent both in home and overseas transmissions. Likewise, while only a few meetings under M.O.I. auspices have taken the Atlantic Charter
    1416
    as their subject, its principles are naturally used as a text whenever a speaker has occasion to discuss the war aims of the United Nations. The supply of factual information about the war continues to be the purpose of the great majority of meetings held on M.O.I. platforms.
    Mr. Burke: In view of the historical importance of this Charter, and its increasing importance as the war goes on, can the Minister arrange to have some broadcasts, particularly to give the Government point of view, and their proposals, if any, in this matter?
    Mr. Bracken: The Ministry of Information exists to serve the public, and if we have any large demand to hold meetings on the subject of the Atlantic Charter, we shall certainly fulfil them.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: If the Minister is to arrange any meetings for explaining the principles of the Atlantic Charter, will he inform the speakers that the Prime Minister has told us already that the Charter does not apply to India, Burma or Germany?
    Mr. Bracken: I should imagine that the purpose of the meeting would be, not to give instruction in geography, but to explain the principles of the Charter.
    Sir H. Williams: Having regard to the fact that this raises controversial issues, is it not entirely improper that Government money should be spent on explaining a Charter, the meaning of which nobody actually knows, and, where you do understand it, it is rotten?
    Mr. Bracken: That question once again poses the dilemma which often faces the Ministry of Information. One hon. Member desires a discussion on a certain subject, and another hon. Member does not.
    Sir H. Williams: I have no desire that the Minister should take part in any political discussion.
    Mr. George Griffiths: Not even on Saturday night at a quarter-to-eight?

    European Offensive (Prime Minister's Speech)
    Captain Longhurstasked the Minister of Information whether he has taken, or is taking, special action to ensure that the Prime Minister's recent announcement that British and American troops will take

    1417
    part on a fifty-fifty basis in the European offensive will be given as much publicity as possible in the U.S.A. and elsewhere in view of the publicity given to statements that American troops would predominate.
    Mr. Bracken: This speech, like all other speeches made by my right hon. Friend since he became Prime Minister, has been fully reported in the American Press. Likewise, broadcasters in the United States have continued to give full reports of the Prime Minister's speeches.

  SCOTLAND (BEER AND SPIRITS, EXPENDITURE)
  Major Markhamasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the amounts spent on beer and spirits and fuel and light in Scotland during the years 1938, 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942 and 1943.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): My right hon. Friend regrets that the information asked for is not available. The Excise figures which are available bear no necessary relationship to areas of consumption.

  INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE
  Mrs. Tateasked the Minister of Labour whether he will ensure that qualified women shall be appointed to serve on the British Government's delegation to the International Labour Office conference to be held in April.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. McCorquodale): My right hon. Friend will bear this point in mind.
  Mrs. Tate: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, at the International Labour Office Conference of 1941, there were no official women delegates from this country, although there were women delegates from many other countries, including Latin America?

  STEEL SHIPMENTS, EIRE
  Dr. Littleasked the President of the Board of Trade what quantity of steel has been shipped from the United Kingdom to neutral Eire since the outbreak of war; and what agreement has been made with the Eire Government for further shipments.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): It would not be in the public interest to publish figures of these exports in wartime. Present exports are a small proportion of normal, and are limited by our supply position. There is no agreement with the Eire Government to supply it with steel.
  Dr. Little: Has the Minister seen the report in a London paper that 1,000 tons of steel were exported to Eire six months ago, and that another 1,000 tons are being exported now? Does he consider it right to allow steel exports into a neutral State at a time of such scarcity?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is asking for an opinion, not for information.

  MIDDLE EAST SUPPLY CENTRE
  Mr. Astorasked the Prime Minister whether the statement of the Minister of State at Cairo, that the Middle East Supply Centre would disappear after the war, represents the policy of His Majesty's Government.
  The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I think my hon. Friend may have been misled by condensed Press reports of what was said by the Minister of State Resident in the Middle East. As regards the future of the Middle East Supply Centre, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on 2nd February.
  Mr. Astor: While I can understand that the Minister's statement may have been misreported by the Press, does the right hon. Gentleman therefore mean that it is the policy of the Government to maintain this useful organisation and that it will not be terminated until an opportunity for a discussion has been given to the House?
  Mr. Attlee: My hon. Friend can accept the statement made to him by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and no other report affects the position.

  PRODUCTION (AWARDS)
  Wing-Commander Roland Robinsonasked the Minister of Production whether he is aware of the Army-Navy

  1419
  award E for excellence in production which is given to factories in the U.S.A.; that the award which is based on quantity and quality of production, in the light of available facilities, consists of a flag to be flown above the factory and a pin to be worn by every individual working in the factory; and whether he will consider the granting of similar awards to factories and factory workers in this country as an additional stimulus to war production.
  The Minister of Production (Mr. Lyttelton): Yes, Sir. I am aware of these awards. I have been thoroughly into the subject on more than one occasion with the representatives of both employers and workers. Both sides of industry are opposed to adopting a similar practice in this country.
  Mr. Sorensen: Is not the entire suggestion a kindergarten way of treating the workers?

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Fish-Frying Licence (Stillington)
    Mr. Turtonasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that the village of Stillington, near Easingwold, which had two fried fish shops before the war, has had no such facilities in recent years; and whether he will now review his decision refusing to a grant a fish-frying licence to Mr. George Manson.
    The Minister of Food (Colonel Llewellin): The two fried fish shops to which my hon. Friend refers were closed over four years ago. I regret that the shortage of fish under war conditions precludes the grant of new licences in circumstances such as these.
    Mr. Turton: In making his decision, has my right hon. and gallant Friend consulted the local food officers and the local authorities?
    Colonel Llewellin: This matter has been before the Department on two or three occasions previously and I am only confirming the decision made by my predecessor.
    Mr. Turton: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend answer my question? Has he consulted the local authorities and the local food officers?
    Colonel Llewellin: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Bowles: What is the fish-fryer supposed to do with the surplus fat, when he has not got any fish?

    Food Purveyors (Licences)
    Mr. Jewsonasked the Minister of Food whether a register is kept of fishmongers, confectioners and other purveyors of foodstuffs, who have closed down owing to war conditions, with a view to giving preference to them when licences to open are granted after the war.
    Colonel Llewellin: The information necessary for the purpose my hon. Friend has in mind is already available in local food offices.

    British Restaurants
    Mr. W. Joseph Stewartasked the Minister of Food the number of British Restaurants now established in the administrative county of Durham and the county boroughs of Sunderland and South Shields, respectively; and the number of meals served during 1942 and 1943.
    Colonel Llewellin: At the end of January, 1944, 83 approved British Restaurants were operating in the administrative county of Durham, six in the county borough of Sunderland and eight in the county borough of South Shields. As the answer to the second part of the Question is somewhat detailed, with the permission of my hon. Friend, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the remaining information:
    The average numbers of midday meals served daily during specified months of 1942 and of main meals served daily during comparable periods of 1943 were as follows:

    ADMINISTRATIVE COUNTY OF DURHAM

    Period.

    Midday meals daily.

    Main meals daily.

    1942.

    1943.

    March

    7,379

    13,879

    June

    9,794

    15,050

    September

    11,365

    14,603

    December

    12,877

    16,356

    SUNDERLAND COUNTY BOROUGH

    March

    1,536

    1,071

    June

    1,372

    1,131

    September

    842

    828

    December

    1,197

    1,244

    SOUTH SHIELDS COUNTY BOROUGH

    March

    2,320

    1,723

    June

    1,973

    1,635

    September

    1,762

    1,412

    December

    2,182

    1,348

    Barley (Use)
    Dr. Littleasked the Minister of Food whether he has considered the complaint of the Master Bakers' Association that bakers have to be satisfied with an inferior quality of barley for bread as all the first-quality barley is being purchased by the brewers for making beer; and what steps he intends to take to safeguard the quality of bread.
    Colonel Llewellin: No, Sir, I am not aware of any such complaint. In regard to the second part of the Question, the quality of bread sold in all parts of Great Britain is constantly tested and cases of poor quality are immediately investigated.
    Dr. Little: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware of the statement made in the Press, that the best barley was purchased by the brewers at the maximum price and the remainder was bought by the Minister of Food at the minimum price; and, in view of this, does he not consider that the best barley should be purchased for the bread of the people, and will he see that this is done in future?
    Colonel Llewellin: No, Sir, at the moment we are taking barley out of bread altogether. In Northern Ireland, for instance, there has been no barley in bread since the end of January.

    Cheese (Canadian Supplies)
    Mr. Thorneasked the Minister of Food if he can give any information about the amount of cheese the Canadian Government intend sending to this country during the next two years; and if those entitled to buy cheese will be allowed to buy more.
    Colonel Llewellin: No, Sir, I am afraid that I cannot say what will be the amount of cheese that we shall purchase from Canada over the next two years. It will depend on the effect on production of weather and other conditions. That which we get will be distributed on the ration, and I cannot say at this time what the amount of that ration will be.
    Mrs. Tate: Would my right hon. and gallant Friend consider the possibility of distributing any additional cheese which may be available to agricultural workers, miners and quarrymen in places where canteens are not available, in preference to the ordinary consumer?

    Oranges
    Mr. Mathersasked the Minister of Food what quantity of bitter oranges allotted to Scotland has been found to be surplus owing to lack of sugar in households to make marmalade; and whether he has decided upon any policy to prevent wastage.
    Colonel Llewellin: I do not anticipate that the supply of bitter oranges allotted for household consumption in Scotland will prove to be greater than the demand, and no wastage is expected.
    Mr. Mathers: Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman been informed that the demand by the retailers has dried up; and will he remove the ban placed upon wholesalers, who receive requests for large quantities of oranges to be sent outside the area, and will he release them and allow these wholesalers to dispose of their surplus?
    Colonel Llewellin: At the moment only 2 per cent. of the bitter oranges imported into Scotland are left in the hands of the wholesalers.
    Mr. Buchanan: Is the Minister aware that in some cases these oranges can hardly be distributed even free, because the poorer people particularly—and I believe it applies to all—have no sugar available in order to make use of them, and nobody can eat them in the ordinary way? Will he take steps either to make sugar available or to stop distributing them at all?
    Colonel Llewellin: If it is found that they are left on hand, we can enlarge the area of distribution, but I am afraid I should not be justified in giving to a particular area an addition to the sugar ration.
    Mr. Turton: Will the Minister send them to Yorkshire?

    Workers (Shopping Facilities)
    Mr. W. J. Brownasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of the difficulty experienced by workers who are away from home during the day in getting their supplies of oranges, fish, cakes, etc.; and whether he can make any proposal for ensuring that such workers are enabled to get their proper supplies.
    Colonel Llewellin: Yes, Sir. I am aware of the difficulties to which the hon. Member refers. A great deal has been done

    1423
    by my Department and by food retailers to alleviate these difficulties. I am seeing whether anything further can be done.
    Mr. Loftus: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that agricultural labourers have great difficulty in getting oranges owing to the low supplies that are being sent to village shops; and will he see to it that village shops get a ration of oranges?
    Colonel Llewellin: Quite a number do. If my hon. Friend has any case in mind where that could be done, and will let me know, I will certainly try to see if it can be done.
    Mr. Brown: Does the Minister think that he will be able to make a statement to the House as to the result of his consideration of this matter before long?
    Colonel Llewellin: It is a very difficult problem. I will look into it very fully and I will let my hon. Friend know when the moment is opportune for him to put a further question.

  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY (DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF REGIONAL ORGANISATION)
  Mr. W. J. Brownasked the Minister of Supply whether his Director-General of Regional Organisation sought and obtained his permission before becoming a member of the Conservative and Unionist Party organisation's subcommittee on industry; and whether he approved the pamphlet, "Work—The Future of British Industry," of that subcommittee before his Director-General of Regional Organisation subscribed to it.
  The Minister of Supply (Sir Andrew Duncan): No, Sir.
  Mr. Brown: Why not?
  Sir A. Duncan: The subject matter of the report that the hon. Member signed, had nothing whatever to do with his duties in the Department.
  Mr. Brown: Can we take it from that answer that any civil servant is free to sign any report he likes dealing with Government policy, providing always that it does not deal with the particular piece of governmental work on which he himself is engaged? If so, that means a complete departure from the existing practice.
  Sir A. Duncan: I do not mean any such departure at all. We are speaking now of a Member of Parliament, and in respect of a Member of Parliament there clearly must be less restraint on public matters.

  ALIEN REFUGEES
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in the consideration he is giving to the facilities for the further acceptance of refugees into this country, he has taken account of the hospitality offered to Jewish and other refugees, including a share of their rations, by many hundreds of private families.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): Account will, of course, be taken of every relevant consideration but, as my hon. Friend is, no doubt, aware, the difficulty of providing in this country accommodation and food for refugees is not the only, or even the most important, of the many formidable obstacles which confront His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States of America in carrying out their joint policy of affording to the victims of Nazi oppression all possible relief and assistance which is consistent with the successful prosecution of the war.
  Mr. Sorensen: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether his Department has compiled a list of these offers so that they may be used when opportunity occurs?
  Mr. Peake: We have had a number of letters in the Home Office offering to share rations and so forth, but, of course, this is not, as I pointed out, the most formidable obstacle in the way of the admission of further refugees.
  Miss Rathbone: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the numbers who could get through are so small that they could be brought over without much difficulty, and that, if there are existing hard cases where wives and children already here have to be a burden on the public, it is because the husband and father is not allowed to come here?
  Mr. Peake: I am sure that my hon. Friend will have an opportunity of expressing her views on all these questions in the Debate to-day, on the Report stage of the Supplementary Estimate.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Hammersley: May I put a question to the Leader of the House on Business, Mr. Speaker? I wish to ask whether he will provide facilities during the Debate on the Army Estimates, for the consideration in Secret Session of the question of British tanks.
Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. Subject, of course, to the Rules of the House permitting it, and subject to Mr. Speaker calling upon any hon. Members interested in the question, the Government will be prepared to make any arrangements necessary and to reply to the Debate, which would, as my hon. Friend knows, have to take place in Secret Session.
Lieut.-Colonel Dower: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether ample opportunity will be given for raising matters concerning the Army before the Debate on tanks is taken?
Mr. Eden: That may be so, but that matter is in your hands, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Buchanan: Is it not a fact that a Debate on Army Estimates at any time, but particularly in war-time and with the restricted time available, must cover an extremely wide field? If it is proposed on the next Sitting Day to set aside time for a Debate on tanks, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is another subject which many hon. Members regard as very important, namely, pay and allowances, and also other general questions? Is it fair to the House to pick out the question of tanks for a Debate when it is not in reality a War Office matter so much as a matter of war strategy, and ought not to be confused with the ordinary Army Estimates?
Mr. Eden: I do not think I can accept what the hon. Gentleman says. It is no part of my intention to interfere with the Debate on the Motion which, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, comes first. If it can be arranged for this other matter to come up, it can only be at a later stage.
Mr. J. J. Lawson: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman, if he is not aware of it already, that this question of the tanks is no new one. It has been before the House previously; but if it is so important as to demand a Secret Session, would it not be better to arrange a separate
1426
day for it instead, of taking it on the Army Estimates, which come up only once a year?
Mr. Buchanan: May I also point out that the question of tanks concerns not merely the War Office but the Ministry of Supply, the Ministry of Production, and other Departments? Is it fair to confine a Debate on tanks to the War Office?
Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the opportunities for discussing matters connected with the Army are not frequent, and the question of tanks is entirely by itself? Hon. Members have asked questions on the subject of tanks many times, and is it not obviously desirable that one whole day should be given to the discussion of the subject of tanks by itself?
Major C. S. Taylor: On that same point, may I say that a large number of hon. Members want to raise other matters than tanks on the Army Estimates. It is the only day that hon. Members have got to raise various points. There is also the Amendment on Army Pay and Allowances. Is it fair that we should have to discuss the question of tanks at a very late hour? As it is such an important matter, could we not have an extra day?
Mr. Glenvil Hall: Does the right hon. Gentleman think there is any real urgency that a discussion should take place on tanks at this point of time? Surely nothing which happened in such a Debate could possibly affect the situation for some months to come?
Mr. Eden: I have tried, in this matter, to meet what I thought was the wish of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] My hon. Friend the Member for East Willesden (Mr. Hammersley) drew the second place in the Ballot, and all that can happen is that, if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, then the matter must be discussed in Secret Session. On that account, I tried to make these arrangements, but, as I have said, whether the matter comes up or not, depends on whether my hon. Friend catches your eye.
Mr. Stokes: Does the Leader of the House appreciate, on the question of tanks, that the whole matter would be settled if the Government would agree to

1427
a proper inquiry which the Prime Minister has refused?
Mr. Eden: I am not optimistic enough to believe that anything would satisfy my hon. Friend.
Mr. Granville: May I ask the Leader of the House how far he hopes to get with this miscellaneous list of Business on the Order Paper, and if he expects there will be a discussion on the Supplementary Estimate for the Foreign Office?
Mr. Eden: As regards the last part of the question, I cannot say what the scope of the discussion will be. The hon. Gentleman will observe that is it not very wide. As far as the first part is concerned, we hope to get as far as we can.
Mr. Maxton: Does that include the Second Reading of the India (Attachment of States) Bill [Lords] because it seems to me that that Bill should not go through the House without having some attention from hon. Members? I have come here with a pocketful of cablegrams about this matter. Would the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that if that Bill is not reached at a reasonable time, it will not be pursued to-day?
Mr. Eden: I certainly did hope that we would reach the Bill at a reasonably early hour. If we do not, I will consider whether we should take it or not.
Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: If we do not reach it before the normal hour for the rising of the House, it will not be taken afterwards?
Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, I think I can give hat assurance.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS
That they have agreed to—
House of Commons Disqualification (Temporary Provisions) Bill,
Income Tax (Offices and Employments) Bill, without Amendment.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  DISABLED PERSONS (EMPLOYMENT) BILL
  Order for consideration of Lords Amendments read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

  DISABLED PERSONS (EMPLOYMENT) BILL

    CLAUSE 9.—(Obligations as to employment of quota of registered persons in substantial staffs.)
    Lords Amendment: In line 42, leave out "it is" and insert:
    "apart from that sub-section it would have been".
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Tomlinson): I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    It would be for the convenience of the House if, in dealing with this Amendment, I also referred to the other Lords Amendments, as they are all drafting Amendments which are made necessary by the introduction of the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Bill. Clause 9 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Bill, which imposes obligations on employers to employ a quota of registered disabled persons, refers in Sub-section (3) to certain Sections of the National Service (Armed Forces) Act, 1939, to the National Service Act, 1941, and to Regulation 60DAA of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939. The effect of the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Bill will be to repeal, either in whole or in part, the various provisions referred to in Clause 9 (3), and it is therefore necessary to substitute for those references a reference to "any Act, whether passed before or after the passing of this Act." If the first three of the proposed Amendments are made, Clause 9 (3) of the Bill will then read as follows:
    1438
    "Sub-section (2) of the section shall not apply to a person taking, or offering to take, into his employment at any time a person whom apart from that sub-section it would have been his duty to take into his employment at that time either—

    (a) by virtue of any Act, whether passed before or after the passing of this Act; or

    (b) by virtue of an agreement to reinstate him in his employment entered into before the date appointed for the coming into operation of sub-section (2) of this section."

    The fourth Amendment on the Order Paper, which is an Amendment to Clause 12 of the Bill, is consequential upon the making of the first three Amendments.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In line 42, leave out "reinstate in" and insert "take into."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. Tomlinson.]
    Mr. Lionel Berry: I appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend in trying to cover the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Bill, but he has taken it a good deal further than that in making this apply to any Act which may be passed in the future. When an employer re-engages or engages further members of his staff, if the proportion of disabled in the total number becomes less than his quota he must engage disabled persons and not fit persons. But there are three cases where exemption is granted. In the first case the Minister may give a permit to allow a fit person to be engaged; in the second, if an employer has already made a contract with the employee at the time before this Clause becomes operative he is entitled to engage that employee, notwithstanding the fact that his quota is not made up; and, in the third case, he is not bound, as it stood in the Bill originally, where he has a duty of reinstatement under the National Service (Armed Forces) Act, 1939, or the National Service Act, 1941, or Regulation 60 of the Defence Regulations, 1939.
    It seems to me that when the Government substitute for that a Clause which says that any Act, whether passed before or after the passing of this Act, "under an Act passed before" must refer to all the specific Acts mentioned, but the reference to any Act passed afterwards

    1439
    leaves the law little scope. There is the possibility that we may find that the very people we are trying to help by this Bill will be penalised as a result of this Amendment. We cannot visualise what future legislation may be put before the House, but we know that there must at some time be a Bill dealing with the whole question of demobilisation and that in that Bill we shall have to have certain Regulations regarding employment. As I see it, any such Regulations binding employers to engage people under the terms of that Bill would place such people in a prior position in the list over the disabled persons whom we are considering under this Bill. It is obviously quite impossible for the House in the future, every time a Bill comes up for discussion, to bear in mind that all Regulations are automatically binding on disabled persons under the Act of 1944. We should be doing a disservice to disabled people if we accepted the Amendment in its present form, because it goes further than the intention of this House or the Minister. Therefore, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he cannot overcome this difficulty in some other way than by leaving the whole question so open and so free as it is in the present Amendment.
    Mr. Tomlinson: I think my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Berry) has anticipated difficulties which we have not contemplated could possibly arise. Obviously, you cannot pass an Act of Parliament which calls upon the employer to do two absolutely contrary things, and if this Amendment were not made it would be calling upon him to do something under Acts of Parliament which are here defined, and which are to be changed by the passing of another Bill which is being considered to-day. The effect of this would be to nullify his action under this Bill. My hon. Friend suggests that the wording which has been substituted in the Lords Amendment goes further. But it only goes further in that it covers all Acts which are contemplated in this way. Just as it will be necessary to watch the passing of legislation in order to see that it does not contravene legislation which is already on the Statute Book, to the detriment of the people who are being catered for, so it will be whatever language is introduced here. It would call for the intro-
    1440
    duction of an Amendment every time to deal with a particular Act of Parliament. I think my hon. Friend may be assured that we are as anxious as he is to defend the people with whom he is concerned. If his fears should be realised at some time in the future it will be as easy to bring forward an Amendment to meet that situation as it would be to meet the contemplated difficulty now.
    Commander Sir Archibald Southby: I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether his concluding words mean that the idea which underlies this Bill—that priority should be given to disabled men over everybody else—is really in the mind of the Government and that if the proposed Amendment would have the effect of removing that priority then the Government would at some future date introduce legislation which would restore that priority? What the House wishes to do is to give priority to the men who have been disabled in the service of their country over everybody else as regards employment. If the Amendment would open the gate and remove that priority it should be resisted, but if it means that should that be found to be the case the Government would then restore priority to disabled men, then I think we would agree that it should go through.
    Mr. Tomlinson: If the Amendment meant what was meant by the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) not only would we not have put it down but, had it been put down, we would have resisted it. It means that the man stands in exactly the same position as before, except that we are insuring for a contingency should it arise.
    Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, put, and agreed to.
    Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

  REINSTATEMENT IN CIVIL EMPLOYMENT BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  REINSTATEMENT IN CIVIL EMPLOYMENT BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Obligation of employers to reinstate former employees.)
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. McCorquodale): I beg to move, in page 2, line 27, after, "obligation," to insert, "under this section."

    1441
    During the Committee Debate my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery) raised the point that paragraph 1 of the First Schedule and this Clause appeared to be somewhat inconsistent and asked whether we could slightly alter the Bill so that anybody reading it would not be misled as to what was intended. We therefore ask leave to insert these words to make it quite plain that Clause 1 stands by itself and that the First Schedule also stands by itself.
    Major Manningham Buller: I have listened to the Parliamentary Secretary but I am not at all dear about the effect of this Amendment. The Section which creates the obligation for the employer is Section I and the Amendment merely puts in the words "under this Section," that is the Section creating the obligation. It still seems to leave the provision in paragraph 2 (b) in direct conflict with the terms of the first paragraph of the Second Schedule. They do not seem to be in the least reconciled. Perhaps my hon. Friend will make it clear which provision has priority over the other, because they seem to be mutually inconsistent and the inconsistency is not cured by this Amendment.
    The Solicitor-General (Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I hope I shall be able to help my hon. and gallant Friend on the point he has raised. Clause 1 relates to the employer's obligation to reinstate and provides in sub-section 2 (b) that in no case shall a former employer be under any obligation to take an applicant into his employment after six months have elapsed from the end of the present emergency. That is the original obligation to take the applicant into his employment. The Second Schedule does not deal with the employer's obligation at all. It makes provision as to the nature of the Orders to be made by a Reinstatement Committee. It is conceivable to have the position where the original obligation on the part of the employer arose before the end of the Emergency. There is some negotiation and the man is put off for a period and the case does not get before the Reinstatement Committee until a period which would make their order come into force after the end of the Emergency. We want to cover that position. It is that distinction between the original obligation to take the man back and the
    1442
    order that can be made by the Reinstatement Committee which we have emphasised by putting in the words "under this Section," to show clearly that this is dealing with the original obligation.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Obligation of employers to continue to employ reinstated employees.)
    Mr. McCorquodale: I beg to move, in page 4, line 27, at the end, to insert:
    "Provided that if when the applicant last ceased to be employed by his former employer before the beginning of his war service he had been in the continuous employment of that former employer for a consecutive period of not less than fifty-two weeks, the preceding provisions of this section shall have effect as if for the reference to twenty-six weeks there were substituted a reference to fifty-two weeks.
    (2) In computing the period of continuous employment mentioned in the proviso to the preceding subsection—

    (a) where the employment is in an undertaking, and any change has taken place in the person carrying on that undertaking or any other undertaking has become comprised in that undertaking, periods in the employment of the person for the time being carrying on the undertaking or the other undertaking, as the case may be, shall be treated as periods of employment by the former employer;

    (b) a person shall not be treated as otherwise than continuously employed by reason of any temporary absence from work."

    This Amendment is moved to carry out a pledge which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour gavel in Committee to consider extending the obligation of the employer to employ the applicant for 52 weeks in the case where the applicant had been employed by the same employer for more than a year continuously before he was called up.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Meaning of expression "former employer.")
    Mr. McCorquodale: I beg to move, in page 6, line 19, at the end, to insert:
    "(3) Where—

    (a) by virtue of any provision made by or under any Act, employers of any class are required, in taking persons of any class into their employment (whether in all cases or not and whether absolutely or subject to exceptions), to restrict themselves to, or to give preference to, persons for the time being included in a specified pool or register; and

    1443

    (b) under the said provision, all persons included in that pool or register are in the employment of a specified body when not otherwise employed; and

    (c) the occupation in which a person to whom this Act applies was last employed before the beginning of his war service is such that the taking of him into his employment by the person who, but for the provision of this subsection, would be his former employer is affected by the said provision,

    the said body shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be the former employer of that person."
    In the course of the Second Reading Debate my right hon. Friend said that in the case of the Merchant Navy, the docks, and so on, in which pools were formed under emergency legislation in order to take the place of the individual employer, the workers concerned would have the right to be reinstated to those pools. On further consideration of the Bill we came to the conclusion that in order to carry out the Minister's intentions words something like those of the Amendment should be added to make the position quite clear.
    Sir Robert Young: I should like to ask whether this Amendment applies only to seamen and others of that character, or does it apply generally to engineers who have been under various employers?
    Mr. McCorquodale: This Amendment refers to two cases where, under emergency legislation, pools of employed persons have been formed. At the moment there are pools for dockers and Merchant Navy seamen, and there may be others before the end of the war.
    Mr. Bellenger: Is the employer clearly defined in a case like that? I am not conversant with the system of pools of employment in the dockers' industry, but are we clear that the obligation will fall on some specific employer?
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): The position in the dock industry is that before the war a man was casually employed and therefore virtually had no employer, although he might go back on to the register in order to give him a right to apply for work. That was all the right he had. During the war two schemes have been established which after the war must become one scheme. One is the Ministry of Transport scheme on
    1444
    Merseyside and in Glasgow, formed for special reasons, but the more important is the National Dock Labour Corporation scheme, under which responsibility is accepted for guaranteeing the man his income, so that instead of going back on to the register, which gives him only the right to apply for work at the dock gates, he goes back into the pool and, if there is no work, participates in the guaranteed week, like others who have been in the pool all the time. The same thing applies to merchant seamen. A pool has been established which takes care of a man when he is not on board ship and has no individual employer. Under this arrangement we reinstate the man not merely on the register but in the pool, so that he gets all the rights of the people who have been at home during the whole period.
    Sir Irving Albery: It is not clear to me from what the right hon. Gentleman has said whether in connection with such a pool as the Dock Labour Corporation pool the Corporation will be treated as being legally the employer?
    Mr. Bevin: Yes.
    Major Manningham-Buller: Supposing the pools cease to exist after the war, who then will be the employer?
    Mr. Bevin: In that case we should be right back to the position where the men had only the status of casual workers, but I have no fear that the pools will disappear. In building, shipping and the docks—I think in the case of the building trade it has not yet extended there—generally speaking I think we may take it that in the case of casual labour that system will be the order of the day.
    Sir I. Albery: I have one last question to put. Among dock labourers there are many men who were registered and then for some reason became unregistered. How will they stand? The Bill provides for those who were in the employ of an employer within a certain time. How will men under the pool system be affected as regards this question of time?
    Mr. Bevin: There was registration at every port and men were on the register. If a man was on the register when he was called up, then, the pool having now taken the place of the individual employer from the point of view of liability, he will be able to establish his claim before the Reinstatement Com-

    1445
    mittee —if there is a dispute—to go back into the pool instead of going back on to the register, which has been superseded. The man is in a safer position and has greater security.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. McCorquodale: I beg to move, in page 6, to leave out lines 20 to 23.
    This is really a drafting Amendment. The words which it is proposed to leave out cover the definition of "undertaking," and we think that would come more appropriately in Clause 20, with the other definitions.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 10—(Appeals from Reinstatement Committees.)
    Mr. McCorquodale: I beg to move, in page 8, line 14, after "leave," to insert:
    "and an application for leave is made within the prescribed time to the umpire or a deputy umpire, with the leave."
    In moving this Amendment I should like at the same time to deal with a small consequential Amendment which follows:
    "In page 8, line 15, to leave out 'in any other case'."
    These two Amendments follow the pledge which was given during the Committee stage to allow an individual applicant who has been to a Reinstatement Committee to ask leave to appeal to the umpire from the decision of the Reinstatement Committee. That was in line with the general feeling in the committee.
    Mr. Naylor: I am not opposing this Amendment, because I can see that it is necessary in order that the application shall be made within the prescribed time, but I should like the Minister to explain just how this Sub-section will operate. In the Unemployment Act an appeal is made to the umpire only on questions of general principle. Here it is different, because the appeal is on the facts of the case. We may presume that the umpire or deputy-umpire will decide the issue of giving leave to appeal upon the facts of the case. What follows? If the umpire has given permission to appeal he has heard all the facts of the case. What object, then, can be served by having another hearing to decide the appeal on the facts of the case as previously decided by the Reinstate-
    1446
    ment Committee? Are there to be two hearings by the umpire, one to decide whether he will give permission to appeal and another to decide whether the decision of the Reinstatment Committee was correct? I submit that in both cases the evidence will be the same, because permission to appeal is only granted after the facts of the case have been considered by the umpire. Does the umpire, having given leave to appeal, proceed at once to give a decision for or against the decision of the Reinstatement Committee on the facts which he has already considered in relation to the application for permission to appeal? Unless we are clear on how this sub-section actually works we shall be causing umpires to sit twice instead of once to decide issues which are to be determined on the same set of facts.
    Mr. Bevin: In the case of this Bill, I find myself in a difficulty because under the hardship procedure, notwithstanding the Appeals Committee refusing leave to appeal, I, as Minister, can refer a case to the umpire if circumstances warrant it. Hon. Members know that in many hundreds of cases where leave to appeal has been refused, I have on re-examination of the case come to the conclusion that a further hearing ought to be given, and the case has gone to the umpire. The Minister does not come into this Bill at all and, therefore, when the argument was put up in Committee I felt that here was a dead end and the man concerned might feel a grievance. Therefore, I turned to what I understand to be a well-known practice in the Court of Criminal Appeal by which the request to appeal is allowed and then you proceed to a hearing. Now all the umpire will do in this case will be to review what happened before the Reinstatement Committee. The case will be put to him in writing and he will make up his mind whether, notwithstanding the unanimity of the Reinstatement Committee, this case, after all, ought to be reheard. He will come to that conclusion without prejudice to his final decision, after hearing the facts restated. I understand that is the best alternative to the system, which does not appear in this Bill at all, but which applies under all the National Service Acts. Really what it means is that leave to appeal in the last analysis, is given here to the umpire instead of to the Minister.
    Mr. Ballenger: I think it is quite clear now what the Minister is aiming at. The only point about which I should like to know is this: When the umpire gives leave to appeal, he will probably hear the appeal and the evidence including, I take it, any new evidence that the applicant may be able to submit?
    Mr. Bevin: That is so.
    Sir I. Albery: I want to be clear about this point. After looking into the case the umpire can decide whether he thinks there is sufficient doubt in the case to go into it fully as an appeal. But I understand he also has the right to say that there shall be no hearing.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 8, line 15, leave out "in any other case." [Mr. Bevin.]

    CLAUSE 14.—(Prevention of evasion.)
    Mr. Leslie: I beg to move, in page 11, line 20, to leave out "fifty" and to insert "one hundred."
    Sir I. Albery: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member moving a manuscript Amendment?
    Mr. Leslie: Yes. In the Committee stage we increased the penalty to £100 in Clause 11, but you will observe that in Clause 14 it still remains £50. All this Amendment proposes to do is to put Clause 14 in line with Clause 11 and increase the penalty to £100.
    Mr. Bellenger: In Clause 11, as my hon. Friend has explained, the Government accepted an Amendment to increase the penalty from £50 to £100, and all that is being asked now is that in Clause 14 the same procedure shall prevail, namely, to increase £50 to £100.
    Mr. McCorquodale: If the House wishes to accept this Amendment, we shall not oppose it.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 16.—(Regulations.)
    Mr. McCorquodale: I beg to move, in page 12, to leave out lines 11 to 18.
    This Amendment is moved in consequence of a statement made by the Minister on the Committee stage when he proposed not to take powers to himself to make regulations defining "reasonable-
    1448
    ness" or "practicability," but to leave it to the Reinstatement Committee and the umpire.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 20.—(Interpretation.)
    Amendment made: In page 15, line 13, at the end, insert:
    "undertaking" includes any business, whether carried on by way of trade or not, and the activities of any body of persons, whether corporate or unincorporated."
    —[Mr. Bevin.]

    SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Provisions applicable to Orders of Reinstatement Committees.)
    Amendment made: In page 19, line 8, after "twenty-six" insert "or fiftytwo."—[Mr. McCorquodale.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    Mr. Mander: I rise to make this point. I feel this to be a sincere attempt to deal with an extremely difficult situation, but the best one can hope about the Bill is that it will remain a complete dead letter, because the Government policy is work for all. If that policy is carried out, as we hope it will be, there will be no need to put this Bill into operation. It is a very limited Measure from the point of view of the broad scope of the Government's policy.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: We appreciate the passage of this Bill and we are hoping that it will not remain a dead letter. Those of us who have had experience of industry from a very early age, realise the value of a Bill of this kind, and our men who are now serving in all parts of the world and who are looking forward to carrying through the greatest military feat that has ever been carried through in history, will hope that this Bill is not going to be a dead letter.
    Mr. Mander: If there is to be work for everybody in this country, then, obviously, people can choose to go either to their own job or to a fresh job.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: We also are hoping that employment is going to be provided for all, but we realise that the social system under which we are living has never yet provided employment for all. If this House agrees to the Government introducing legislation that will provide an

    1449
    opportunity for people to serve this country after the war, in the way they have done during the war, no one will welcome that more than my hon. Friends. But we are bound to look upon this in the light of our past experience, and it is for that reason that we have endeavoured to facilitate the passage of this Bill. It means so much to our people if, after serving in the Armed Forces, they are going to be guaranteed a minimum of 26 weeks. After the last war we were guaranteed nothing and, in the main, nobody cared. Now, as the result of that experience and of the action of the Government, there is a minimum of 26 weeks, and 52 weeks, provided that there is at least 52 weeks' employment with the firm prior to enlistment. We want to express our satisfaction with the Government agreement on the suggestion made in the Committee stage, that the 26 weeks should be increased to 52.
    In regard to the administration of the Bill, can the Minister give us some assurances? For example, can we be given some idea of what it is proposed to do to facilitate the smooth passage of the Bill in the very difficult times during which it will be administered? I have read that other countries have already sent out an occupational questionnaire. In this case, are we satisfied that there will be sufficient evidence inside the Ministry of Labour, so that the Ministry will have no difficulty with regard to its administration? Apart from that, although we agree that this is a very limited Bill, it is a limited Bill of the kind that means much to our people who have suffered in the past. Therefore, if we can have more legislation of this kind it will create more confidence among our people. As I say, however, if legislation is to be introduced to give full employment to all people after the war, then no one will welcome that more than my hon. Friends.
    Mr. Erskine-Hill: I think that the House will hope that this Bill, as the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) said, will never come into operation at all. But, if it does, I think it deserves the commonsense co-operation of all the parties interested. Unless you get that co-operation between the interested parties, no Bill of this sort can work properly. I am sure the House will send it forth from
    1450
    this place with every good wish for its success. I do not want to leave the Bill without saying just a word about the concession which the Minister made to us on Clause 16. The omission of the words which we agreed to omit on the Report stage, solved a great many of the difficulties felt by those of us who were afraid of delegating too many powers from this House to the Minister. I think I ought to say we feel that we have been very generously treated in this matter, and I would like to thank the Minister.
    Lieutenant-Colonel Marlowe: This is a Bill of many defects, but I think it is one which, on the whole, ought to have our support. This is purely my own personal view and one which I express because this Bill has been severely criticised during its passage through this House. I should like to say at once that I think most of these criticisms were valid, but the way I felt bound to approach this question was to ask myself whether, in all the circumstances, I could possibly produce a better Bill. On the whole, I think this Bill is the best that can be done. Of the many criticisms which have been made, I think it has been rightly said that the whole question of demobilisation and employment after the war should be dealt with as one whole plan, but I see no harm in us at least going step by step and doing the best we can with this one particular aspect of those problems.
    It has also been said that the Bill is unworkable. I do not think it will be 100 per cent. workable, but again I see no reason why, because we cannot hope to hit the bull, we should not aim at the target. The other criticism that has been made of the Bill is that it does not really meet the pledge that was given. I do not know of any Bill which could do that, but this certainly makes an effort to go as far as possible in that direction. It was perfectly right and proper that it should have been criticised severely and one rather resents that, if criticism is made of it, the Minister waves the big stick and says, "You must not criticise us and must let us have our Bill without any suggestion or comment on it at all." I think that is a fair summary of the effect of what the Minister said on Second Reading. I do not want to pursue that matter but it will be a bad day for us when a Bill is brought before

    1451
    the House and we are not free to criticise it. Taken as a whole, it is an honest attempt to deal with a difficult situation and one that has its eye on the future, where all our eyes should now be. My constituents in Brighton have been very badly hit by the war and many of them are very concerned as to their reinstatement. I think this is at least a small contribution towards the solution of that problem. It is unfortunate that it bears the title "Reinstatement in Civil Employment," because I doubt whether it will achieve that object other than to a very small extent, but to the extent that it will do so it has my support.
    Mr. Bellenger: I think it only fair to the Minister to say that he himself, all the way through the Debates on the Bill, has held that it is nothing more than an extension of the original National Service Act, which was passed very hurriedly when the House decided that it had to conscript young people into the militia. My right hon. Friend has been actuated by the best possible motives and he must have realised that all that we have been saying throughout our Debates, is that the Bill is only an instalment. So long as the House accepts it as that, we can reasonably ask him to go on to the next step, which I hope we shall hear about very soon indeed. In parting with the Bill, all we can say about it is that we wish it well and hope it will achieve its very limited effect; but the House will ask of the Minister some further and wider Bills or plans to achieve what we all want, namely, full employment.
    Sir Herbert Holdsworth: I want to refer to a remark made by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Smith). I think this is a good Bill and I compliment the Minister upon it, but do not let it be said that it has gone through simply because its passage has been facilitated from the other side—
    Mr. Ellis Smith: I only said that we had facilitated its passage.
    Sir H. Holdsworth: If I am wrong in my interpretation of what the hon. Member said, I withdraw. The Bill has gone through, because its passage has been facilitated by Members on all sides of the House. The remarkable thing about it to me is this. For employers, it will not be easy to apply, and it will depend upon
    1452
    the good will and co-operation of empoyers to make it effective. We shall all do our best to apply the principles involved in the Bill.
    Sir I. Albery: I also think the Minister of Labour had a difficult task to provide a Bill to deal With the problem of carrying out the Government's pledge to reinstate people after the war. There is no getting away from the fact that it will be extremely difficult, and in many cases impossible, for men to be reinstated who have been absent for five years on the same basis, or in anything like the same position that they might have attained if they had remained in the business during that period. It only shows how dangerous it is, at all times, to give pledges which relate to the future. The Minister has dealt with the matter to the best of his ability, no doubt in accordance with advice that he received and with the decision of the Cabinet. I have always regretted that the whole matter was not approached from an entirely different angle and that employers and employees' associations have not been taken more fully into consultation. I am sure they would have given guarantees which would have covered this difficult question to a greater extent than it is covered in the Bill.
    The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Smith) referred to the shortcomings of the capitalist system. He rather implied that, if there is going to be a lack of employment, it will be possible to blame it on to the capitalistic system. He went on to welcome the Bill, because he said that, at any rate, it guaranteed 52 weeks' employment. I must differ from him right away on that. That is exactly what the Bill does not do. It guarantees 52 weeks' employment in the very small number of cases in which a bad employer is unwilling to take men back when he can take them back, and that is practically all that it does. It is desirable that there shall be no misunderstanding in that matter. On the other hand, I am certain from my own experience of the last war that practically every employer in the country, in so far as he is able, and provided that work is available and enterprise is prosperous, will do everything he can to reinstate men in as favourable a position as possible.
    Mr. Silverman: This is a small and limited Bill designed to do one single, limited job. It does it

    1453
    successfully. It does a job that had to be done but it is too small and limited an affair for the House to spend a long time in wrangling about whose is the exclusive merit of placing it on the Statute Book. I am not going to take part in any such Debate. All the same, it is not quite true that its passage has been facilitated by all Members of the House and that ought not to go on record unchallenged. Nor is it the case that the Minister, or anyone else, objected to any Member exercising his right to criticise, but those who claim the right to criticise must concede the right to reply. All the Minister did was to reply to some very unfounded, unjustified and, I think, malicious attacks upon him. I should have thought the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Stafford (Major Thorneycroft) might have thought it proper at this stage to withdraw some of the things he said about the Minister and the Bill in the Second Reading, Debate, which he must realise now—he is an honest and intelligent Member—in the light of the information which has come to him since, to have been unjustified. He said that members of the Forces should be informed that the Bill was something like an attempted swindle, that they were getting nothing out of it, that it was hypocritical and was a political device introduced precisely because everybody knew it would not work. Either he still believes those things or he does not. If he does, I shall have to withdraw the compliment I just paid him, because then he would not be intelligent or honest. If, on the other hand, he does not still believe them, the gracious thing for him to do now would be to withdraw his statement.
    I do not see how the Bill could be criticised except by applying to it standards which do not apply to it at all. Of course, if you are going to look at it in the context of the creation of a new world, it falls very far short, but no one looks at it in that way and it is not quite honest to pretend to look at it in that way. If this were the last word the Government were going to say on the prevention of mass unemployment, certainly the Bill would not get any support from me but I accept it and I think it is right. What it attempts to do ought to have been done a long time ago. It puts right a defect in our former legislation. What it can do it does, but I do not regard it as anything but a very small part of the job the Government have to do. I accept
    1454
    it in that spirit and I look to the Government to produce with rapidity—[An HON. MEMBER: "Like rabbits out of a hat."] I do not know what the hon. Member means by that. When the hon. Member talks about rabbits out of a hat, does he mean that we are incapable of creating new social conditions in this country which would abolish unemployment? I look to the Government to come forward with well-considered schemes for the fundamental social reconstruction of this country so that the worst evils of the past may be avoided. I do not, however, look for these things in this Bill, and it would not be right to do so.
    Mr. Lewis: In the discussions in the earlier stages of the Bill some Members expressed anxiety and doubt as to whether the Bill could or would fulfil the expectations to which its Title might give rise. I have never shared those doubts, and I go further and say that even if this Bill were nothing more than a gesture it would have been a gesture well worth making. It shows the intention and desire of the House that, so far as is possible, the men who have been serving should get back to their old jobs after the war. Other Members have argued that because most employers will cheerfully and eagerly fulfil their duty in this matter and will be anxious to take back their old employees, and that only a small minority will seek to evade that obligation, the machinery of this Bill was hardly worth while. I agree that most employers will endeavour to do their best to take back those who were working with them before and who have been serving the country during the war, but it is a dangerous argument to say that because most of them will fulfil their duty steps ought not to be taken to see that the small number who will seek to evade their duty are compelled to carry it out.
    On those grounds it seems to me that there is no valid criticism against the Bill. Apart from them, there are three points which of themselves justify the passing of the Bill. The first is with regard to the position of volunteers. It would have been intolerable if those who volunteered for service were put in a disadvantageous position compared with those who were conscripted. The second is the question of priority of re-engagement. The Bill lays down a minimum period for which a person shall be re-engaged. If it were left,

    1455
    as it was originally, so that the obligation of re-engagement might have been satisfied by employing a man for a day or two, it would have been very foolish. The third point is in regard to priorities and the difficult position in which employers are aleady finding themselves where a number of men in the passage of time have held a given position. The question is which of them shall have a prior claim, and to deal with that point alone some legislation was necessary. With regard to the general question of how many people will benefit under the Bill, industry and employment of all kinds have been much dislocated by the extent of the struggle. There is, too, the difficult question of men who go into the Services at 19 or 20 and come out at 24 or 25 and who are so different that it will be difficult to fit them into their old positions. Despite all these difficulties and the fact that, because of them, the Bill will not operate in many cases, the Bill will cover a considerable field, and for the reasons I have given it should be passed. Personally, I shall be pleased to support it.
    Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: I would like to ask the Minister whether he will take such administrative action as is necessary, in conjunction with the Service Departments, in order to inform all officers and men who have been discharged or will be discharged from the Forces of their rights under this Bill so that no misconception shall exist.
    Major Manningham-Buller: I do not associate myself with the criticisms which the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe) made of the Minister's attitude in the Committee stage. I moved a number of Amendments in Committee, and I would like to pay my tribute to the way in which they were met by the Minister. It seems to me that the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) supported our contention that the Title of the Bill is wrong, because, as we pointed out in Committee there is a grave danger of its effect being unduly exaggerated. I do not know whether in his reference to "our people" he meant people of the Labour Party, but I am sure that the Bill will be welcomed throughout these islands as a definite step in the right direction.
    Mr. McCorquodale: I would like to thank the House for giving an unopposed passage to this Bill through its various stages and to thank unreservedly those who have given the closest study to it in Committee. There is no doubt in my Minister's mind and in my own that the Bill has been improved by the suggestions received from certain quarters. We are grateful for that help because I am sure it is the desire of all in the House to see the application of the Bill a success for the people to whom it applies. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) raised a rather important point to which I would like to refer. He said that the Bill would not be needed if the policy of full employment is satisfactorily applied. I think that he is wrong, because this Bill gives a choice to the returning Serviceman to go back to his old employment rather than to be put into any employment that might be available. The hon. and gallant Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison) asked whether we would give the fullest information to the men in the Forces about their rights under the Bill, and we will certainly look into that. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) raised points about administration which we have very much in mind. We are in the closest contact with the military authorities who have the proper information about the class of work in which members of the Armed Forces were before they were called up. I would like to thank other Members, especially the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis), for their unreserved support for this small Bill.
    I am confident that it will prove a workmanlike Measure, defining for the employer his obligations and duties to the returned Serviceman, and I know that the employer welcomes it. I would like to thank on my Minister's behalf the representatives of the employers and the great organised trade unions for their unfailing support and good will in the consultations which preceded this Bill and their promise of good will in its application. I am confident that it will help the employer by defining his obligations. It will also help the returning Servicemen and women, of whom there are many millions, by confirming their rights under the Bill and under the pledge that was given and by providing

    1457
    a means of establishing their rights if it is reasonable and practicable. The Bill also brings in many hundreds of thousands of volunteers who were previously left out. For that reason alone, if for no other, the Bill will be justified. It is an integral part, if only a part, of the Government's great scheme for resettlement after the war, and for that reason I commend it warmly to the House.
    Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  SUPPLY
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS in the Chair]

  SUPPLY

    FOREIGN OFFICE
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,525, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the salary of a Minister of State."
    Mr. Mander: I hope that we may have some explanation of the precise duties which the Minister of State will perform. It would be interesting if the Foreign Secretary could let us know how it is proposed to allocate his duties between this country and abroad. I am delighted that the appointment has been made. I cannot think of anything more satisfactory for the foreign affairs of this country than that my two right hon. Friends should be associated together in their conduct. I hope that my support will not be too damaging to them. I think that the sum of £1,525 which it is proposed to spend on my right hon. Friend is money which will be very well spent.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): It is intended that my right hon. Friend should assist me in the general conduct of foreign policy under the guidance of the War Cabinet. I need hardly say that I warmly welcome his assistance. I have no doubt that I shall stand in need of it, and of any other help I can find, in future as our problems get heavier, as I have no doubt they will.
    1458
    As regards the actual work, I think the arrangement is really much the same as we have often had in the past in the Foreign Office. We have often had three persons, the Secretary of State and two Under-Secretaries, or perhaps the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Duchy, or some other Minister holding an office which does not entail work on its own account, in order to assist our deliberations. Generally, my right hon. Friend will also interest himself in the economic side of our work, as he has been doing, and the knowledge which he has gained at a number of conferences will be invaluable to us.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR SERVICES
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £53,873, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for the expenses in connection with His Majesty's Embassies, Missions and Consular Establishments Abroad, and other expenditure chargeable to the Consular Vote; certain special grants and payments, including grants-in-aid; and sundry other services."
    Mr. Granville: I gather that we are now considering the Votes in connection with the Inter-Governmental Committee of refugees and relief of prisoners of war and contributions for the funds of the International Red Cross.
    The Deputy-Chairman: Yes, that is so.
    Mr. Granville: The Paper says that the additional provision required is a contribution towards the funds of the International Red Cross Society
    "in recognition of the work of the society in the relief of prisoners of war.
    It goes on to say:
    "The expenditure out of this grant-in-aid will not be accounted for in detail to the Comptroller and Auditor General."
    I quite understand that, but I thought we might have been told a little more about it.
    The Minister of State (Mr. Richard Law): I must apologise to the Committee, and in particular to the hon. Member who has just spoken, and who has very kindly given way to me. I was not quite quick enough off the mark, but I hope I shall be able to give him satisfaction on the very important matter that we are discussing. I do not think that it will be necessary

    1459
    to give any very long or detailed explanation of the first sub-head of the Supplementary Estimate, which is the grant-in-aid for the relief of prisoners of war, in the form of a further contribution towards the Funds of the International Red Cross. The Committee has always supported right through the war the efforts which the International Red Cross have made to improve the lot of prisoners of war and I do not suppose for a moment that the Committee would wish to withhold any further support that they could give to the International Red Cross.
    The additional sum required under the Supplementary Estimate is not a big one, £3,873. The purpose of it is to enable the International Red Cross to maintain a sub-office in Shanghai, where they hope, and we hope, they will be able to be of some service to the very large number of British civilians who are interned in Shanghai, and of course, to help too, I hope, the very much smaller number of British prisoners of war who are there. We are quite satisfied that the International Red Cross is doing as much as possibly can be done for our prisoners of war and our fellow countrymen and women who are interned in the Far East. The fact that it cannot do more is in no way due to any lack of good will or of knowledge and effort on the part of the International Red Cross. It is simply, as I am afraid we all know, due to the attitude of the Japanese authorities. I have no doubt that the Committee will approve this grant-in-aid and I will, if I may, pass on to the second sub-head, the grant-in-aid for the Intergovernmental Committee on refugees. Here I think it would probably be for the convenience of the Committee if I dealt with this matter fairly fully, because it is some time since we had a Debate on this tremendously important subject.
    This is not the first time that we have had to came to the House to ask for provision of the Inter-governmental Committee on Refugees, but we have never come to the House for provision on this scale, or indeed, anything like it. In 1939, the Committee was asked to provide £1,950, and in 1940 and 1941 provision was made on the same sort of scale. Since then, there has been no vote for the Intergovernmental Committee. Now I am asking the Committee, not for £2,000 but for
    1460
    £50,000. I think hon. Members will have seen from the Estimate that that is only by way of instalment. On another occasion we shall be asking the Committee to underwrite our proportionate share of what we think may be the expenses of the Inter-governmental Committee in the coming year. That figure is £1,000,000, a provisional figure, and we have undertaken to underwrite £500,000 and the United States have undertaken to underwrite the other £500,000.
    The difference between what we were asking in 1939 and 1940 for the Intergovernmental Committee and what we are asking now is an indication of the great growth there has been in this hideous problem of refugees. The comparison between £2,000 and £50,000—or, indeed, £500,000—is not out of place as a comparison of the growth in the horror and complexity of the problem. It is a measure of the determination and seriousness of purpose with which His Majesty's Government and the Government's represented on the Inter-governmental Committee are tackling the refugee problem.
    It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I give a brief review of the events which led to the reconstitution of the Inter-governmental Committee. The refugee problem was, unfortunately, already of monstrous proportions before the war, and it is difficult to realise now that, even before the war, when civilised Governments like the Government of this country, and others, were in relation with the German Government, something like 400,000 human beings were being driven like cattle across the borders of Germany and were either expelled, or had to take refuge in other lands, to avoid a worse fate. It was to meet this appalling situation that developed even before the war that the President of the United States took the initiative in summoning a conference at Evian in 1938. Out of that conference grew the Inter-governmental Committee on Refugees.
    The primary function of the Intergovernmental Committee in those days was to negotiate with the German Government so that the lot of those unhappy people might be improved and their escape from Germany facilitated: in short, so that the cruelty of the German authorities and the German people might, in some degree, be mitigated. I think it is a fact

    1461
    that, before the war, the Inter-governmental Committee was able to do a great deal in mitigation. It co-ordinated the activities of the various voluntary societies and carried out an examination into the prospects of finding other homes for those unhappy people in various parts of the world. On the outbreak of war, all that work had to cease. There was another meeting of the executive of the Intergovernmental Committee in Washington in October, 1939, but, for the next two or three years after that, it never met again. There was, indeed, no scope or work that could usefully be done.
    The work of the Inter-governmental Committee seemed to come to an end when the war broke out, but, of course, the problem remained. With every day that passed, the refugee problem increased in size, difficulty and horror, until it is calculated now that, when the war in Europe comes to an end, there will be something like 20,000,000 human beings who have been uprooted from their homes in Europe. A figure like that is so big that it is almost meaningless. It is literally true that the human imagination cannot comprehend the full extent of human misery contained in a figure of that magnitude. It very soon became clear, as the war progressed and as the refugee problem became more acute, that there was a problem which could be tackled with hope of success only upon the international plane. Accordingly, as hon. Members are aware, representatives of His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States met some months ago at Bermuda, and went exhaustively into the whole refugee problem.
    One of the recommendations which the Bermuda Conference made was that there should be instituted at once international machinery to deal with the problem, and, as the Inter-governmental Committee still existed—though it had not been active for some time—it was thought to be the most satisfactory form of international machinery. Accordingly, in, I think, August last, the Executive of the Intergovernmental Committee met under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton). The executive consists, as the Committee are probably aware, of representatives of the United Kingdom, the United States, the Netherlands,
    1462
    Brazil, the French National Committee of Liberation and Argentina. I would like to take this opportunity of saying how much His Majesty's Government appreciate the fact that the Inter-governmental Committee is still able to call upon the experience of my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham and Worthing in matters concerning refugees, and upon his wide sympathy and deep interest in regard to this matter. I would like at the same time to pay a tribute to the other representatives of other Governments who are serving on the Inter-governmental Committee at the present time. Other Governments are represented by their Ambassadors. It is a remarkable thing that these men, busy and over-burdened as they are, have been able to devote so much time to this hideous problem of refugees. And it is very much to the general advantage that they have been able to give that time, because it is an indication to the world as a whole of the importance which is attached to a solution of it by the respective Governments.
    Mr. Lipson: Does the right hon. Gentleman's reference to the amount of time these members have given mean that this Committee has met frequently since the Bermuda Conference?
    Mr. Law: It has met several times since the Bermuda Conference. I know from my own experience that all the members of it take a most keen and deep interest in the problem. The Bermuda Conference recommended that the Inter-governmental Committee should be revived, that its membership should be extended and that its Mandate should also be extended. In accordance with that recommendation the Executive of the Inter-governmental Committee issued invitations to a number of other Governments who had not previously been associated with the work to join the Committee, and I understand that replies have already been received, affirmative replies, from Czechoslovakia, Egypt, India, Luxemburg, Poland, the Union of South Africa and the Soviet Union.
    But it was necessary not only to expand the membership. It was necessary also to alter its Mandate. As I said earlier the original function of the Intergovernmental Committee was, in the main, to negotiate with the German authorities. Clearly that was no longer

    1463
    possible at the time when the Intergovernmental Committee was revived. It was limited under its original Mandate to dealing with refugees from Germany, Austria, and later on the Sudetenland. Clearly, that again was inappropriate. Its scope had to be much wider than that. Perhaps the most important change that has been made in the Mandate of the Inter-governmental Committee is this: under its original Mandate the Intergovernmental Committee had no financial responsibility of any kind for the maintenance of refugees. Clearly if that provision was maintained it could not do any effective work whatever, so the Mandate was revised, so that there now comes within the purview of the Committee refugees from the whole of Europe, and it was revised further so that the Committee can spend money upon the maintenance, the transfer and preservation of refugees. In other words, in the new reincarnation, the Inter-governmental Committee has changed from being in the main a piece of co-ordinating machinery into an executive office which will be able, of its own initiative, to undertake tasks in connection with the safety of refugees.
    I think the Committee is aware that Sir Herbert Emerson, the League of Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, has for some time been the Director of the Inter-governmental Committee. I think it must be a matter for great congratulation that he has been confirmed in his appointment as Director of the Executive Committee. Sir Herbert Emerson, of course, continues to be League of Nations High Commissioner. It is very valuable that the two bodies which are dealing with refugee problems should have a link between them in the person of the Director. I suppose there is no one in this country, or indeed in the world, who has so wide a knowledge of this problem as Sir Herbert Emerson. I am sure too that there is no one whose heart is more deeply in it.
    Sir Herbert Emerson is the Director. Under this new organisation an American citizen, Mr. Patrick Malin, who has had great experience of welfare work is Vice-director, and Doctor Sillem of the Netherlands is Secretary-General. In addition, Doctor Kullmann the Deputy League of Nations High Commissioner, is Honorary Assistant Director of the Inter-govern-
    1464
    mental Committee. With a team like that, there is, I can assure the Committee, every prospect that the executive machinery of the Inter-governmental Committee on refugees will be built up into as effective a piece of machinery as conditions permit. It is being steadily built up now. I hope very much that the Committee will not press me to go into details of the work of the Intergovernmental Committee. This refugee problem is one of those in which the more one talks about what is being done the less chance there is of achieving anything. I think the Committee realises that fully as well as I do but I would just like to say this about what has been done.
    The Vice-Director, Mr. Malin, is on a visit to North Africa and Italy, where he has been seeing conditions on the spot. The honorary Assistant Director, Doctor Kullmann, has just returned from a visit to Switzerland, where he has been going into the whole question of refugees. It is, I understand, the intention of the Executive Committee to have permanent representatives in those centres which are mainly concerned with the refugee problem. I can assure the Committee that the Inter-governmental Committee is making every possible effort to forward the work of rescue that is consistent with the effective prosecution of the war.
    I would like to say just a word about the actual financial arrangements. The administrative expenses of the Intergovernmental Committee are being covered by a percentage contribution by all the member Governments. Our percentage is 12 per cent. and it is calculated that that will amount to £4,000 in the following year. It does not actually appear in this Vote because the Executive have enough funds to carry on until the end of March, but next year the Committee will be asked to make provision for something in the nature of £4,000 for administrative expenses. The operating expenses are another matter. They are likely to be very considerable. Indeed, we must all of us hope that they will be considerable because the greater the expenditure on operations the more chance there is of our being able to do something practical for the relief and rescue of the oppressed peoples of Europe.
    As I said earlier it has been calculated that operating expenses will amount to

    1465
    £1,000,000 in the coming 12 months. The United States Government and ourselves have agreed to underwrite that £1,000,000. It was necessary, I think, to take that action because we could not afford delay, and we could not afford a long period in which neither the Committee nor the Director knew where they stood, but I should make it clear to the Committee that the other member Governments are being asked to contribute to the fullest extent to these operating expenses. I have no doubt that they will wish to share in this very important humanitarian work. Therefore, we may expect that though we are underwriting £500,000 we shall not be called on, in the event, to supply anything like that amount. However that may be I am quite sure that the Committee would not wish the Inter-governmental Committee on refugees to be under any disability at all through lack of finance.
    There is just one more thing which perhaps I ought to add. As I have said the Executive Committee has met several times and, of course, it is the Executive Committee which directs and supervises the work of the whole organisation, but it may well be that the time will come when it is desirable to have a plenary meeting of the Committee, and I am able to say now that is being borne in mind by the Executive Committee. When opportunity offers I have no doubt they will give the fullest consideration to the possibility of calling together such a session. I do not think I have anyhing more to say at this stage. I expect that other hon. Members will be making contributions to our discussion, and if necessary I shall be very glad to reply to them. But I do commend most heartily this Vote to the Committee. I am sure that the Committee will want the Intergovernmental Committee to have the fullest possible support and that the Committee looks forward to its achieving, within the limitations imposed by war, very considerable results.
    Mr. Granville: I apologise for having stood between the Committee and that very interesting statement which the right hon. Gentleman has made. I will only detain hon. Members for one or two moments before the Committee go on to discuss the second part of this Vote on Refugees. I would like very briefly to refer to prisoners of war under the heading BB, which is:
    1466
    "Relief of prisoners of war; contribution towards the funds of the International Red Cross (Grant in Aid)."
    I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that the sum which is being voted is £3,873. As he says, of course, the Committee will not grudge the Government this item. I am sorry it is so small. I understood from the Minister for State that it is our contribution towards the setting up of an office in the Far East by the International Red Cross Society. I was rather sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not tell us a little more about this because we have all a considerable number of constituents who are extremely anxious after the statement which was made in the House by the Foreign Secretary with regard to what is happening to our prisoners in the Far East, and the atrocities that have been committed by the Japanese. Although I understand that there is a great deal of anxiety and tremendous interest in this problem of the international refugees I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not take a little more time in his speech to tell us what it is hoped to achieve by the setting up of this office by the International Red Cross in Shanghai because, so far—I shall be very brief about this—we have had, I think, two statements from the Foreign Secretary about what is happening out there, and we have also had a statement from someone connected with the International Red Cross. My view is that there is a feeling in the minds of the relatives and dependants of our prisoners of war in the Far East that these statements are somewhat contradictory. One was reassuring and others gave facts of brutal treatment. I realise that it might be difficult for the Foreign Secretary to give us all the information which is available to him from men who have escaped from the Far East, but I think it would be better if he could give us a little more information on what is intended with regard to this office which is to be set up. Is it hoped that, as a result, His Majesty's Government or our military authorities or the Red Cross will be able to make some contact with the Japanese Government, and make representations which will secure an alleviation of the conditions of our prisoners of war in their hands?
    Mr. Law: I am extremely sorry if I gave the impression that I was dealing in a cursory way with the questions which the hon. Member has just touched upon. I

    1467
    certainly appreciate fully, and I do not think anybody could fail to appreciate, the deep anxiety which prevails throughout the country about the conditions of our prisoners of war and internees—
    Mr. Granville: I thought the right hon. Gentleman wished to interrupt me. Perhaps I might be allowed to finish, as I have already been interrupted once. I know the difficulties of the Foreign Office. The difficulties of distance and the attitude of the Japanese constitute a tremendous handicap to the Government in trying to get improvement in the state of affairs, but I hope the Government will remember that this Japanese war may go on for years. What is to happen? I ask them to put themselves in the position of the dependants of these prisoners, who suddenly get this statement from the Foreign Secretary after they had received post-cards from prisoners saying that they were well treated.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member said he hoped the Debate would be short. He is now going into the question of the length of the war and a great many other things. This is a narrow point, and I hope that he will keep to it.
    Mr. Granville: Very well. I will confine myself to saying that I hope that in setting up this office no money will be spared, and no amount of initiative be lacking on the part of the Government in supporting the Red Cross, so that we shall have more information as to what is happening to our prisoners of war who are suffering in Japanese hands. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give a full assurance on that point.
    Mr. Law: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Member just now: I thought he had finished. I was saying that we were conscious of the very deep interest in the House and in the country in the matters on which the hon. Member has touched. He asked whether the opening of this new office would lead to more success in the representations made by the International Red Cross to the Japanese authorities. It is really impossible to give any answer. One must hope that it will lead to improvement. It will certainly lead—I think it is bound to lead—to some improvement. The functions of the International Red Cross, as the hon. Member is probably aware, are to transmit lists of prisoners of
    1468
    war, to distribute parcels, to visit camps, and so on. The Japanese authorities have been extremely stiff about allowing the International Red Cross to exercise their rights: in fact, they have not allowed them to exercise their rights, in spite of repeated representations, in what are called the occupied territories, the Philippines, Malaya, the Netherlands East Indies, and so on.
    Mr. Mathers: Are the Japanese authorities parties to the Convention?
    Mr. Law: I will tell my hon. Friend that in a moment. As I was saying, in spite of repeated pressure from the International Red Cross and the protecting Power, the Japanese have refused to allow any visits to camps in the occupied territories. With regard to the obligations of the Japanese under the Geneva Convention, the Japanese Government did not ratify the Convention, but at the beginning of the war in the Far East they said that they were going to observe its provisions. How little they have kept their word the Committee are aware.
    Miss Rathbone: While I do not intend to trouble the Committee with a very long speech, I am afraid I shall have to depart from the welcome brevity which has marked practically all the speeches in to-day's Debates, because I have a fair amount to say about the work of this Committee. This is the first opportunity we have had since 19th May of a general Debate on the refugee question. When some of us have asked in recent months for such an opportunity, we have been reminded that the opportunity would come when we discussed this Vote. That is my excuse for going in a little more detail into some of the questions which are troubling myself and others who are interested in refugees. Is it not rather significant of the importance attached to different aspects of the question, that not long ago we spent an entire day discussing U.N.R.R.A., and that the amount we then voted was £80,000,000, while now, when we have our first opportunity since May of discussing the work of the Inter-Governmental Committee, the subject is sandwiched in between other subjects on a very busy day, and the amount we are asked to vote is £50,000. I was glad to hear that that covers only administrative expenses, and

    1469
    that the expenditure on the operative work of the Committee is likely to be something in the nature of £1,000,000.
    I am not making any comparison between the Inter-Governmental Committee and U.N.R.R.A. U.N.R.R.A. covers a vast field. Its job is to deal with the whole post-war problem of rehabilitating distressed Europe. Dealing with displaced populations, who include refugees — that seems the new fashionable term for refugees — is only one part of its work. But this Inter-Governmental Committee on Refugees also covers a pretty vast field. Consider some of its responsibilities. I noted that my right hon. Friend said that he did not want to go into detail in discussing its work, and that it would be better not to go into details. I quite recognise that, but there are certain facts known to us all as to the kind of work it has to do. First, it is responsible, I gather, for concerting immediate rescue measures for the victims of Nazi oppression, so far as they are dependent upon inter-governmental action; for instance, the removal from the neutral States of the overflow of those refugees they have taken in, and the maintenance of those refugees who are removed from neutral countries to havens of temporary refuge, and also of refugees who have escaped directly from enemy areas. We heard that the Deputy-Director, Mr. Malin, has been in Italy and North Africa, where, no doubt, he was considering that problem. We know that many thousands of refugees were found in that part of Italy which has now been liberaated from the enemy.
    Also, in regard to its post-war plans—and I attach extreme importance to this—the Committee is responsible for negotiating arrangements with neutral Powers as to what help we can give them in removing, now or after the war, the burden of refugees that they carry, so that they may be willing to take larger numbers. Obviously, what the small neutrals do largely depends on whether the burden is going to be a permanent burden or whether they can count on other nations relieving them of a part of it or assisting them with the maintenance of their refugees. For all this work what machinery has the Inter-Governmental Committee? It has a small office, with several rooms, in Lower Regent
    1470
    Street. It has four people, whose identity has been described by my right hon. Friend: Sir Herbert Emerson, his American deputy, his Swiss deputy, and the Dutch secretary to the Committee—an admirable team. I know them all. I have the highest esteem for them all. They have wide experience and great knowledge of refugee problems, and their hearts are in their jobs. Sir Herbert, especially, has worked at this problem for a long time. He has a background of Civil Service experience and very great knowledge. We can be confident that any work done by a team like that will be done with the utmost discretion, with high technical efficiency. No rash promises will be made, and there will be no unwise publicity. It will all be in the best traditions of British and other diplomacy. But that technique has its disadvantages. It is inevitably slow—work that has to be consented to by a large number of nations working together has, I suppose, inevitably to be slow.
    But when one thinks of the machinery of that little office, with three or four rooms, four people, with their two or three typists, and £50,000 which we are voting to-day for their expenses, one thinks of the tasks allotted to them. How many of the millions of men, women and children who are threatened not merely with death, but with torture, can be rescued? What is to be done with them if they are rescued, and, then, what is to be done with them after the war? It is just a little as though, seeing a number of people escaping from a hungry tiger, you sent after them a stage coach, drawn by four white horses, when what you needed was a Rolls-Royce. It seems rather a leisurely machine, and a small machine. I am not complaining; I suppose an Inter-Governmental Committee has to work in that way. We have been told that there are 36 member States on that Committee. They have not yet met in plenary session, but we are told that a meeting is likely to be arranged. That is not likely to lead to a quick result. When you have 36 Government representatives meeting together like this, every one of them will ask, "What does my Government think of it?" before they agree to anything. Then as to their Executive. I am not going to criticise them in the least. I have no justification for doing so, and I am told that they work together admirably, but it is rather

    1471
    odd to note that you have the Argentine also—I make no comment, but note the name—and also the Netherlands and Brazil as members, the Liberation Committee of France is a member, and the other two members are the United States and ourselves. So far so good, but it is rather curious that most of the countries which are the chief victims of persecution, such as Poland, Czechoslovakia and the U.S.S.R. are not, as far as I know, represented on this Executive. Nor are the chief neutral countries which have space to receive refugees—Sweden and Switzerland. The Executive was appointed in 1938, but it has never been reviewed or added to with a view to making it rather more realistic. Is it not possible for something to be done about that?
    Now I come to a more important point. Many of us have had our minds on this point for over a year, and we then suggested that what was wanted in this country was a new organ of Government which would co-operate with the Inter-Governmental Committee so as to secure the full-time concentration of first-class minds on this question. Well, only two or three weeks ago the United States did that very thing. President Roosevelt set up a War Refugee Board, composed of the Secretary of State, Mr. Cordell Hull, the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Morgenthau, and the Secretary of State for War, Mr. Stimson. We have a subcommittee of the Cabinet here composed of three equally eminent Ministers, but the difference is that the American Board's functions are clearly defined and it has a full-time Executive Director. Its functions are set out in a pamphlet—which I have here—
    The Deputy-Chairman: I think we are getting a little wide, because if it is possible to pay a tribute to the American representatives on this Board, in a wide way, such as is now being done, it would be equally possible to criticise them, and it is not within the duty of this Committee to criticise or otherwise comment on the representatives of a foreign Government in that way. I did not wish to stop the hon. Lady before, but I do not think we must go any further.
    Miss Rathbone: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Williams, but the point I wanted to make was that the Inter-Governmental
    1472
    Committee can only act, just as the League of Nations did, through the individual Governments represented on the Committee. It cannot do anything itself except on a small scale, because all its action depends upon what the individual Governments may do, and, therefore, I want to say that, while we gladly vote this money, we should supplement the work of this Committee by insisting that an organ similar to the Board in the United States, with a full-time executive director in constant touch with the director in the United States, should be set up. The American Board has direct access to the President himself. The object is that it would make it so much easier for the Inter-Governmental Committee to do its work if it had in London a body representing His Majesty's Government which really is carrying out the recommendations made by the Inter-Governmental Committee.
    This is a vast problem. This Inter-Governmental Committee is an inevitably slow mechanism in tackling so vast a problem as the problem with which it has to deal. There are questions of shipping and transport, collecting of refugees, questions as to where refugees are to be kept until permanently settled, and questions of negotiations with neutrals. There are questions of food supplies and so forth. It is a huge business, and it is the one hope of rescue for millions of people, nearly every one, in a way, a separate problem. You really cannot work it unless the nations represented on the Committee have their separate machinery for co-operation with the Inter-Governmental Committee, for perpetually working backwards and forwards as between it and themselves to carry out the projects planned on a far bigger scale than would be possible if the work depended on a Committee with so small a mechanism of operation.
    This is my last word. I ask the Committee to recognise that we in this country have a rather special responsibility for this Inter-Governmental Committee. We ought to take the initiative and set a lead to other nations by what we ourselves are doing to help the Inter-Governmental Committee. For one thing, the Committee is situated in London, while the headquarters of U.N.R.R.A. are in the United States, where we expect that a good deal of the planning out will be

    1473
    done. The chairman of the Inter-Governmental Committee and the British representative on it is the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), and therefore the Committee looks a good deal to him, because we know his great interest in this problem, and we want to see that he is able to say to his Committee that the British Government are going to do so-and-so and thus give a lead for the whole of the world. There is another reason for our special responsibility. We know that though very many of these threatened millions are non-Jewish, the majority of them are Jewish—the Jews being the one race which Hitler threatens with wholesale extermination of men, women and children, and he is doing it. He threatens to exterminate the entire Jewish population of Europe. Well, we hold the gates of Palestine and we promised the Jews a National Home there—
    The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid the hon. Lady must keep off Palestine and the Home for Jews. If we once begin to discuss that, there will be absolutely no end to it, and it has nothing to do with the Question before the Committee.
    Miss Rathbone: In our hearts, it has very much to do with it, because we always remember how many people are already massacred who might be alive and happy now if they had been allowed to go to that promised land. We remember also that the British Empire is a big place. If I cannot mention Palestine, for God's sake, let us find a place somewhere in the Empire where these people can get in. I was reminded by the Under-Secretary for the Home Department in putting a question—
    The Deputy-Chairman: We cannot go into Home Office matters on this Vote.
    Miss Rathbone: I will not go further with it. But if it was a mistake to mention the Home Office, it was not my mistake but that of the Under-Secretary in telling me that I should be able to raise the question on this Vote. We vote this money gladly and only wish that the sum we are voting was larger. I hope the Vote for the operational activities of the Inter-Governmental Committee, which we shall be asked to agree to later, will be larger because we have a heavy responsibility in this matter. Let us save all the threatened victims we can and not grudge the money, but vote it gladly.
    Mr. Lipson: I am sure the Committee will understand why it was somewhat difficult for the hon. Lady to keep within the rules of debate. We know how very strongly she feels on this subject, and how much she has done herself to arouse public opinion to a sense of responsibility in the treatment of refugees, and we are extremely grateful to her. I welcome the increase in the amount of the grant from £2,000 to £50,000, with the promise of underwriting £1,000,000 for further operations, because this increased expenditure, I hope, means an increase of activity. One naturally asks oneself—Is the amount that is being spent even now enough, and are we really tackling this problem as it ought to be tackled, because we were reminded by the right hon. Gentleman, in introducing the Vote, that this is a problem which is really beyond what the imagination can conceive, and therefore the action dealing with it ought to be in accordance with the need. We were asked not to inquire into the details of the work. We will respect that request, but we are very much left in the dark as to what actually is being done. So far as we are told today, all that has been done is that certain machinery has been set up, but we did not find, in the information given to us, any sense of urgency or of the importance of the time factor. There are millions of tragedies behind this particular problem, so we ask ourselves how many lives are being saved and whether this problem can be tackled only by the orthodox method associated with inter-governmental committees.
    I would like to ask the member of that Committee in what spirit they approach this problem. Do they see it in this light? Supposing the positions were reversed, and, instead of them being an intergovernmental committee trying to bring succour and relief to victims of Nazi terror, they were those victims and were themselves the refugees? Could they honestly say that they themselves, in those circumstances, would be satisfied with what was being done by the Inter-Governmental Committee? It seems to me that that is a very fair test. But for the grace of God, the position might have been reversed, and, instead of the Inter-Governmental Committee being in the position of being able to help, they might themselves have been needing this help, and I want to submit, in all earnestness,

    1475
    that that is the test they should apply to this problem. I have to confess that I cannot find anything in the record of achievement of the Inter-Governmental Committee to justify any very great confidence that they are alive to the urgency of this problem, and that the action they have taken is commensurate with the need.
    Mr. Silverman: Will the hon. Member not agree that, within the limits which they exercise, they do show a sense of urgency, and that, after all, we should be very grateful to them?
    Mr. Lipson: Surely the answer to that is this—that, if the limits of their powers are too narrow or too confined, the Commitee ought to say so, instead of saying that they are able to deal with the problem, when they know they are not in a position to do so.
    Earl Winterton: I gather that my hon. Friend is criticising my Ambassadorial colleagues on the Committee and myself—the representatives of the United States and other countries—when he talks of "they." It is only in order to make the point clear that I have interrupted.
    Mr. Lipson: We are asked to vote a sum of money towards the work of an Inter-Governmental Committee. It is only right that we should ask, Are we getting value for the money that is being spent?; is enough money being spent?; and is the dividend in the shape of lives being saved adequate?
    Whereupon, the GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD being come with a Message, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair.
    Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

  ROYAL ASSENT
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
  The House went; and, having returned—
  Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

  1. Landlord and Tenant (Requisitioned Land) Act, 1944.

  2. Courts (Emergency Powers) (Scotland) Act, 1944.

  1476

  3. Prize Salvage Act, 1944.

  4. Guardianships (Refugee Children) Act, 1944.

  5. Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Act, 1944.

  6. Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944.

  7. House of Commons Disqualification (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1944.

  8. Income Tax (Offices and Employments) Act, 1944.

  SUPPLY
  Again considered in Committee.
  [MAJOR MILNER in the Chair]
  Question again proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £53,873, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for the expenses in connection with His Majesty's Embassies, Missions and Consular Establishments Abroad, and other expenditure chargeable to the Consular Vote; certain special grants and payments, including grants in aid; and sundry other services."
  Mr. Lipson: I should like to make it clear that, in the remarks that I am making, I am not concerned with personalities but with a very great tragic human problem. I have to ask myself whether the machinery and the means we have taken to deal with this problem bear a proper relation to it, and are adequate. This matter of the rescue of refugees is on my conscience, as I believe it is on the conscience of a great many people, and we in this Committee have a very definite responsibility in the matter.
  Therefore I would say this. It may be necessary to conceal a great deal of the work of the Committee, but many of us feel that we are not in a position to estimate the value and the importance and the seriousness of the work that this Committee is carrying out, and we would like a complete assurance as to whether the machinery is adequate for its purpose or not and, if it is adequate, that the machinery is being used to the full so that the object in mind may be achieved. We would also like an assurance that the Committee will not hesitate to use, if need be, unorthodox methods to try and save human lives. We would also like it to be considered whether it is advisable to supplement the action taken by the Inter-Governmental Committee by similar action

  1477
  to that which President Roosevelt has found it necessary to take in America—he was apparently so impressed with the urgency of the problem that he thought inter-governmental machinery by itself was not sufficient. I would like further consideration to be given to that matter.
  We in this country are engaged in a life and death struggle. That was true when we began the war, it still is true, and we can only hope to succeed in that struggle by God's help. If we go to God and ask Him to help us in our trouble, I think we ought to put ourselves in a position to say to Him that we have helped those we were in a position to help. That is the test which I would apply to the work of this Inter-Governmental Committee. Here are these hapless refugees, for whom we have a special responsibility. Can we honestly say, with a clear conscience, that impressed by the urgency of the problem, by the importance of the time factor, we have done everything that is humanly possible to save human lives? Unless we can give a satisfactory answer to that, I submit we have not done what we ought to have done. To do anything less than the maximum possible in a problem of this kind, is simply not good enough.
  Mr. Silverman: I would like at once to dissociate myself, and any organisation interested in this matter with which I may be concerned, from any kind of criticism, implied or express, direct or indirect, of the Inter-Governmental Committee. So far as I am aware its work is done with efficiency and urgency and in a spirit of co-operation to which no one who speaks with any sense of responsibility, could fail to pay earnest and sincere tribute. Nobody would pretend, however, that the work they are doing is going to rescue all those threatened by the evil thing that stalks throughout Europe to-day. I will have a word or two to say about that a little later on, but I thought it was right to say so much at once, so that there should be no doubt about it.
  We are concerned to-day with a Supplementary Estimate and we cannot bring in and debate large issues of general policy. One can only deal with the new circumstances that have necessitated a Supplementary Estimate at all, new circumstances that have arisen since 19th
  1478
  May, I think it was, when last the House or the Committee had any opportunity of discussing these matters. There have been, since 19th May, great changes in Europe in the circumstances that these measures are designed to meet. John Pehle, a member of the executive of the body in America charged with these matters, said the other day, quite rightly, that unless this job were done within the next few months there would be no job left to do. It is in that spirit that the problem has to be approached. I would like to direct the attention of the Committee to some of the things that have in fact been happening since May of last year, because, not merely do things happen, but we get knowledge of them. I have a copy of a document which has reached London. It only concerns Poland and I think it only concerns the Jews. May I, in passing, say that I speak in this matter as a Jew, and as a Jew I would say at once that this is by no means entirely a Jewish problem—not by any means—and no Jew, knowing the facts, would think that it was, or would lose any opportunity of pointing out that it was not.
  It remains true, however, what the hon. Lady said, that it is very largely a Jewish question, and that among the refugees the Jews are the only ones against whom the Nazis have declared a policy of complete extermination, regarding them—as they expressly say—as belligerent enemies. I do not quite know what they mean by that because, if the Jews were really belligerent enemies; I suppose the Geneva Convention would apply to them, and certainly no attempt is made to make it apply. But the Nazis regard themselves as making war upon them in the sense of rooting them out utterly, in an endeavour to solve what is sometimes called the Jewish question by the extermination in Europe of any Jews at all. That policy is to be resisted from outside, but it is also resisted from within, and I want to draw the attention of the Committee to some things that are happening. This report comes from the Jewish National Committee, operating somewhere in Poland, and it reached London in February of this year. In this report it is stated:
  "Last month we still reckoned the number of Jews in the whole territory of Poland as 250,000 to 300,000. In a few weeks not more than 50,000 of us will remain. In the last

  1479
  moment before death the remnants of Polish Jewry appeal for help to the whole world. The blood shed by 3,000,000 Jews in Poland will pursue not only the Hitlerite beasts but all those who uttered words but did not act to save a people condemned to extermination by the Hitlerite murderers. May this, perhaps our last voice from the abyss, reach the ears of the whole world."
  There follow descriptions of mass murders.
  "In the early days of November, 1943, all the Jews in the two large concentration camps in Poland numbering 25,000 people, were completely annihilated. On Wednesday, November 3rd, the 10,000 Jews in the camp of Trawniki were marched out, surrounded and machine-gunned. The women and children were loaded into 50 lorries, transported to the execution place and murdered by machine-gunning. On Friday, November 5th, several thousand Jews were massacred in a similar way in the district of Lublin."
  I am not going to weary the Committee with a further recital of horrors, but there are others of the same kind. They resist.
  "On the fourth day, the Jewish youth of Bialystok attacked their persecutors with hand-grenades, fire bombs and a couple of machine-guns, killing and wounding several hundred Germans and Ukrainians. The Germans brought up, as in Warsaw, field-artillery and tanks with 1,000 armed policemen and S.S. and many detachments of Ukrainians. They set fire to the Ghetto from all sides. The violent fighting continued for eight days. Afterwards, the Jews set fire to, and destroyed the notorious death-camp of Treblinka … in the region of Chelrn-Lublin. The Jews organised themselves into fighting groups and attacked the Germans and Ukrainians, disarming and killing the majority of them. They burnt the gas-chambers and the crematoria, and the survivors fled to the forests in the neighbourhood."
  It is against that kind of background that we are considering to-day this Supplementary Estimate. It will grow as military defeat after military defeat is forced upon the Germans. As they retreat, the last retiring German soldier will kill the last available Jew. What proposals have we to make about that? I would like to make one or two practical suggestions. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is going to reply. I cannot ask him to give positive and constructive replies to all the things that I propose to suggest now, but I do hope they will be urgently and sympathetically considered, and that if anything can be done about it, it will be done without undue delay.
  When the news first became known of this active initiation of the policy of complete extermination, there was enacted in this Chamber an historic scene, when a
  1480
  declaration was made of the intentions of all the United Nations. That declaration was simultaneously made elsewhere. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the time has come when a new declaration might be made. It is doubtful whether it has very much effect, but it has some. We do know that there are people in Europe who listen. We do know that there are people in Europe who react. We have information about heroic acts done in enemy-occupied countries which have the effect of actual rescue, and many of us think that a new declaration made now, a new joint warning by the heads of the Allied Nations, might be heard. But not only a warning: a declaration, that the satellite States could hear, about the special measures they could take to stop the deportation, persecution and killing of the Jews. A call made in the name of the leaders of the United Nations to the peoples of Europe to do what they could to prevent massacres, and the deportations preliminary to massacres. It is not a thing which requires any expenditure of money, energy or machinery; it is a declaration which, if it succeeded in saving any lives, would be justified. I think it is realised that the declaration that was made before was not altogether without effect. A new one made now might be very opportune indeed. Certainly the neglect of it would be difficult to justify if there was only the remotest prospect that the making of it would succeed in saving any lives at all.
  I would like to say something about the particular machinery that this Supplementary Estimate is designed to pay for. I have already said something about the spirit in which the work of this Committee is done, but they are charged with looking after refugees, that is to say, looking after people who have already escaped. It is only when a man, woman or child has succeeded in escaping from somewhere or other that he or she comes under such jurisdiction and powers as the Inter-Governmental Committee possess. Obviously, that cannot be enough, because there ought to be some way of creating refugees, of getting people out so that they could acquire the status of refugees and this machinery become responsible for them. I am inclined to think that it was along those lines that the United States were thinking when they set up the United States War Refugees Board

  1481
  We have been asked not to talk too much about certain matters and nobody would dream of doing so but people can be got out, they are being got out, and some attempt ought to be made at active rescue.
  If the United States thought it worth while to set up special Government machinery alongside the Inter-Governmental Committee might it not be worth while to consider whether we, too, ought not to set up parallel machinery in this country? I do not refer to this by way of praise, censure or criticism of the United States at all; I point to it as an example of the way in which one of our principal Allies is attempting to meet their obligations when faced with exactly the same problem. It was not a light thing for the United States to do. They have not set up their Board merely for the sake of adding machinery to machinery. Presumably, there is a practical function which that Board will carry out. If that is so is it not reasonable to inquire whether similar machinery might not be set up here to carry out the same kind of functions, which, I think, are distinguished from the functions of the Inter-Governmental Committee, in the way I have indicated?
  May I say, in passing, that I am afraid there is a growing feeling that the initiative in these matters, the active urgency of endeavour, is passing from London to Washington? I think that if there were any justification for such a view it would be a very great pity, because we here have a proud and long record of rescue of the victims of political and religious persecution, extending over many centuries. It is one of our proudest traditions; it is one of the things we stand for in the world. Nobody pretends that we have ceased to stand for it, but there is a tendency to push over the initiative in these matters to the United States of America. I think we ought to be careful of that; we ought to resume the initiative ourselves. It is not merely in accordance with our traditions to do so, but also because we are 3,000 miles nearer the scene. I am not at all sure whether some of the machinery we have here is not a little cumbrous, whether the delay in considering matters, reaching plans and carrying them out is not longer than sometimes it might be. I know that the Minister feels as keenly about these matters as I do, but I would invite him
  1482
  most earnestly to look again at this aspect of the question and make quite certain that our country does not take the second place, instead of the first place, which both practical politics and our traditions would compel us to occupy.
  I would like to see created in this country machinery parallel to the United States War Refugees Board. I would like to see lit done in a large way, in such a way as would make it clear to the world that we do recognise the heavy obligations which rest on our shoulders in these matters and that we do not intend to lag behind anybody in the discharge of those obligations. I would like to urge continued and even closer co-operation with those bodies in the world which are charged with the responsibility of practical rescue wherever it is possible. Bodies like the World Jewish Congress and the National Rescue Committee in Palestine are both actively engaged in such rescue work as can be done. I would like to see a method evolved of associating bodies of that kind with the Inter-Governmental Committee, with the State machinery, wherever it may be set up, concerning itself with active rescue and organisation of rescue. A large number of people who are getting out are Stateless. They themselves might be organised and be in some way or other represented on these bodies, because nobody knows more about the means of rescue than they do. I need nor say any more about other matters which have been dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone).
  In conclusion, may I repeat that the urgency of this matter is extreme, that it is literally true that those you save within the next few months will be the only ones who can be saved, since afterwards none will be left? Do not let us have it on our conscience that there were people who might have been saved but who were not saved because we were not willing to take from our other pressing obligations the time, energy or machinery necessary to save them. If the employment of that time, energy or machinery were to delay victory by a single day none of us would ask for it to be taken, but it is not correct to say that the only way of saving these people is by ensuring a quicker victory. As defeat crowds upon defeat for the enemy so massacre crowds upon massacre. The very coming of victory may mean the

  1483
  extermination of the last remnants of the Jewish people in Europe. Well, if that sacrifice were necessary in order again to bring freedom to the world, let it be made. But no one is certain that it is necessary. At any rate, do not let it be on our conscience that there were any lives at all that might have been saved that we neglected to save.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Smiles: I intervene in this Debate only after hearing the last two speeches. One would imagine that the only refugees in the world at present were Jews. Great publicity is given to every atrocity against the Jews, and it is the feeling of many people in this country that 10 times the publicity is given to the Jews in this matter as to members of other races who are maltreated or murdered. That feeling is springing up, and it would be just as well for my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) not to forget that.
  Mr. Lipson: I did not mention the word "Jew" once in my speech.
  Mr. Silverman: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member opposite would do me the courtesy of remembering that I expressly said in my speech very much what he is saying now.
  Sir W. Smiles: I apologise if I am wrong, but we shall see in HANSARD later what was said. At any rate, I think the hon. Member for Nelson and Come mentioned some organisation for rescue work in connection with Jewish refugees.
  Mr. Silverman: I expressly said that this problem was not by any means an exclusive Jewish problem and that no Jew thought it was so. I also said that, nevertheless, it was largely a Jewish problem.
  Miss Rathbone: I think I know all the organisations working on this problem. We are perpetually stressing that it is not only a Jewish problem. Many non-Jewish people have been, and are being, victimised, but the majority of the victims are Jews. Everybody knows that that is so. Hitler's policy of exterminating a whole people is confined to the Jews. They are the principal victims.
  Sir W. Smiles: I expected to have a good many interruptions, because no-
  1484
  body can mention a topic like this without exciting a good deal of feeling. But I always imagined that the Jews were members of a religion and not of a race. For that reason it would surely be better for us to talk about the Poles or the Greeks, or any one else, and include the Jews in that. I have been in touch with some of the Polish organisations during the past week and I have heard something of the terrible atrocities committed and the massacres, and I have heard of the gas chambers. I have believed what I have heard to be true, although when you hear it for the first time you would almost imagine that it was far-fetched. However, after hearing of these things from people's lips one believes them to be true, even in 1944. But these people were talking about the Poles who were massacred; they were not talking about those of one religion. If we are to give relief and help—and I am quite sure that every penny the Foreign Secretary asks for would be agreed to without demur in this House—let us at any rate give to the Belgians and the Greeks also. I get letters from my own constituency, from the Society of Friends I think it is, and they tell me that the Belgians and the Greeks have suffered more than any one else. I suppose nobody really knows, perhaps even the Foreign Secretary himself hardly knows, who has suffered the most, but I am quite sure that when a Debate on this subject takes place it will be very much better for the newspapers to give publicity to the fact that we are voting money for the Greeks, the Poles and the Belgians rather than for those of one religion only.
  Mr. Graham White: Whatever the hon. Member for Nelson and Collie (Mr. Silverman) may or may not have said in the course of his speech, there was one sentence which will dwell in the memory of all who heard it, and that was the striking phrase that if the sacrifice were necessary of all the Jewish lives in order that liberty might come again to the world, then let it be made. Having made that statement, I do not think anyone would want to cavil at anything else he might have said. He expressly said in his opening sentences that he was not speaking for the Jews alone and, indeed, who would propose to limit this discussion to the question of the Jews? We are, in fact, living witnesses of a most repugnant phenomenon

  1485
  in history. We have enemies inspired by a fanaticism which apparently is even stronger than any inspiration and effort which has been hitherto inspired by good purposes. In the last few weeks they have stated their intention to fight to the last man in this fifth year of war and then to commit suicide in large numbers. They are inspired by the same fanaticism to wreak their vengeance on anybody who would prevent them.
  I would support the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne in his suggestion that machinery, the counterpart of that which has been set up in Washington, might be set up in this country if I did not believe that the right hon. Gentleman who carries the responsibility in this House had not considered it an unworkable piece of machinery. I hope it might at least go forth from the House of Commons to-day that as we were all of one mind when we passed the original Resolution on this matter so there is no difference of opinion among us to-day. We Members of the House of Commons are aware that there are some aspects of this terrible manifestation that it might be unwise to discuss. We realise that may be so, and we are consequently very guarded in anything we may say.
  What we do want from the right hon. Gentleman is an assurance that nothing which could conceivably be done to save even one life will be neglected. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne said that, as events march on, there may in a few months be no problem of this particular kind to solve, but I am not sure that I am as pessimistic as that. There are events on the horizon which will make the satellite countries reflect very seriously as to their course of action and it may well be, sooner rather than later, that events will take place which will make some of the satellite countries, who are now holding down large populations, consider very seriously whether even at this late stage they cannot do something which can be placed on the credit side of their balance sheet. I do not know what can be done. The right hon. Gentleman may have some means at his disposal, and I emphasise that aspect of the affair. I only intervened because I wanted to express my conviction that we were unanimous in the matter. There has never been any difference of opinion. We, as individual
  1486
  Members, have not the responsibility; it lies upon the shoulders of my right hon. Friend, and he himself must seek the best way out.
  Mr. Astor: I am going to back up the words spoken with such eloquence by the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. G. White). I am interested in the refugee question, and in the Middle East I actually had to look after a very large refugee camp of Greeks. I want to make one or two points which I think are important. It is very important to keep perfectly separate the refugee question and Palestine. We were able to get enormous help in the Lebanon, Palestine and Egypt from the local inhabitants because there was no question of creating—
  The Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member but we cannot discuss conditions in Palestine on this Vote.
  Mr. Astor: With great deference, I will avoid that point. I only wanted to skate over it very briefly, because it has, to some extent, almost prejudiced the possibility of getting Jewish refugees out of Eastern Europe, and I think that, whatever may be people's feeling in the matter, it does not in any way take away from the Christian duty to get as many of these refugees out as we possibly can. If we neglect to do anything now which can possibly be done, we shall curse ourselves later on for our short sightedness. In the recent pamphlet of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health it said there were not enough dentists in this country to provide treatment for all the children in need of it. I wonder how many Jewish dentists before the war—
  The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is now encroaching upon the Home Office. That matter does not arise here.
  Mr. Astor: I only wanted to suggest certain considerations which might influence a representative of that Committee in his attitude towards refugees.
  Earl Winterton: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that my opinion will not be biased by any of the matters he has mentioned, one way or the other.
  Mr. Astor: I very much regret that my noble Friend is not going to be influenced to some extent—
  Earl Winterton: My hon. Friend is trenching on a very dangerous form of argument. I have no Ministerial responsibility. Ministerial responsibility rests with my right hon. Friend opposite. I merely represent his views.
  Mr. Astor: I am very sorry if anything I say may not be able to sway my noble Friend, but I hope I am still at liberty to mention certain considerations in which he may take an interest on reflection. I hope we shall not follow the American system of setting up a special office, because all my experience is that these new mushroom Government Departments are never strong enough to deal with a really strongly-entrenched Government Department.
  The Chairman: The hon. Member is not entitled to discuss the arrangements made by another country. Will he please confine himself to the subject matter of the Estimate.
  Mr. Astor: With deference, Major Milner, the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) mentioned the possibility of having some form of separate office. I do not want to go further than he did. I was only following up what he said on the purely practical point that it is not the best system of organisation to start a special body but to get a really high official in an existing Department specifically charged with this. On the question of what we can say to neutral countries, the principle has been admitted that the satellite Powers can work their passage back. We have definitely made a distinction between the treatment of Germany and the treatment of the satellites. We must make it absolutely clear that one of the factors influencing our treatment of the satellite Powers after the war is their attitude towards the refugees within their borders. There is a wide divergence, and we should make it quite clear and explain to them that in our relief operations immediately after the war, in any sanctions that we may impose, in our general treatment of them politically, this will be a factor which will definitely influence our treatment of them. I want to reiterate what has been said, that this should go out from the House of Commons as having been backed up by representatives of every party.
  Mr. David Grenfell: I should like to follow in the same direction and in
  1488
  the same tone as the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Astor). If I were not able to convince the Committee that this is a case of exceptional urgency I should not have felt it worth while to listen to the speeches already made. My first reflection is that we are a highly fortunate body of politicians to occupy the only available place in Europe for a discussion on this subject. In this small island we are separated from the mainland of Europe by a very narrow sea, and we have been able to escape the sense of dread, fear and horror which closer acquaintance with the problem has conveyed to people in various parts of Europe. This is not really a Jewish question, though the Jewish people are involved to perhaps a greater extent than anyone else. There are other refugees—Greeks, Yugoslavs, Belgians, French, Norwegians and Danes have been mentioned—many of whom have found a home away from home and many of whom are here enjoying our hospitability, if it can be termed such.
  I regard it as a very great privilege for Members of this House to be able to extend this offer and to make this modest provision of £50,000, envisaging a larger expenditure later on, to be applied to what is called operational expenditure. Operational expenditure is very difficult to define, but it certainly means the making of provision for the reception, maintenance, transport and regulation of this very unhappy traffic which is now taking place surreptitiously under clandestine arrangements. Many are escaping. They are leaving the areas of danger and coming within reach of a helping hand and what we are proposing is that at least £50,000 shall be available to extend that and to meet halfway those people who are fleeing from the wrath of their enemies on the Continent and seeking salvation and sanctuary in this very fortunate country and in other parts of the world.
  I agree with the right hon. Gentleman who is responsible for the Estimate that this is not the end, but the beginning of a very large plan of salvation, in which we are joined directly by the United States, who have committed themselves to the same financial extent as we have done. I should like us not to be too squeamish about the nationality and the religion of the people we are saving. This is the anniversary of the patron saint of my country. His name was David, but

  1489
  David originally was not a Welsh name. David was a Jew, a lovable character, a brave man and a human man, and the David who became the patron saint of our country was equally lovable and equally brave. The oaths that we take, the vows we offer in this House were originally based upon a Jewish institution and a great Jewish character, who lived his life and died equally bravely as he had lived. There is the problem.
  I should like us to dismiss the priorities in this matter. A Jew is no more entitled to sympathy in distress than anyone else, and I do not think anyone else says that in the House, but it is a lamentable fact that millions of people are homeless in Europe. No one can predict the proportion of those who can get away from the areas of danger, but certainly there are areas where life is very uncertain, and there is no object more worthy of human sympathy than a hunted human being. I did some work in relation to the Sudeten Germans in the time of Munich and I was privileged to conduct the two first parties from Prague to Gdynia. It was very uncomfortable for me, but I willingly incurred the risks and discomfort and fatigue attendant upon those journeys.
  I shall always remember the courtesy of the Foreign Secretary of those days. There was no hesitation at all, and on the direct applications that I made to him sufficient sums were made available to send 400 people who were in immediate danger of their lives. They were German speaking people—there may have been some Jews among them—and they were in danger. On that journey I had occasion to go through Poland and I saw the Polish ghetto. I, who had always been sympathetic with the history of that race, saw in a way I had never previously witnessed the limitations and hardships long ago imposed on the Jewish community. There are people who have escaped from Hungary and other places, and if there is anything we can do in Parliament to help them we should do it.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the sympathy and understanding he has shown. He is a worthy son of a worthy father. This just gives him an opportunity which is natural to him, and I believe that he will avail himself of it. It is an opportunity which will be fully taken by us in this House and shared
  1490
  by our people. Do not let us be afraid to tell our people about these things. In this country 1 per cent. of our population is of the Jewish race. What is wrong with the 99 per cent. that they should not be told? In Germany the percentage is also 1 per cent. We know what was wrong with the German Reich and the German people. We must carry out our work of charity, rescue and salvation regardless of race. I hope that the Committee will dedicate itself to-day, not merely by supporting this Vote, but by doing and preparing to do something much more in the next six or twelve months than we have done in this regard in the last two or three years. If this Vote is only a spur to greater effort to help these people towards personal security, we shall have done a good day's work in this Committee.
  Mr. Law: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) truly represented the views of the Committee when he welcomed the payment which it is proposed that we shall make towards the expenses of the Inter-Governmental Committee. I am sure, too, that he represented the views of hon. Members when he urged that the refugee problem should not be left only to the Inter-Governmental Committee, but that we should work at it in other ways ceaselessly until we can get some kind of solution. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) referred us back to the dark and hideous background against which we have to consider this problem. I think he was quite right to do so. He was right to impress upon us once again, not only the importance of the problem, but its urgency. The hon. Member made what was certainly a dismal prophecy, and what may prove to be a true prophecy, when he said that, as defeat drew nearer Germany, so the excesses against the Jews would increase in intensity. That may be so, but I hope that it will not be so. I am more inclined to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. Graham White) when he reminded us that as defeat drew nearer to Germany, so the satellite countries would attempt to re-insure by treating these unhappy people more decently and giving them the sanctuary which they lack at the present time.
  The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne asked me to consider various suggestions he made, and, in particular, the possi-

  1491
  bility of making a new declaration which he described, I think, as a call to the peoples of Europe from the heads of the United Nations. Certainly that will be considered, but in the meantime I would remind the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for East Fulham (Mr. Astor), who also touched upon the necessity of giving warning, particularly to the satellites of Germany, that there has never been any doubt about the attitude of opinion in this country and, indeed, of world opinion, to what has been going on in Europe under German rule and to the persecution of the Jews and the general treatment of minorities and refugees. No one in any of the satellite countries can be in any doubt of the fact that the British attitude and, indeed, the world attitude, towards them after the war is bound to be affected by the way they act in this matter of Jewish persecution. There can be no doubt whatever of that, and, indeed, the satellite countries are now getting very serious warnings through the wireless, to which we must hope they are paying due attention. I have no doubt that the Committee will vote the Supplementary Estimate for this purpose, but more than one of my hon. Friends have expressed their feeling that what we are doing in voting this money, and, indeed, what the Inter-Governmental Committee can do, is not really sufficient for the problem. I was, incidentally, glad that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne dissociated himself from the criticism of the Inter-Governmental Committee which the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) made earlier. I am sure that that criticism was not in any way justified and that the Members of the Committee are treating this matter with just the seriousness and sincerity which the hon. Gentleman himself would require.
  My hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) took the same point of view as the hon. Member for Cheltenham. She, too, felt that the machinery of the Inter-Governmental Committee was not enough. She compared it to a stage coach when what she wanted was a Rolls Royce. She criticised the smallness of the present office of the Committee in London and deduced from the size of the office and the number of typists the theory that the Inter-Governmental Committee was not up to its job. She, the hon. Member for
  1492
  Cheltenham and the hon. Member for Nelson and Collie stressed the fact, as it seemed to them, that this must be so and that the Inter-Governmental Committee cannot be up to its job because the President of the United States has just recently created the War Refugee Board. I hope that I may be able to persuade my hon. Friends, or to persuade the Committee as a whole, that that is a fallacy, and that the fact that the War Refugee Board has been set up in the United States is not in any sense a criticism of the Inter-Governmental Committee.
  Mr. Silverman: No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that, when I advocated the setting up of machinery in this country parallel to the War Refugee Board of the United States, I was not doing so in any way as a criticism of the Inter-Governmental Committee. The point I was making was, that as the Inter-Governmental Committee was charged with the fate of refugees after they had become such, there ought to be governmental machinery to provide the Committee with the raw material.
  Miss Rathbone: I think we all must make it clear that none of us were criticising the Inter-Governmental Committee when speaking of the War Refugee Board. The Inter-Governmental Committee, because it is inter-governmental, must depend upon the actions of the Governments represented upon it, and therefore, both Governments should have their own separate machinery for dealing with the work. Such machinery would supplement and not supersede the Inter-Governmental Committee.
  Mr. Law: I am afraid that I must have expressed myself badly, and I apologise to hon. Members and to the Committee for doing so. I did not really mean to imply that they had said that the institution of the War Refugee Board was a criticism of the Inter-Governmental Committee, but I did mean to imply, and I think it is clear that what I am going to say now is a true representation of what they said, that, in their view, the institution of the War Refugee Board showed that there was a gap which had to be filled and which the Inter-Governmental Committee was not filling. I do not think that even that criticism is altogether justified.
  Mr. Lipson: Did not the right hon. Gentleman himself say that the work of the Inter-Governmental Committee was not sufficient by itself to deal with this problem?
  Mr. Law: Yes, Sir, and if the hon. Member had had a little more patience he would have found that I was going to repeat exactly that argument. I spoke earlier in the Debate about the necessity for international co-operation in these matters. I think every hon. Member would agree that there are some matters which can be handled far better by an inter-governmental body of this kind than by any particular Government, but that does not at all rule out the necessity that, as well as international action, there has to be national action in these matters. For that reason, His Majesty's Government welcomed most heartily the institution of the War Refugee Board in the United States, and we shall be willing, and indeed anxious, to give that War Refugee Board, as a part of the United States administration, our very warmest support and sympathy. We are working on all these matters in the closest relations with the United States administration. I do not know whether it is generally known among hon. Members that we have recently sent instructions to every one of our missions abroad likely to be involved in refugee matters that they should seek out and collaborate with their American opposite numbers on refugee matters to the fullest extent in their power.
  I know that I cannot go very far in discussion of the War Refugee Board without transgressing the Ruling which you have given, Major Milner. On the other hand, there has been such a great deal said about the War Refugee Board and so many appeals have been made to the Government here to institute a similar body in this country that I hope I may, without getting into trouble, just touch upon that aspect of the matter. I do not think that hon. Members who have raised the question of the Joint Refugee Board quite realise the constitutional difference between this country and the United States. Under our system of ministerial responsibility it would, in fact, be impossible for us to institute an independent body which would control Ministers and heads of other Departments outside it; in fact, there is not the same need for
  1494
  such a body in this country. There is already a Cabinet Committee concerned with these matters, and that Cabinet Committee has at its disposal an administrative staff in the form of the Refugee Department of the Foreign Office. So we really have the substance of what the President of the United States has just instituted, in the shape of the War Refugee Board. For constitutional reasons, I do not see how we could imitate the structure of that Board, and, for practical reasons, I cannot see that we should gain any advantage from imitating it.
  Miss Ratbbone: One thing that struck us very much was that the American Board had a whole-time executive director, who was directly in touch with three Secretaries of State and had direct access to the President. Has the Refugee Department of the Foreign Office access to Ministers and to the Prime Minister in the same way?
  The Chairman: We cannot go into the details of this organisation. The right hon. Gentleman has said quite sufficient about it.
  Mr. Law: Might I answer, in a sentence, what the hon. Lady has asked? We have really got exactly what she wants. We have a full time administrative staff, not in the persons of single directors, but in the shape of the staff of the Refugee Department of the Foreign Office. That staff is directly responsible to my right hon. Friend and, through him, to the Cabinet Committee. I do not think there really is the practical difference that some hon. Members imagine there to be.
  I do not think there were any other points raised in the Debate. I think the Committee has made it abundantly clear that it wants the work of rescue for these unfortunate people to be proceeded with with the utmost possible vigour and dispatch. I can assure the Committee that His Majesty's Government are prepared to do everything they possibly can to find a solution of this problem, in co-operation with other nations where that is necessary, and individually as a Government where that is possible.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved:
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £53,873, be granted to His Majesty, to defray

  1495
  the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for the expenses in connection with His Majesty's Embassies, Missions and Consular Establishments Abroad, and other expenditure chargeable to the Consular Vote; certain special grants and payments, including grants in aid; and sundry other services."

  SUPPLY

    OLD AGE PENSIONS
    Resolved:
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £350,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for the payment of Old Age Pensions, pensions to blind persons, and for certain administrative expenses in connection therewith."
    Resolutions to be reported upon the next Sitting Day; Committee to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

  REPORT [11th February]
  Resolutions reported:
  REPORT [11th February]
    DOMINION SERVICES
    1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for sundry Dominion services, including certain grants in aid, and for expenditure in connection with Ex-Service Men in Eire, and for a grant in aid to Eire in respect of compensation to transferred officers."
    DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE (SOUTH AFRICAN HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES)
    2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceed-£20,800, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for the development of the resources of the South African High Commission Territories and the welfare of their peoples."
    SUPPLEMENTARY PENSIONS
    3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st March, 1944, for the payment of Supplementary Pensions to certain persons in receipt of Old Age Pensions or Widows' Pensions."
    MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES
    4. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, including grants, grants in aid and expenses in respect of agricultural education and research, eradication of diseases of animals, and improvement of breeding, etc., of live stock, land settlement, improvement of cultivation, drainage, etc., regulation of agricultural wages, agricultural credits, and marketing; fishery organisation, research and development, control of diseases of fish, etc.; and sundry other services including certain remanet subsidy payments."
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR SCOTLAND
    5. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £8,520, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, including grants for land improvement, agricultural education, research and marketing, expenses in respect of regulation of agricultural wages; certain grants in aid, and remanet subsidy payments."
    STATE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS
    6. "That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for the salaries and expenses of the State Management Districts, including the salaries of the central office, and the cost of provision and management of licensed premises."
    MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (WAR SERVICES)
    7. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for the cost of the war services of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries."
    MINISTRY OF AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION
    8. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Aircraft Production."
    MINISTRY OF FUEL AND POWER
    9. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Fuel and Power."
    MINISTRY OF HEALTH (WAR SERVICES)
    10. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for the cost of the war services of the Ministry of Health."
    MINISTRY OF HOME SECURITY
    11. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Home Security."
    MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
    12. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Supply, including the expenses of the Royal Ordnance Factories."
    MINISTRY OF WAR TRANSPORT
    13. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of War Transport."
    MINISTRY OF WORKS (WAR SERVICES)
    14. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for the cost of the war services of the Ministry of Works."
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR SCOTLAND (WAR SERVICES)
    15. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for the cost of the war services of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland."
    IMPERIAL WAR GRAVES COMMISSION
    16. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,916, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for certain salaries and expenses of the Imperial War Graves Commission, including purchase of land in the United Kingdom and a grant in aid."

    SUPERANNUATION AND RETIRED ALLOWANCES
    17. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £50,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for superannuation
    1498
    and other non-effective annual allowances, additional allowances, gratuities, compassionate allowances and supplementary pensions in respect of civil empoyment."

    TREASURY AND SUBORDINATE DEPARTMENTS
    18. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £6,930, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the other 31st day of March, 1944, for the salaries and expenses in the Department of His Majesty's Treasury and Subordinate Departments, and the salaries and expenses of certain Ministers appointed for special duties."
    Resolutions agreed to.

  INDIA (ATTACHMENT OF STATES) BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This Bill is concerned with the parts of India known as Kathiawar and Gujerat in which, together with large Indian States with full administrations, there are a very large number of small and in some cases very small areas described as States, though I think it would probably be more accurate in the use of language to describe them as estates. They are scattered. Their number is about 400 and the total population is some 800,000. Forty of them are less than a square mile in area, and more than half are about the size of an ordinary rural parish—seven, eight or nine square miles. The problem as to how these areas can best be administered so that those who live in them may have the advantages in such matters as education, health services, communications, and so on which individually owing, as the House will see, to the size of the areas, they cannot of course provide for themselves, has engaged for some years the attention of the Viceroy in his capacity as Crown representative.
  The reason for submitting this Bill to Parliament is a recent decision in the local court which is called the Court of the Judicial Commissioner in which appeals from courts established by the Crown representative for these small States are heard. This judicial Commissioners' Court held that the steps which the Viceroy had been taking with a view to bringing about a more satisfactory administration

  1499
  were ultra vires. In order to understand that legal decision and the form of the Bill it is necessary to explain shortly the policy which the political authorities in India under the Viceroy have been engaged in carrying out. The heads of these small areas or States are known as Taluqdars. They differ in their privileges and in their powers. In some cases the Taluqdars exercise no jurisdiction at all. In others he exercises petty civil or criminal powers but in no case is he able to rule and administer the area for the benefit of the inhabitants in the way which is clearly desirable in modern conditions.
  Since early in the nineteenth century after the fall of the Mahratta power the British authorities, although these areas were not annexed and had been treated as independent areas or units, have assumed the exercise of civil and criminal jurisdiction in these small and in some cases isolated and scattered territories. But this intervention has never really gone beyond the sphere of police administration. Largely for geographical reasons it has been so limited, reasons for which I will refer to in a moment. The position has been felt for some time to be very unsatisfactory, and the problem has been carefully studied in order to see how the population of these various small areas might get the benefit of modern administration while preserving, as it is desired to do, the long-standing rights and dignities of the Taluqdars.
  Mr. Maxton: Who has been studying it?
  The Attorney-General: The Viceroy.
  Mr. Maxton: The present Viceroy?
  The Attorney-General: For some years this small-States problem has been the subject of reports and consideration of various kinds. The reports have been made by people acting under the Viceroy's authority, the Viceroy being the Crown representative in all matters concerned with our relations with the Indian States.
  Mr. Maxton: May we take it that it was some member of the Indian Civil Service?
  The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend can take it that anybody who has known
  1500
  of this problem for 10, 15 or more years has realised that it is a very unsatisfactory position. For the last four or five years, under the Viceroy, those who advise him, the Political Department in India have been considering what is the best solution. If you imagine any area you like, an English county, and assume that it has greater powers devolved on it than it actually has, and that scattered about it are, say, a dozen parishes, or areas of that size, some bigger, some smaller, which are outside the whole administrative governing machine of the county, then, to have a proper administrative machine so long as these areas remain isolated, is impossible.
  Mr. Maxton: They are like the small shopkeepers.
  The Attorney-General: I do not think that that is a complete analogy. Then, various suggestions were considered. It was considered whether it would be possible to federate the smaller units into larger units. If they had all been together, touching one another, that might have been possible, although it might have been open to objection on their part. It was also considered whether they could be consolidated into British India. Both schemes were found impracticable, on geographical and possibly on other grounds. To understand the problem it is necessary to get a picture of how these small areas lie scattered about, some in the areas of larger States and some adjacent to larger States. I believe that anyone who looks at a map on which these areas are shown will realise the impracticability of either of the two suggestions to which I have referred, namely, confederation among themselves and consolidation into British India. I think anyone who looks at the map will also realise that the conclusion reached by the Viceroy early last year was the best, and, indeed, the only practicable solution. These areas, by being attached to the neighbouring larger States, will be able to attain the more up-to-date administration of those larger units, the schools, hospitals, communications, and general amenities which the rulers of those States have specifically agreed to afford. The larger States chosen are those in a position to provide these services, and those which have established courts and judicial machinery, which will exercise in the various scattered areas the

  1501
  jurisdiction previously exercised by the Crown Representatives' courts.
  In deciding to which States any one or group of these small States should be attached the main consideration is geography, but account has also in some cases been taken of grounds of political or family affinity. Under this scheme the Taluqdars are left in possession of their previous dignities and of any minor powers which they have previously exercised. Those are left quite untouched, and are guaranteed. This is very important. The Viceroy maintains a continuing responsibility, and could, and undoubtedly would, intervene if circumstances should require it in order to secure the progress and the development of these smaller States under this scheme.
  Mr. Graham White: On his own initiative?
  The Attorney-General: Certainly.
  Mr. White: Would the right of appeal be directed to the Crown representative, or would the appellant have to go to the Taluqdars?
  The Attorney-General: I was going to deal with that in my next sentence; but I am glad my hon. Friend intervened, because I can expand a little what I was going to say. There is a right of appeal provided, should a Taluqdar consider that his or his people's rights have been infringed. That is a right in theTaluqdar, or to be exercised through the Taluqdar. In addition, as my hon. Friend knows, there is in all Indian States a general supervision. The way this scheme develops and how the attaching States carry out the duties which they have undertaken will be a matter with which the Viceroy, through his agents, will concern himself, and he will get reports, quite independent of the right of appeal, which is a formal right and part of the scheme.
  Mr. White: My right hon. and learned Friend has given a very complete explanation, and I am probably very stupid, but I am still not clear whether there is a right for a citizen of one of these States who is transferred from his own State to, say, Baroda, or some other State, to appeal of his own right to the Crown Agent in Baroda, or whether he must, of necessity, go through the Taluqdar?
  The Attorney-General: The formal right which is preserved is a right to appeal by the Taluqdar, but the working of this scheme, quite apart from the formal right of appeal, will be kept under review, and if there are grievances, even if they do not come up through the formal channel of appeal, there is no doubt that they will be heard of.
  Mr. David Grenfell: Does the Taluqdar of the Imperial States retain all his powers except in so far as they are abridged by this Act?
  The Attorney-General: Let me try and give a picture. At present, in many of these areas, the Taluqdar has no power at all. Let me give a picture of an area in which he has some power to try say petty criminal offences and impose sentences of three months. That will be preserved. The real problem which this scheme is designed to meet and solve is that, in these areas at present, there is really no effective civil administration at all. That is to say, there is no effective administration for health services, education or for communications, because, being recognised as independent units and being so small, they cannot provide these things for themselves and nobody else has provided, or can provide, these things for them. The idea is that, by attaching them, subject to the preservation of their own rights and privileges, to the only area which can geographically provide these services, to improve, and it may be immensely improve, the conditions of the people in them.
  Mr. Sorensen: May I ask whether there has been any demand by the people of these States for such an attachment?
  The Attorney-General: Well, of course, as my hon. Friend knows, in a country with a population like that of India, people are very apt to accept what has come down to them through the generations, but it would be a great mistake, and a great reflection on us, if, when we see an obvious deficiency like a lack of opportunities for a proper medical service, we waited until a demand came, for many of these people may be quite ignorant that such services can exist.
  Mr. Sorensen: We have waited many years.
  The Attorney-General: You can say that about anything when it is done. We think this is an improvement. You can always say, of any improvement, "Why did you not do it before?" but I do not think that is of any help. In order to carry the scheme into effect, it was necessary to terminate the jurisdiction of the existing courts, and provide for pending cases being dealt with by the courts of the attaching States. There was a case which arose from an attempted suicide in one of these States called Bhadwa, the area of which is only seven, square miles. This is a State which is attached to the State of the Maharajah of Gondal, and I believe that anyone who knows this part of India would agree that it is a very well administered State. The Taluqdar of Bhadwa challenged the Order terminating the jurisdiction of the old courts, and the matter came before the court of the Judicial Commissioner.
  The challenge was, in the main, based on some words in the Government of India Act, which certainly were not inserted with any idea of this kind in mind, but which provide that powers connected with the exercise of the functions of the Crown in its relations with the Indian States shall if not exercised by His Majesty, be exercised by, or by persons acting under the authority of His Majesty's Representative, that is, the Viceroy. The process of reasoning was that the judges of the State of Gondal did not come within those words as acting under the authority of the Viceroy. You might argue about that, but the argument was as I have stated and the court decided that the Order terminating the jurisdiction which recited the attachment under the schemes and also provided for the transfer of pending cases, was ultra vires and invalid. Other instruments and Orders in Council were referred to in the course of the judgment, and the Bill, therefore, provides that, at the instance of or with the consent of His Majesty's Representative—I am summarising—any Indian States not mentioned in certain divisions of the Table of Seats of the First Schedule of the Government of India Act may be attached to any other Indian States in accordance with the scheme that I have described, notwithstanding anything in the Government of India Act and in other Acts or Instruments referred to in this judgment.
  1504
  The States covered by the Bill, which the House will see are described as Indian States not mentioned in divisions 1 to 16 of the Table of Seats in Part II of the First Schedule of the Government of India Act, are States which are not named individually but which comprise a very large number of small, scattered States—the smallest States—and I believe that together there are some 600 of them. They were collectively allotted under federation two seats on the Council and five in the Assembly. That explains the form of the Bill and how it arose. It is well known that Parliament does not legislate for the Indian States, which are not British territory, but I hope the explanation which I have given makes it clear why Parliament is being asked to pass this Bill. It is because the court decided that the Government of India Act, or certain words in it, precluded and prevented the Crown, as the paramount power, from exercising in regard to these small States powers which we are quite clear the Crown was entitled to exercise. The matter is one of some urgency, because the effect of this decision has naturally been to throw into confusion the scheme which was, in fact, put into operation and started last August. I think myself that it might well be that if an appeal was taken to the Judicial Committee, for reasons which I will not go into, the decision might well be reversed, but this would inevitably take some time, and it is of vital importance that the period of uncertainty, which might easily degenerate into chaos, should be brought to an end forthwith.
  I ought to say a word about Sub-section (2), which gives the Bill retrospective effect. Such provisions always require very careful scrutiny, but the House will I am sure realise that, since last August, when this scheme began to be put into operation, numbers of things have been done and measures taken which require to be validated. Therefore, it is necessary that if the House accepts this scheme that this Bill should be retrospective. The proviso may perhaps puzzle the casual reader—it certainly puzzled me the first time I read it—but it was put in to meet those cases where under judgment which has been delivered saying that the Order was ultra vires, acts had been done in good faith in the assumption that the law was as decided by the Judicial Commissioner.

  1505
  It is therefore necessary to have a power to protect them from what otherwise might be a liability if this Bill when it became an Act has retrospective effect.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Education will wind up the Debate and deal with any question which arises but before I sit down I will summarise the question as it seems to present itself. It is plainly right that the best and possibly the only practicable steps to give to this population an effective administration in areas of administration in which the Taluqdars cannot operate should be taken. It is important to emphasise that the powers which will be exercised by the attaching States are powers which the Taluqdars are not in a position to exercise and never have been in their areas. If it is agreed that the Crown as Paramount Power has not only the right but has also the duty to the population of these areas to make provision for effective administration by the method adopted once that is agreed. That seems to strike at the root of the judgment which has been given. It cannot be contrary to the law to carry out what is a right and a duty. I do not want to argue about the legal aspects of the matter but what is at any rate perfectly plain is that the words in the Government of India Act which were relied on in these judgments were never intended by this House to be an obstacle in the way of carrying out a beneficent scheme such as this is.
  Mr. Maxton: I took the trouble to look up the Government of India Act and could not find it. I feel, on my reading of the Bill—which I do not put against the more skilled reading of the Attorney-General—that there is not in the Government of India Act power to attach these small States though there is power to attach the bigger ones.
  The Attorney-General: One would not expect to find in the Government of India Act power to attach the State because the power of the Crown as the Paramount Power in relation to the States is not a thing about which this House would legislate. The Court out there decided that some words in the Government of India Act precluded as a matter of law the Viceroy or the Crown as paramount power from doing in relation to these States what in our view it
  1506
  is entitled to do. There is no question of finding in the Government of India Act an express power to attach. One would not expect to find it there or to find any of the powers of the Crown in relation to States set out in the Act. The Court decided that words in the proviso to Section 2 of the Act precluded the Viceroy from carrying out a scheme in relation to these States which in our view he plainly had the power to do.
  Mr. Marton: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman telling me that because the Viceroy is Viceroy he has the right to mess about with territories as he pleases and has no statutory basis to work from?
  The Attorney-General: I would not exactly choose the words of the hon. Gentleman. The Indian States are not British territory. The relations between the Indian States and the Paramount Power have grown up over the 100 or 150 years. In some cases of the bigger States there are Treaties, in other cases usage and sufferance and with the smaller States the position is as I have described it. But one would not find that in the Statutes because their application is confined to British territory. Therefore, one would not expect to find in the Government of India Act the recitation of what rights the Crown had in dealing with the various Indian States.
  Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: In order to make it clear to the House, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman read to us the words in the Government of India Act which these people in India allege prohibit the Viceroy from taking this action?
  The Attorney-General: I did set them out earlier but I will read them again. It is in the proviso to Section 2 (1). I did not read the whole thing but summarised it; I will read the whole of it now. It is taken from Section 2 (1) of the Government of India Act, 1935, and says:
  "Provided that any powers connected with the exercise of the functions of the Crown in its relations with Indian States shall in India, if not exercised by His Majesty be exercised only by, or by persons acting under the authority of, His Majesty's Representative for the exercise of those functions of the Crown."
  The Crown is the Paramount Power and not only has the right but a duty to make the arrangements which had been entered into in order to bring proper administration to these smaller States.

  1507
  The Court said that as the Judges of Baroda or Nawanagar or Bhavnagar did not in their view come under the words "persons acting under the authority of His Majesty's Representative." Therefore, these words which were plainly inserted for quite other purposes precluded and made invalid the order the Viceroy issued.
  Mr. Maxton: Does the Attorney-General claim that the Viceroy has paramount powers to alter the frontiers?
  The Attorney-General: That is not what he is trying to do. We had better restrict ourselves to what he is doing.
  Mr. Maxton: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is basing himself on the paramount powers of the Viceroy to deal with these little territories. Would he interpret the powers of the Viceroy as entitling him to do that with regard to the bigger States and to take away their independence or alter their frontiers?
  The Attorney-General: This is not a question of altering frontiers. These States are preserved under this scheme with their character. What will happen is that certain functions which the Taluqdars as rulers have never themselves exercised will be exercised by the attaching state. The population must be entitled to have these functions of Government exercised where necessary for their existence. Certain functions of Government which will in future be of great benefit to the population will be exercised under this scheme by Baroda or Nawanagar or Gondas or certain neighbouring States.
  I would like to emphasise that the Viceroy in dealing with this matter has the right to intervene if the scheme is not worked to his satisfaction for the progress and development of the areas. The Government believe that the scheme which was announced last April and which was on the whole favourably received by the Taluqdars concerned is in the best interests of the population, and it would be most unfortunate if the present state of uncertainty which might degenerate into chaos was not promptly dealt with and I hope that the House will give us the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I sympathise with the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his difficulty of
  1508
  explaining this rather complicated question to the House, and I am quite sure that every Member of the House will share with him, and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler) the regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery) is prevented by indisposition from being here to advocate this Measure himself. Members of the House, I think, have been and are in some difficulty with regard to this Bill, first because it is, in itself, a rather complicated and rather unusual Measure; in the second place, because though we may know a fair amount, after the last few years, about India as a whole, and the larger problems, naturally very few Members have any particular knowledge of the rather minor problems with which we are concerned in this Measure. Many of us have heard a considerable mass of criticism, or complaint, against this Measure which has reached us through the cable, from which we have not always obtained a very clear and precise idea of the matters in dispute. Finally, there is in the second Clause of the Bill a procedure which this House never looks upon without a good deal of misgiving, that is retrospective legislation. For all those reasons, the House will be anxious to do justice to the question and to try to understand the point of view of the people who feel aggrieved by the passage of this legislation.
  As I understand the position, at any rate as maintained by the Government, neither the proposals of the Government nor this Bill, are attempting to abridge the powers of the Taluqdars which they have in fact exercised. As I understand it, all this Bill does is to enable the Viceroy to transfer the powers, which the British administrators have hitherto exercised, from themselves to the rulers of the larger States into which these fragmentary States are going, to some extent, to be incorporated.
  The Attorney-General: For the sake of accuracy, let me say that is quite true with regard to the judicial, civil, and criminal jurisdiction—but not true of the powers of what we may call the Civil Service, communications, health and education, the powers which, in effect, the British authorities have found themselves, for geographical reasons, unable to give to these scattered areas at all.
  Mr. Pethick-Lawrenee: I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his emendation, but I think what I said was incomplete rather than incorrect. I am forced to put this question to myself: What is it, then, to which the Taluqdars object? In the first place they take the line that I understand can be taken—I think the right hon. Gentleman's legal mind will appreciate it if I put it in this form—of questioning whether a trustee can delegate his trustee powers to another person. That seems to me rather what we are doing. The Taluqdars in the past have accepted our kind of trusteeship for their subjects, and they are objecting to our passing over those powers, which they have been willing to trust to us, to other persons, namely, the other States. I rather gather that at the back of their minds is something beyond that. We all know that people in this country are willing to spend money on the purchase of land and estates not for the economic advantages that they obtain from them but for the prestige which being a landlord gives to persons in this country. Now I rather gather that these Taluqdars fear the loss of prestige which will result if the powers which have been exercised by the British are handed over to the large Indian States. They are afraid they will cut a smaller figure as the smaller part of a large State, even if theoretically their rights are preserved, than they do at the present time.
  It is very difficult for this House to judge how far there is justification for those fears, but, of course, what this House has also to judge is whether, quite apart from the views of the Taluqdars, their subjects—if we may so call them—are really going to suffer or gain by the change. The point of view which the Government put forward is that the subjects are going to gain very considerably from the change because, while we have been able through our British agents to exercise a certain measure of legal administration, we have not been able to give to the citizens of these little States the kind of things which in modern days the inhabitants of any country consider to be their due, namely the health services and the other beneficial parts of administration. Of course, in the 150 years or whatever period in which we have been associated with India, the whole conception of the duties of States has changed. In the old days it was a matter of collecting
  1510
  the revenue and preserving law and order; to-day, the State, as we know it in this country, is the fountain of a great deal of beneficent administration concerned with the health and the prosperity of its people. The Government's contention, as I understand it, is that the citizens of these States have been deprived of the growing care and beneficent provisions which most nations have made for their subjects in the course of the last few years, partly because these little princes have such small jurisdiction, and partly because they have such a small revenue that they have not been able to introduce the things which the larger States are expected to introduce from time to time.
  That is the Government case and I must say, subject to an answer to that, it seems to me to be a very strong one. Therefore, unless any clear and proved case is made to the contrary, I think we in this House are bound to give the Government our backing; with this proviso, that, of course, the Government must recognise that we are largely ignorant, and we are trusting them to play the game in the matter. I imagine, from what the Attorney-General said, that there are no treaties which are in any sense being broken in the letter or in the spirit in anything that is being done in this legislation, that we are not really depriving Indians of a power which they have by right of any arrangement, either written or understood, in our relationships with them. I think it would be unfortunate if they could claim that, though the customs were in a sense to be preserved, something was being done to them contrary to the spirit of good relationship between the citizens of this country and the people in India. I am afraid we have to take that on trust from the Government, and if the Government are, as I understand, prepared to asseverate that what I have put in as a proviso is, in fact, the case, my own feeling is that we cannot go behind that and investigate the matter for ourselves. Therefore, so far as that is concerned, I think we must support the Government with regard to this Bill.
  There is only one thing more I have to say. I take it that what these Taluqdars want more than their prestige is the revenue they draw from these estates. I take it that nothing in this Bill would interfere with that. I am not sure that on general principles I regard the revenue which is drawn by these landlords as a

  1511
  particularly good thing, but at the same time it is not our business to interfere. I take it that these Taluqdars are not having their estates abridged. It all comes back to this: If there is anything illegal or improper about these proceedings are they, or are they not, for the benefit of the population concerned? The Government have given their reason for suggesting that they are to the advantage of the population, and that being so, with the proviso which I have already stated, I feel that the House should support the Government in pressing forward this Bill.
  Sir Stanley Reed: I would like, with the permission of the House, to say a few words on this Bill, because it affects an area which I happen to know intimately. I have been through Kathiawar from North to South and from East to West, and at one time or another I have visited every important State except Nawanagar. Now Kathiawar is a most attractive part of India, a varied territory, and full of historic interest with, amongst other monuments, the ruins of the temple of Lomath and the Jain Shrines of the Girnar and Satrunjya Hills. Its people are kindly, generous and hospitable. Yet every time I have been through that province I have been amazed and puzzled at the extraordinary tangle of jurisdictions which it presents. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General gave us a picture of this extraordinary mosaic and invited Members of the House to refer to the map. But even such a reference would give no adequate picture of the actual confusion that exists through this multitude of petty jurisdictions. I was asked the other day how far these minor units extended; I answered that in a morning's ride you might pass through five or six separate jurisdictions.
  This has induced conditions which, unfortunately, as the Attorney-General has said, hold back the progress of the peoples in all directions which we now regard as essential for the well-being of the community.
  Often, when some of the friends who are now appealing to me, in moving terms, to protect their rights, have approached me I have urged them to throw in their rights with the bigger States and not clutter themselves up with these costly jurisdictions and administra-
  1512
  tions which they cannot discharge, to the detriment of their own people, whom they would naturally like to preserve. All this goes back about a century and a quarter to the time of the original settlement when there were no communications and the peoples of the Province lived in isolated communities. But in the '70's railways were introduced and people began to move about. New ideas of social progress developed and the administrative difficulties grew in intensity. Some have urged that this Bill should not be rushed now; that it should be more carefully considered. I do not think we can say that it has been rushed. The actual project has been under elaborate consideration for the last ten years; the actual scheme which is to be legalised by this Bill was promulgated in April of last year, after careful and elaborate inquiry; criticism, if any, would be more accurately directed to the question why action was not taken years ago.
  As I read it, putting aside all legal subtleties and, if I may say so to the Attorney-General, the question of paramountcy—the thing which nobody has attempted to define, and I hope never will—what we have to come down to is the question of what this Bill actually legalises. It legalises the transfer from the Political Agents, the agents of the Imperial Government or of the Crown, of certain administrative rights to the adjoining major States, reserving all the other essential rights to the non-salute States and Taluqdars. To what States are these responsibilities being transferred? In the main to Baroda, in part to Nawanagar, in part to Bhavanagar, and, to a certain extent, to Gondal. It has been argued that this means the transfer from the Political Agents, representing the Crown, and so from the rule based on law, to States which are in a sense autocratic and where the same definite rule of law does not obtain. But that is not wholly so. The major part of the transfer will be to Baroda, which has a tradition of upright and honest rule over the last 50 years. No State in India has a higher reputation for upright and progressive administration than Bhavnagar. The Maharajah of Nawanagar was in this country recently as a member of the War Cabinet; those who know him and heard his speeches cannot have any doubt that he will discharge these duties in a high spirit of responsibility.

  1513
  So we come to this other fact. This change should in my opinion have been made 50 years ago. It has been forced to the front now by two impulses. One was the broad consideration of the future Indian States, which were considered when the Government of India Act, 1935, for the establishment of a Federal Government for All India was brought up for consideration. It has been forced to the front again because India no more stands at gaze than any other part of the world. Here are 800,000 people who hitherto have not enjoyed the education, public health and other amenities which we regard as essential to the well-being of the body politic. It is a blunt fact, but one which we must recognise, that they cannot have these beneficial services under the present system. None of these non-salute States and Taluqdaries has the funds, the experience and the administrative services to provide them.
  There are only two alternatives. One was a confederation, which had to be put aside because of the inescapable facts of geography. These States are too scattered and there is, moreover, a lack of readiness to give up cherished power and coalesce. The other alternative was to transfer them or group them into a British agency. That, too, came up against the inescapable fact of geography.
  So we come down to this basic fact. If these 800,000 people are to enjoy these amenities—education, public health and opportunities of leading a higher social life—this is the only possible way in which it can be done. If there was any other alternative, I should welcome it, because I feel intensely with those, many personal friends, who are losing something of the prestige and authority which naturally they cling to with tenacity. I should be happy if this could be avoided, if that were possible. It is not possible; the change must be made. This is no new conviction of mine. This was bound to happen. It ought to have happened years ago and I do not think we should lose the opportunity of giving effect to it now.
  There is another point which I would ask my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education to deal with. In a communiqué issued outlining these proposals which would have come into force in April last if it had not been for these legal difficulties, the Government of India say it
  1514
  "contains due provision for the continued integrity of the attached units and of the existing powers and privileges of their Taluqdars and shareholders."
  I hope my right hon. Friend will confirm that in the most emphatic manner, so that those apprehensions which exist, rightly or wrongly, and which we should like to see dispersed, may be eliminated from those who are brought within the purview of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) applied an acid test. Is this Bill fair and in the true interest of the 800,000 people embraced within it? I would assure him and the House that to the best of my knowledge the 800,000 people affected will derive permanent benefit and advantage from its operation and for that reason I hope the House will give the Measure favourable consideration.
  Mr. Maxton: In about 17 minutes from now I have an appointment with Mr. Speaker upstairs, to apply my mind to the problem of trying to tidy up the general political control of Great Britain. If I have to leave before the right hon. Gentleman replies to the Debate, I hope he will understand that a command from Mr. Speaker comes second to a Royal command and that listening to him has some lesser priority. My absence will not be due to any discourtesy but to important duties in another part of the building. When I think of the job that I am going to do upstairs, and when we hear about the rights of small constituencies, and think of the weeks or months that we shall probably spend in discussing those matters, I also think how the House is asked to dispose of this matter affecting many people in India in the shortest possible time. I do not take the view that there is something discreditable about devoting time to the consideration of the welfare of these small groups in India.
  I am not so satisfied as the majority of the Conservative Party seem to be that on every occasion large scale organisation is superior to the small control and the elimination of the small man. [Interruption.] The hon. Member misunderstands Socialism, just as I am sure he misinterprets Conservatism. What puzzles me is this. It was only in 1935 that we passed a very voluminous Statute settling the affairs of the Government of India, to

  1515
  the extent that we are capable of settling them, and that legislation was produced after two very hard-working Commissions had visited India and gone over the whole territory. The Bill was debated in great detail Clause by Clause. At that time the combined wisdom of this House was of the opinion that these small groups were to be left. [Interruption.] What does the hon. Member mean by shaking his head?
  Mr. Molson: The purpose of the Bill is to interpret the Government of India Act, 1935. When it was passed it was never contemplated that Section 1 (2) would prevent the Governor-General from authorising the attachment of these small States to a larger one.
  Mr. Maxton: That is very ingenious. I am sure the Government must appreciate the arrival of another apologist for their legislation.
  Mr. Molson: It is exactly what the Attorney-General said, but the hon. Member did not understand it.
  Mr. Maxton: Why does the hon. Member think that his repetition will help matters? Both he and the right hon. and learned Gentleman were asked to give an interpretation of the Clause as a whole. The right hon. and learned Gentleman slid away from it when challenged. The Government of India went to the court for a decision, and it decided against the view that the Attorney-General has stated and that the hon. Member has so enthusiastically supported. The proper constitutional procedure was to bring it to the Privy Council and let them decide whether the Attorney-General is right or wrong in his prophecy about the result. If it be that he knows there will be someone on the Privy Council who will look after his interests—[Interruption.] Surely it is not improper to refer to my right hon. and learned Friend's prospects in the ordinary course of events of high judicial preferment. I was not referring to the influence he might bring to bear on any of the Noble Lords who are at present there.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): I am wondering whether the hon. Member is not getting a little wide on this rather narrow Bill.
  Mr. Maxton: I suppose that it would be wrong to criticise the Privy Council and I am not attempting to do it. I am criticising the Bill and saying that it should never have been brought here. The Government of India took the matter into court, but it should have come here and been settled by the court that has been set up here for that purpose. As far as I can gather from cables from the people affected, that is their view, and they say that if it came here and they got the worst of it they would accept it. At the moment, however, they are not prepared to do so. The right hon. and learned Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman above the Gangway said that the object of the Bill was to bring to these people all the benefits that can only accrue to the residents in the larger communities—the great education services, social services, health services and so on—and that cannot be properly operated in these small territories. When criticism has been made of the conditions of the people in India, it has not been about the conditions in the wee places. It was not in the small States that there was starvation, but in Bengal. When people talk about the tremendous benefits that will accrue from this change, I would like to see greater evidence in the rest of India, in the big territories, of great social improvements before I would be inclined to agree that the transfer of these little places to bigger areas of administration would bring about all the benefits that are claimed for them to-day.
  Sir S. Reed: A large number of these transfers are to the State of Baroda. That State has had universal primary education for 25 years, and also technological and art education, which none of the small States can possibly provide from their own resources. I say that in justice to a State that has deserved well from us.
  Mr. Maxton: It is difficult to visualise the geographical situation properly, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will put a map in some convenient place in the House between now and the Committee stage. I consulted a map, but it did not give the details that were necessary for a proper appreciation of the matter. One hon. Gentleman said it necessitated travelling 300 miles to get to some of these places. I have to travel 400 miles to get to my constituency. It will not, therefore, be such a terrible administra-

  1517
  tive job to travel to these places. If the Government of India went to the Taluqdars and told them that there must be decent education for the children, decent medical treatment for them; that they should see that their old folks did not die by the roadside and that they were to get going with reforms; and if they were told that to the extent that they did these things the Government were prepared to assist them financially, there would be a better and quicker response from the small men than there would be from the big Princes and big States.
  Wing-Commander Grant-Ferris: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that many of these States have a revenue of less than £100 in our money?
  Mr. Maxton: I know parishes in Scotland which have less than £100. I will not oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, but I want some more information and some better arguments before I agree to allow the Committee stage to proceed.
  Mr. Graham White: I do not wish to make any appreciable contribution to the exchange of views that has taken place on the more legal aspects of this business. Nor do I intend to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) on the line of country he has been following. I am somewhat surprised to find him making a speech in defence of what are, in effect, the lords of the manor. This Bill, which concerns perhaps 1, 000,000 of the 400,000,000 population of India, may Seem a relatively small affair, but it contains a challenge to certain principles which are of importance. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) pointed out, it is a challenge to the heavy responsibility which the House of Commons still enjoys under the Government of India Act, a responsibility which it is extraordinarily hard for the House to discharge conscientiously having regard to the fact that there are very few of us who have any practical personal acquaintance with the nature of the problem in hand.
  We have the advantage to-day of a speech from one of those who knows the problem at first-hand, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed), to whom we all listen as one who can speak from
  1518
  actual knowledge of the country. The responsibility of the House would be more easily and more properly discharged if we had more information. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education may fill in some gaps which were not mentioned by the Attorney-General, who was more concerned with the legal side of the affair. It would have been a help if we had been told by the Government spokesmen that all parties had been consulted. We have not been told whether the attaching States, even, have been consulted as to whether they are willing to take the responsibility.
  The Attorney-General: I did say that. I said that the attaching States had all agreed that the populations of the States which were to be attached would get the benefits of then educational, health and other facilities. I thought I had made it quite clear that they had been consulted.
  Mr. White: I am obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend, because his information is possibly more up to date than my own. I noticed that the Jam Sahib of Nawanagar, speaking in the Chamber of Princes as lately as 23rd January, declared that the text of the Bill had not been furnished and said they had depended upon information such as they could gather from the Press. He was asking that the views and representations that they were making in the Chamber of Princes should be considered before the Bill was proceeded with. I would ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether that has been done. If it has not been done, it might very likely influence Members of this House in making up their minds whether or not to give a Second Reading to the Bill. The House of Commons, if it is to treat these matters seriously when they come before it from India, must, I claim, be better informed on those matters than it has been in the past. I leave that side of the subject, as my right hon. and learned Friend assures me that the States are willing to undertake this responsibility as well as the additional expenditure of providing the social services, which are now denied to these isolated enclaves of population.
  I am bound to add to this that I am in some little state of confusion about the position of the peoples concerned. Originally they were in favour of this Measure, but it now appears that they are not.

  1519
  One would be interested to know just what has occurred to make them change their view. Are they now concerned with the question of what is the difference between attachment and annexation? Or what is in their minds? While I am mentioning this point, I might say that there has been a considerable volume of confusion—and my right hon. and learned Friend mentioned it—which is now to be set right by making this legislation retrospective, which is one of the objects of Clause 1 (2) of the Bill. Its object is to smooth out difficulties and confusions, which, he says, have arisen. It would be very interesting if we could be informed how those confusions arose. Are they due to discontent with the proposals?
  The Attorney-General: The only confusion to which I was referring was that which has arisen as the result of, and since, the decision of the Judicial Commissioners' Court that the Order which was to bring the scheme into operation is ultra vires. That is the only important confusion which it is now necessary to clear up.
  Mr. White: I am again obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend, because his statement clears up the point. Still, something has arisen which has upset these people. We have been assured that their rights and privileges are secured. I am not so much concerned about the fate of the people as about the duty that we have, and which we must perform, of taking a decision in regard to them. In asking whether the people of those isolated populations have been consulted or not, one has to ask oneself whether it is, in fact, possible to consult them. It is not easy to ascertain their views and they can be very difficult people to deal with, whether they are consulted or not. I can illustrate my point with an incident which occurred to a friend of many hon. Members in this House, the late Jam Sahib of Nawanagar. When he went back to India from this country he made up his mind that he would build a fine school and a health centre which everyone would want, so he set to work, and built and equipped the school, at great expense. The scheme was carried to the point at which a day was fixed for the opening. Within two days of the opening, the various spiritual advisers of the population who were to come to the school,
  1520
  told the people that they must not go near it. The result was that some 4,000 or 5,000 people took up their beds and walked into the neighbouring State, and there they stayed for years. As to what became of the school, I can only say that the Jam Sahib had the best equipped garage in the whole of India. I mention this as an illustration of the fact that these populations can be exceedingly difficult to please.
  I would also like to ask whether this matter has been considered—as I suppose it must have been—in connection with possible future developments in Indian policy, and whether there have been, or are likely to be, difficulties arising from the attachment of Hindu estates to Moslem estates, or vice versa. Anybody who considers this matter dispassionately, must come to the conclusion that if the House of Commons is to come to a decision in the interests of these people we must ask whether conditions that one can foresee are likely to deprive them of the social amenities and services which we now regard as their common right. There may well be some opinion in the country as well as in this House which takes exception to the handing over, the attachment, of these entities of territory and people to autocratic States which are not in accordance with the modern trend of thought.
  Looking at the thing, as practical men, we must realise that it would be impracticable, if these communities were attached to British India, to provide effective services on anything like an economic basis. Some are situated in the very middle of the States to which it is now proposed to attach them and there can be no question that they will be transferred to enlightened States. No one doubts that they will benefit, provided, of course, that the Rulers of those States are, in fact, willing to give them the services which they give to their own people. On that point there can be no doubt. I do not think there is any practical alternative to this proposal. We cannot leave them as they are, and we cannot simply tell them to make the best arrangements in the circumstances with their larger neighbours. I must, however, say again that the matter has not been presented to Parliament, so far, with the amount of information which we require in order to discharge the very heavy responsibility which lies upon this House in connection with a Bill of this kind.
  Mr. Molson: I must take exception to the suggestion in the speech of the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) and also in that of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Max-ton) that the House has not been given adequate information upon which to form an opinion. I thought that the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General did set out extremely clearly the comparatively simple issues which arise on this Bill. I object still more to the suggestion in the speech of the hon. Member for Bridgeton that this House does not give sufficient time and thought to matters concerning the government of India. He said towards the end of his conclusions that he was relying very largely upon his imagination in order to make his speech, and that was apparent to anyone who listened carefully and patiently to what he had to say.
  The purpose of this Bill, as I see it, arises out of Sub-section (2) of Section of the Government of India Act. The Committee generally known at the Butler Committee, presided over by the uncle of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education, which inquired into the constitutional position of the Indian States, gave it as their considered opinion that the Indian States could not be handed over to any Government in India which was responsible to an Indian electorate and was not wholly responsible to the Crown. It was because that view was accepted by the Government of India and by the Joint Select Committee that this Sub-section was put into Section 1 of the Government of India Act. The purpose of it was to ensure that the Indian States should not be put under the control of a popular Government set up in British India. It was not at that time imagined by the House that the effect of this Subsection would be to prevent the Representative of the Crown, in the exercise of the powers of paramountcy, from taking any steps which appeared to him to be generally desirable to attach small States to larger States in the district. It was only when this matter came before the Judicial Commissioner in Kathiawar that it was found that this Sub-section, which had been intended by Parliament to deal with one particular matter did, in fact, because of the wideness of the terms, prevent the Representative of the Crown in India from making the attachment of
  1522
  these small States to larger States in the neighbourhood.
  When we look at the matter from the point of view of the good government of India, we find here a vast number, about 600, of these States, some of which could be better described as estates. The average size of them is, I believe, 15 square miles, and some of them are as small as six of eight square miles. For a long time we, the paramount Power, have had there a Judicial Commissioner in order to make certain that at any rate law and order are maintained in these small States, but in everything that affects what are generally called in India the nation building services—roads, education, health, and so on—they have been left to their own devices, and each one of these small rulers enjoys almost unrestricted power. It is, in fact, the case that in these small States it is possible for anyone of them to put up a special Customs barrier. Therefore, at a time when other parts of India both under British rule and the Indian States have been making notable progress in the way of social services, particularly in the case of these larger Western Indian States like Nawanagar and Baroda, these 600 small States have not participated in those advantages.
  So it was in the natural development of political thought that something in the nature of a measure of mediatisation, to use the word which was used by Germany, should have been adopted by the Crown Representative, that these small States in Kathiawar might be attached to the prosperous and well-governed larger neighbouring States in order that they might enjoy the same advantages as the State. Then, this test case being taken before the judicial Commissioner in Kathiawar, he interpreted the taw as meaning that under this Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Government of India Act, 1935, Measures which had always been assumed to be well within the power of the Representative of the Crown in India were in fact unlawful. Therefore, I feel that it is unreasonable that all this discussion should have taken place in which it has been suggested that it has not been made plain to the House how this problem has arisen. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) dearly appreciated the position. He has realised how peculiar is the special position of the Indian States, and how

  1523
  beneficial it would be to the inhabitants of these numerous very small States in Kathiawar to be attached for administrative purposes to the neighbouring States. I hope, therefore, that the House will be willing to give a Second Reading to this Bill.
  Mr. Sorensen: We have covered the ground fairly well to-day and there is no excuse on the part of anyone here for not understanding the object of this Bill and the associated facts. Therefore, I do not intend to keep the House more than a few minutes, especially as I very much desire to hear the reply of the President of the Board of Education. I must say, however, it is, to say the least, curious that we have had to wait so long for this Bill to be brought forward. I thoroughly appreciate the explanation which has been given and I am not attributing any ulterior motive to the delay but certainly from one standpoint it seems somewhat belated. I should also like to state that if there had been as much desire to find out what was the feeling and opinion of the peoples who are involved in this transfer as there has been to secure the legal power of such attachment I should have been much more impressed. It is not good enough to suggest that we must merely pass this Bill in order to do good to the people of these 400 or 600 centres. Something more is required than merely a desire to do good in this rather indirect constitutional fashion.
  I submit that so long as we still pay attention to the principle of democracy we should have attempted, at least, to find out what was the opinion of the people who are actually affected. I know it has been said by the previous speaker that this would have been almost impossible—at least he appeared to imply that. If that be so, I cannot quite understand why not only the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) but one or two other Members of this House have had numerous cables fluttering through their letter-boxes, some specimens of which I have in my hand now, and I believe that my hon. Friend in front also has some specimens. It might not be out of place if I read at least one representative cable out of a large number because it indicates that there is some kind of public opinion in the estates or States that are affected. Here by way of example is one:
  1524
  "We subjects of Khadal Ghodasar Vadagam Sathamba Dedhrota Hapa and Jabet States—"
  I do not know any of them but I am sure they exist—
  "in Western India States Agency ordered to be attached to Idar and Baroda States already protested against attachment and sent our representations to his Excellency the Crown Representative. We are attached without being consulted and without our consent. Bill to legalise scheme of attachment is rushed through Parliament without ascertaining our wishes. We do not want to be attached to autocratic States where our future is not certain. Proposed attachment is supposed to be in our interest but on the terms of attachment no benefits will result to us. On the contrary we are to be transferred from British courts to courts not based on rule of law. We are transferred as if we were mere things. We are happier in our present States. Proposed legislation not acceptable if rushed through."
  Another cable, the text of which I shall not read, follows much the same line and is signed by, amongst others, the President of the Ghodar State Subjects Committee, the President of the Khodal State Subjects Conference, the President of the Vadagam State Subjects Committee and the Presidents of the Sathamba, Napa and Gapat State Peoples' Associations and quite a number of others.
  Wing-Commander Grant-Ferris: Is the hon. Member quite certain that there is no possibility of those telegrams having their origin from Congress sympathisers?
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Smiles: Is the hon. Member aware that sometimes two barristers get together in India and form themselves into an Association?
  Mr. Sorensen: I am well aware that that method may be pursued, if not in India then certainly in this country, and thus when we receive communications from the Lord's Day Observance Society and other organisations we can estimate their value. But because such methods are not unknown in this country and possibly in India that is no reason to assume the cables we have received are of that character. We must assume even with societies in this country which organise petitions that there is some public opinion on the matter. Is it suggested that in not one of those centres is there any kind of organised public opinion? Bearing in mind what has been said about the possibility of engineered protests, we must assume nevertheless that these cables are

  1525
  perfectly genuine. Until I have evidence to the contrary I am going to assume that they represent a substantial part of the public opinion in the areas affected.
  In any case, what has been done to find out the feeling of the people on the spot? No attempt apparently was made by the Indian Government or by ourselves to find out what is felt by the people affected regarding these proposed transfers. Undoubtedly the transfers will be to autocratic States. I do not deny the liberalising tendency and the beneficial social development in Baroda. All praise is due to that State and the Maharajah of that State for developing along those lines. But that does not alter the fact that it is an autocratic State although of a benevolent character. I submit that our responsibility is not only to ask whether for constitutional and organisational purposes these small States should be swallowed up by the larger ones, but to find out the opinion of the 800,000 people themselves. Apparently that has not been done—more is the pity. I can fully appreciate the contention that as they are these small areas may not be able to develop their educational facilities or their social services and that they may lag behind contiguous areas and authorities. But if so it is largely if not entirely through lack of finance. If the money were available in these areas, apart from the organisational difficulties there would be considerable advance. Therefore, why have not steps been taken before now to secure the necessary grants of money to these areas so that they can develop their social services?
  I do not see any guarantee in this Bill that by the transfer of these States or estates they are going to benefit socially in the immediate future. If there had been some guarantee the Bill might have been more attractive although I still should maintain the principle of consulting the people on the spot. Is it too late even now to ask the people in those areas what they prefer—to go to them now and to say "This is what is proposed," to elaborate the advantages and after such elaboration to secure their consent? If they consent there can be no objection, But surely they are entitled to such consultation. I must express my regret that this Bill has come forward apparently without due consideration for the people themselves, who are to be transferred from these small autocracies to greater autocracies and without any guarantee of
  1526
  substantial social advantage to them. We have heard a great deal in recent years about the difficulty of securing constitutional changes during the war. Although this is not a constitutional change of great magnitude, it affects 800,000 people, and if we can effect a constitutional change of this kind, affecting 800,000 people, it suggests that larger constitutional changes of a more democratic character are not impossible. I once more appeal to the President of the Board of Education, and, through him, to the Secretary of State for India, to find some means of consulting these people, of considering their protests, and of taking into account their public opinion.
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I must confess that I find myself somewhat puzzled by the way in which this Bill has been presented to the House and the course the Debate has taken. Up to the present, the assumption in every speech, from that of my right hon. and learned Friend downwards, has been that this is a Bill to attach smaller States to larger States in Kathiawar and Gujerat for purposes of better administration. That is not correct in the slightest degree. Neither Kathiawar nor Gujerat is mentioned in the Bill, although it may well be that the present intention of the present Government of India is to apply this Bill in that direction, if the Bill is passed. But I would direct the attention of hon. Members to the Bill itself. It says that any Indian States not mentioned in Divisions I to XVI of the Table of States in Part II of the First Schedule to the Act of 1935 may be attached—in other words, may be extinguished, for that is what it may amount to. I may be wrong and I hope I am wrong, but it appears to me that the States not mentioned in Divisions I to XVI in Part II of the First Schedule of the Government of India Act, 1935, far from having a population of only 800,000—I hope my right hon. Friend will give me his attention.
  The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): I have heard every word. I do not know what the hon. Member is referring to, for I have heard every word he said. It is quite unworthy to suggest I was not listening.
  Mr. Nicholson: Of course, I withdraw that, but there was a conversation going on. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will

  1527
  accept my assurance that I was not trying to be rude to him, but I did not feel that I had his attention. My point is that, by my reading of the Government of India Act, I find that the population affected by this Bill is not 800,000 but over 3,000,000.
  Mr. Sorensen: Is that correct, because we have been misled if that be true?. We have been led to suppose that the population is between 800,000 and 1,000,000. If the hon. Member is right, we should like to have some correction.
  Mr. Nicholson: Indeed, I strongly suspect I must be wrong, because I cannot believe that the House could have been misled in such a way. Hon. Members will see from their copies of the Bill that it says that any States not mentioned in these sixteen Divisions are liable to attachment. If you turn to the Government of India Act, 1935, you will find that Division XVII, which deals with the States not mentioned in any of the preceding Divisions, gives the population of those States as over 3,000,000—I take it, on the 1931 census. I do not know where many of these States are outside Gujarat and Kathiawar. I myself only know one at first hand—which is in Orissa. It is a small State excellently administered. I think that it would be certainly outside the intention of this House that, by the passage of this Bill, powers wider than the attachment of States in Gujarat and Kathiawar should be given to the Government of India. I should be very much surprised to find that I am right in what I am saying but I certainly think that this is a point which needs to be cleared up.
  The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): I am sure that the House will regret, as much as I do, the absence of the Secretary of State for India, and, if I take over this Debate on his behalf, I do so in the hope that he will be rapidly restored to health and will be back with us soon. I feel also that my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General has dealt in so learned and comprehensive a manner with the subject, that I need not detain the House long.
  I think it would be right to say that the House has, in general, given a great deal of encouragement and support to the Government in proceeding with the Second Reading of this Bill. My task will be to answer some of the points that have
  1528
  been raised to the best of my ability, and further, to reassure hon. Members that this Bill is one which should be proceeded with, subject, naturally, to its examination in later stages. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), in his usual inimitable style, attempted to infuse into our Debate some of those wider philosophical and political conceptions upon which, if I desired, I could dwell for a very long time. He expressed himself as favouring the small man versus the large, and gave us some ideas of his own political philosophy. It seems to me that, in considering this particular matter, what we ought to have in mind is what is of advantage to the subjects of these small States. We should have before us, continually, what is going to be best for their administration, and for the social services to which reference has been made, and if we take that as a particular criterion, I am sure I am expressing the opinion of the House when I say that there is no other alternative but to proceed as suggested here. We have here a practical problem of considerable importance, and I am sure the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed) was right in saying that there was as strong a case to-day as there was for strong action of this sort many years ago.
  The geographical position is quite peculiar. The State of Baroda itself is divided into several parts, and the parcellation which results from the multiplicity of these small States is almost unbelievable. In order to bring it to the attention of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen I will agree to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Bridgeton that a map should be laid in the Library. If hon. Members will look at these maps—there will be several to illustrate different areas—they will see what the parcellation is before the attachment scheme comes into force, and what it will be with the attachment scheme in operation. They will have the opportunity of realising that, so far as administration goes, the case for this Measure is absolutely overwhelming.
  It has been put in the course of this Debate that the social services could have been administered on the basis of existing units. One hon. Member has suggested that each Taluqdar should be approached and that it should be suggested to him that, in his own area, described in our Debates as being of the

  1529
  size of a parish, lie should himself develop social services and get Government support for so doing. The answer to that is that when the Crown Representatives' officers have attempted to take in hand the administration of matters other than the jurisdiction of the courts in these intensely scattered areas, they have found it exceedingly difficult. The difficulty of providing proper administration is due to the extraordinary geographical boundaries of these areas and their very small size. An appeal was made to me to apply my own experience in the problem of education. I can assure the House that if I had to apply education to these very small units one by one, I should have a problem to which it would be beyond the wit of man to devise a solution. The attachment scheme, which this Bill legalises and puts beyond doubt in law, provides that smaller units shall be grouped with larger units for the benefit of administration, and in legalising that scheme the Bill makes certain of a plan which in effect will preserve the existing rights of the Taluqdars, and, at the same time, secure a better position for their subjects in regard to the administration of the services such as have been referred to.
  Let me deal before I go on to larger questions, with some of the points raised in the discussion. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick Lawrence) asked me to assure him that no treaties were being broken. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, from the most exhaustive researches, that there are no treaties between us and these small States. I can give that assurance owing to the profundity of the researches I have made. The hon. Member for Aylesbury asked whether the privileges and rights of the Taluqdars were being isolated. I have before me the Instrument of Attachment, as it is called, annexed to which is a Schedule, which states quite clearly the existing powers and personal privileges of the Taluqdar which are preserved in the scheme of attachment.
  The hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. Graham White) raised the question of consultation, which was also referred to by the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen). If the situation in this area of India were exactly the same as in our own country—and I often think that
  1530
  in our Debates in this House we imagine everything is exactly the same all the world over—it would be easier to indulge in the formulation of the solution that hon. Members would desire. A definite point was put by the hon. Member for East Birkenhead. Is it possible, he asked, to consult the inhabitants of those States in the way that one would desire? The position is so varied and complex, that I do not think that it would be possible to consult them as he would desire. This scheme has been investigated with the greatest care for several years now, and I could inform the House of the many different stages which have been gone through by the Crown Representative and the able officers on the spot, men who know the States, who know the Taluqdars and know the leaders of local opinion. Every effort has been made to obtain local opinion as to whether this scheme would be the right one or not. The Attorney-General answered the hon. Member for East Birkenhead on the subject of the consent given by the attaching States and on the nature of the consultation held with them. There has actually been no formal consultation with the Chamber itself.
  Mr. Graham White: If this were asked for, I suppose consideration could be given to it before all the stages of the Bill were completed.
  Mr. Butler: It is a matter in which we should rely on the discretion of the Crown Representative, and I am sure that contacts have been made. It is urgent for us to proceed with the passage of the Measure because of the situation existing at the present time. The hon. Member raised another problem as to whether it was right that Hindu inhabitants should be attached to Moslem States. There are certain Hindus, in this instance, who will be attached to the State of Junagadh, which has a Moslem Ruler, but I do not suppose that the hon. Gentleman will imagine that there is anything particularly wrong in that, since in all parts of India we see Rulers of one religion being Rulers of States in which the inhabitants are chiefly of another persuasion. That is a normal thing in India, and I need not continue to discuss it. My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) raised quite a substantial point of whether this Bill applied to areas larger than Kathiawar and Gujarat.

  1531
  The Schedule of the Government of India may have interpreted it in that sense, but interpreting it in that sense might cause considerable alarm, and it might be thought that the Bill could be applied to a larger area. The provision of this particular Schedule of the Government of India Act, which I remember something about, was drafted for convenience. In the language used in the Bill itself, it covers almost exactly the area which the House has before it, and that is the area of Kathiawar and Gujarat. But there are some other States, really very few, which would be affected. They are small States of exactly the same character of those with which we are dealing. If my hon. Friend wants further to pursue this matter, he should accept the general position on Second Reading, that this definition does almost exactly cover the States with which we want to deal with the exception of one or two others in other parts, and should pursue his investigation into those other parts on the Committee stage.
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Could my right hon. Friend tell me how the difference between 800,000 and over 3,000,000 is got over?
  Mr. Butler: I do not necessarily accept my hon. Friend's figure of over 3,000,000 but I will certanly investigate the point. I see now how he derives his figure. I accept the significance of my right hon. Friend's figure, but I would like to investigate further, before the Committee stage, the number of extra States likely to be affected. My opinion is, on information received, that there would be very few indeed, and if he pursues that point at later stages he will be able to examine the exact terms of the Bill.
  We now come to the main issue, which is the relation of the Bill to the Indian States. It may seem to some of the Princes, to whose signal services to the Crown in the war, I am sure, the House would wish to pay tribute—and particularly when they are unfamiliar with and unaffected by the problem of these areas—that Parliament will be departing from long tradition in legislating for these States and passing such a Measure into law. It may even seem that the object of the Measure is to remove from some of the States rights and privileges which they have long enjoyed. I hope nothing
  1532
  has been said in the Debate to show that that is our object. No rights have been taken away. On the other hand, no new policy or regime is being imposed by law. The object of the Bill is simply to clarify a situation which, judicially, since the inception of the Government of India Act, has been left obscure and confused. The provisions of the Bill are directed to remedying these obscurities. The Viceroy, after its passage, will be entitled to continue without question of legal validity, the exercise of his functions in relation to these States. He will have obtained no new powers and he will have been directed to pursue no new policy. It is merely to enable him to resume freedom of action in the interests of all concerned.
  Mr. David Grenfell: Would it not be for the convenience of the House, and the Minister himself, to state a few cases of attachment to show what has been done and what the nature of the attachments have been?
  Mr. Butler: It is rather a difficult and complicated thing to do. It would be better to do it on the later stages of the Bill. I was dealing with the relationship of the Crown and Parliament to the Indian States. It is difficult to make a consecutive speech if I have to break into it to deal with this point. I could, if my hon. Friend wishes me to divert—
  Mr. Grenfell: Not now.
  Mr. Butler: In that case, I suggest that instances be given in the course of the further passage of the Bill and that we confine ourselves on Second Reading to the main issues involved. I was just saying that the powers which the Taluqdar have exercised in the past will be made secure by the passage of the Measure. No doubt an opportunity will arise on the later stages of the Bill to answer certain detailed points which have been raised. What is clear to-day, as described in the Indian States Report, to which my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) referred, is that:
  "Conditions alter rapidly in a changing world. Imperial necessity and new conditions may at any time raise unexpected situations."
  That was included in the words of the Report of the Indian States Committee and it is with this situation we are dealing to-day. The Report goes on to say:
  "Paramountcy must remain paramount. It must fulfil its obligations defining or adapting

  1533
  itself according to the shifting necessities of the time and the progressive development of the States."
  What the policy is doing in this case is adapting the position to the shifting necessities of the time, and to this end I submit that the House will be wise to pass this Measure. Unless it is passed, I feel that the position may not be satisfactory for the subjects and inhabitants of these States.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—[Mr. Beechman.]
  Committee upon the next Sitting Day.

  OFFICIAL REPORT, HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Beechman.]
  Commander King-Hall: The immediate cause of the remarks which I am going to make to-day was the negative reply which I received from the Government to the request that we might have a Debate on a Motion which stood on the Order Paper in my name, and that of 250 other hon. Members, to the effect that HANSARD should be supplied to the Libraries and discussion centres of the Armed Forces of the Crown at the public expense. I believe I could have obtained another 68 signatures to that Motion, and it would have been interesting to know whether, if we had got as far as 318 signatures, the Government would have accepted it as an affirmative Resolution. I informed the Government that on this occasion I proposed to raise the general question of the supply of HANSARD to the public and this particular question of the supply of some copies of HANSARD to the Armed Forces. May I say at once that I am quite convinced there is no deep question of principle on this matter between the Government and myself. The most, I think, that my hon. Friend will say to me is, "Hasten slowly!" Indeed it is very difficult to suppose that any Government in the House of Commons would object to any measures calculated to improve knowledge by the people of the proceedings of Parliament. It may be, and I think it is,
  1534
  that perhaps the Government are not yet quite fully seized of the importance of this subject which I am raising on the Adjournment.
  In effect, it can briefly be summarised as being the whole question of the public relations of Parliament. I would first take this case of the supply of HANSARD to the Armed Forces of the Crown. One of the most remarkable consequences of this war has been the extraordinary growth of educational activity in the Armed Forces, and anyone who knows anything about it would pay a tribute to the work which is being done in that respect in the whole range of education for citizenship. I do not want to weary the House by attempting to describe what that set-up is, but if anyone examines it he will find that in the various Commands of the Fighting Services there are senior educational officers and there are officers under them in areas, and, in a very short time, one finds oneself dealing with hundreds of centres of discussion and education. If one goes down to the lower levels, the figure amounts to thousands. I might, for instance, mention to the House that I recently had the privilege of receiving an invitation to go up North to one section of the Naval Command to spend a fortnight there talking to them about the actual day-to-day work of Parliament. The letter said:
  "I hope you will be able to give to me at least four lectures a day, because that is the minimum in a fortnight which will be of any use, so great is the demand to hear this kind of thing discussed there."
  The provision of HANSARD to the officers responsible for all this enormous education work which is going on—and I am confining myself solely for the time being to the three Services in the United Kingdom—would be of the greatest assistance to them in their work. I have here a selection from a large number of communications I have received, and I would like to read out to the House a typical communication. I have chosen one from each of the Services. The first one comes from the Air Force, and the officer concerned wrote me a long letter of which I give this extract:
  "The news room plays a vital part in informing all ranks of the progress of the war, and encouraging them to take an intelligent interest in their duties as citizens whilst they are at war. There is a liberal supply of newspaper maps and plotted war fronts, periodicals, pamphlets and books. Some stations in my area have as many as 200 visits a day."
  Now this is the part which I think will interest the House:

  1535
  "Hansard is the most important publication in the news room. It brings home to all the value of our Parliamentary democracy, which we are fighting for. Every side of the question can be seen to be cogently argued and for the first time many see their own opinions being expressed in Parliament. It is the answer to the suspicion that the House of Commons is out of touch with the sentiments of the services or that only one point of view is considered."
  That comes from one of the Bomber Command groups. I have a letter here from one of the big A.A. areas and, in response to a question, I arranged for some specimen copies of HANSARD to be sent. The Welfare Officer—who happens to be a Member of this House—wrote back:
  "Many thanks for copies of Hansard, which have been received with great enthusiasm. The education officer is of the opinion that he will be able to get authority to expend from the funds £25 a year on the daily provision of Hansard. I would be glad if you would let me know how many daily copies we could get for that amount."
  He goes on to say:
  "It is very good of you to say you will do what you can to raise the necessary additional money to give the required 50 daily copies of Hansard which we need in this area."
  Then I have a letter here from a Naval Signalling School which says much the same thing, only the writer observes that he has written to the Stationery Office, as they have not very much money, wondering if they could get reduced rates if they ordered the two copies they needed, and he was told that only public libraries are entitled to have special rates. Finally, I have a letter from the Army. This comes from a very large depot up in the North, and the officer says:
  "It would be very helpful, and so useful to us, for lectures and discussions for men in this unit. I have to produce a new one to last 90 minutes for six days in the week."
  I can well believe he would find it useful to have HANSARD. That is just a selection from a very large correspondence, which I could produce, illustrating what a great convenience it would be to the Services to have copies of HANSARD at these centres from which all this enormous amount of discussion and study is now emanating. In a perfect world, my calculation is that I could guarantee a very good home for not fewer than 2,000 copies of HANSARD, every issue, in this country alone—and I am not saying anything about the Services abroad and the demand I know there is
  1536
  for it out in Cairo and Alexandria. I recognise, however, that this is by no means a perfect world, and that there are technical difficulties of production, and I am prepared to say that 500 copies of HANSARD, shared out amongst the Forces, would at any rate touch the fringe of the problem. That is a phrase used to me by an officer very high up in this matter. He said, "Get us 500 copies. It would touch the fringe of the problem." I suggested that the Army should have 200, the R.A.F. 200, and 100 should go to the shore establishments of the Navy.
  That, in brief, is the case for this particular argument for the supply of HANSARD at the public expense to the Armed Forces. At least may I make this plea, that while I do not believe, as a matter of fact, that the Treasury will object to the small expense involved, if there is an objection, at any rate let the Armed Forces have HANSARD at the reduced rate which is now available to the public library. Personally I feel it is not asking much of the financial side, and I say frankly that I am not anticipating much objection there. There are technical difficulties in dealing with 2,000, but I think that 500 is not an unreasonable request for all the Fighting Services in this country.
  Now I want to say something about the general question which, as I explained to the House, is really that of the public relations of Parliament. I think it is up to me very briefly to explain to the House why it is that I am rather concerned with this, and am receiving correspondence on this subject from people all over the country. Some 100 Members of both Houses will know the answer to that question, because they will know that a movement has been started, which they have been good enough to support, a nonprofit-making association calling itself the "Friends of Hansard," with which I am to some extent associated. I want to place on record in HANSARD a brief statement which defines what the object of that Association is. It is:
  "A body of persons united in the resolve to take such action as may be expedient to increase the circulation and study of HANSARD in order that a larger number of persons in Britain, the Empire overseas, the United States and foreign countries may become acquainted with, and interested in, the proceedings of Parliament and thus be better informed about the day to day workings of the democratic method, as exemplified by the proceedings of Parliament."
  It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Beechman.]
  Commander King-Hall: Since its foundation this Association has become the focal point of a considerable amount of interest by the public in the proceedings of Parliament. May I say, Sir, that in speaking about HANSARD I always feel that I am dealing with a subject which is of special interest to the Chair, due to the special position which Mr. Speaker occupies as a trustee of HANSARD. I will not dwell at length on the extraordinary facts which have been revealed beyond reminding the House that, until a recent date, HANSARD was not supplied, except in a very few instances, to any of our Embassies and Legations. I do not know whether that shocks the House as it shocked me when I learnt of it. Nor was it supplied—although this has been remedied now to some extent—to any libraries of the British Council overseas, which exists to spread knowledge of the British way of life. So far as statistics can be obtained up to the present I think I am on safe ground in saying that I doubt whether HANSARD is to be found in 50 per cent. of the public libraries of this country, although they can obtain it at the reduced rate. I beg hon. Members who are present, and those who may read these words, to make a few inquiries in their own divisions and see whether something cannot be done to get copies for their own libraries. I know of a town of 150,000 inhabitants where one cannot get in the public libraries there a copy of the proceedings of Parliament.
  There are ways of persuading. Government Departments to become more friendly towards HANSARD but it is not on that issue that I want to detain the House now. The really important point is that a large number of the public are quite unaware of the fact that HANSARD can be bought. They think it is a kind of private publication, reserved strictly for Members of Parliament and the Government. Every day letters come into the Association of the "Friends of Hansard" expressing astonishment that HANSARD can be bought. Personally, I never travel in a
  1538
  train without having an extra copy of HANSARD to pass round among my fellow travellers. I have never yet done a railway journey without finding people astonished at the discovery that HANSARD can be bought. People usually say, "This is very interesting; I never knew that there was such interesting reading in it." We have to let the people know that if they want to do so they can buy a copy of HANSARD. I suggest that it should be found in the head offices of every large banking and commercial concern in the country. I am glad to be ably to tell the House that many banks, insurance companies and large firms are now beginning to take a very lively and practical interest in the Association, practical by giving us financial support—for we are not rich—and in the work we are trying to do to make public opinion better acquainted with the proceedings of Parliament.
  I want to make it clear that not a word I have said, or ever wish to say, is to be interpreted as any attack on the Press in their reporting of the proceedings of Parliament in full. On the contrary, let us remember that it is due to the Press and to the fight they put up in the past that the public are now allowed to know what is going on in Parliament. The Press has fought for the public in this respect, and they are very friendly to this activity to make the proceedings of Parliament better known to the public. Within the limits of what they can do with their small page papers, the Press, and the B.B.C., give an excellent summary of the proceedings of Parliament, but we must be clear that there are two quite separate things. A summary is one thing and a full report is quite different, and they must not be confused. It is the business of the Press to give the best summary they can in the space at their disposal.
  I also want to make it plain that it is not my purpose or that of the "Friends of Hansard" to see HANSARD in every home. We are not endeavouring to increase its circulation in any phoney manner. No doubt if I were given £50,000 and took space in papers I could boost up the sales of HANSARD. That is not my purpose or the purpose of the "Friends of Hansard." We do not wish anyone to have HANSARD who does not want to have it for genuine reasons and who will not treat it with respect. Nevertheless I could not believe nine months ago that the average world

  1539
  sale of HANSARD, which amounted to 2,450 copies, represented the total number of people in the world who wanted to read a full report of the proceedings of the House of Commons if they had known they could get it.
  We have not had an opportunity to do very much and we have not been pressing the matter with the Stationery Office but, even with the very delicate hints that we have thrown out to the effect that HANSARD is worth looking at, in nine months the circulation has risen to 3,855, which certainly shows that there are some people who did not know about HANSARD and, now that they know about it, want it. Moreover, what we want to explain to the public is that, if they see in their paper that a subject is being debated which is of special interest to them, if they really want to find out what was said they can do so by giving an order to their bookseller or buying a copy at the Stationery Office.
  A man may only take that action three or four times a year, but it is all to the good for the working of democracy and the strengthening of the link between people and Parliament that people should acquire this habit of occasionally indulging in a really deep drink of Parliament instead of a daily cocktail. Let them know that they can get the genuine article when they see that a subject in which they are specially interested has been discussed, and then they will see what the difference is between a Debate in Parliament and a summary. There are many differences in quantity and quality.
  I do not think anyone would deny that the two copies of HANSARD which contained the report of the Debate on foreign affairs a few days ago contained a great deal of extremely interesting material to anyone who has taken any interest in foreign affairs. Naturally the daily Press, on the second day, printed the Prime Minister's speech in full, but simply had not the space to do more than summarise other speeches in the shortest possible way. There was a serious omission, as I was unable to make some observations that I wanted to make, from an independent point of view, upon the concluding passage of the Prime Minister's speech, but those two HANSARDS contained precisely the raw material required by the discussion groups in the Services, the Civil Defence Services,
  1540
  schools and that great and democratic study group movement which is springing into activity all over the country. That is a very important movement which ought to be encouraged by this House. It should also be known that the HANSARD which records the proceedings of another place can also be obtained by the public. Somme of the Members of another place have been as shocked as I have to discover that the sales of their HANSARD, which contains excellent and authoritative material, are ludicrous. They are now selling only 703 copies per issue. That figure must be improved, and it will be improved when people get to know that the proceedings of another place are published and can be obtained. Something has to be done about that. Many people do not know that there are two HANSARDS.
  I would like to come to one other aspect of this business. I want the House to believe me when I say that the public interest in HANSARD is increasing. It ought to go on increasing, and I hope it will. I want to warn the Government and the House that that will raise some difficult problems. I wonder whether the House realises that for technical reasons, which have nothing to do with war-time production or shortage of money, the maximum production of HANSARD in its present magazine format is 10,000 to 12,000 copies. There is no means of getting more. You cannot produce a HANSARD of that shape and size in larger numbers. The figure we have got to at present is 7,500, and one has only to look at the curve in my office to see when the ceiling will be reached. This is a peace-time as well as a war-time problem, because if the demand rose to 20,000 copies per issue, it will be necessary to print our proceedings, or some of them, by the rotary method, which means a different shape and size of publication. That will be a difficult problem. The solution will be two editions. There will be an edition like it is at present for Members, Government Departments and so forth, and, if I am correct in my supposition that there will be an extra demand above that, there will have to be something which will resemble in format a newspaper as a second edition for the general public. I mention that fact to illustrate that there are some big problems in front of this House, and I am doing it to prepare the minds of the Government and hon. Members so that nobody can say afterwards that they were not warned.

  1541
  May I summarise my requests to the Government? First, I ask that copies of HANSARD of both Houses be made available to Service organisations at the public expense. Second, I ask an assurance from the Government that, as part of their post-war plan—and this is part of the whole post-war set up—they will look into the whole question of the public relations of Parliament, which is nobody's baby at present. It is linked up with such matters as what the galleries in the new Chamber will look like, and so on. In particular, I ask the Government to consider the problem of what they are going to do if the public require more and more copies of HANSARD. There is much more that I could say on this subject. I could tell the House how HANSARD is being used in schools and about the movement, which is now beginning, for setting up local groups in different parts of the country to discuss our proceedings on the basis of a joint subscription that the group takes for HANSARD. I could also say something of the development which is taking place in the provision of HANSARD to Congressmen. Only a few hours ago I was pleased to have a letter from a Congressman saying that he was glad he was beginning to get HANSARD and that he was finding it interesting reading. A distinguished American assured me that we could do nothing more useful for Anglo-American relations than to enable Congressmen to get HANSARD so that they could study our proceedings. About a dozen Congressmen are now receiving HANSARD. I hope I have said enough to persuade Service Ministers to see to it that they put HANSARD into the hands of their personnel and to get into the minds of the Government and Members of this House a realisation of the importance to the future of democracy of a subject which I deem it to have been a privilege to have been able to bring to their notice.
  Sir Patrick Hannon: I support the appeal made to the House for the wider circulation of HANSARD and, in particular, the point which my hon. and gallant Friend raised, about study groups in the country who are taking a live and vivid interest in the proceedings of this House, and giving an opportunity for a wider circulation of knowledge of our proceedings. I endorse what my hon. and gallant Friend said about the appreciation
  1542
  expressed in the United States of sending copies of HANSARD to the House of Representatives and to the Senate. In the ordinary newspapers of this country, we get only a summary, necessarily a very congested summary, of the proceedings of this House, and it would be a great advance if the Treasury could see its way to facilitate in every possible way the wider circulation of HANSARD in the public libraries of this country. I have visited the public libraries in my constituency, and I found that HANSARD was not there, when, from time to time, I have been challenged, as have others of my colleagues, about contributions I have made to our Debates. It would be a great advance in the cultivation of public opinion if the proposal made by my hon. and gallant Friend opposite could be carefully and sympathetically considered by the Treasury.
  It would not be a matter of great expense. After all, the Ministry of Information receives a very substantial contribution from the Treasury for its work—I am glad to note that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury says "Hear, hear" to that. It would be a very suitable contribution from the Treasury if they would enable us to spread HANSARD more widely. Sometimes I go down to a public meeting and produce HANSARD, indicating the variety of matters referred to during Question time, and I say to my constituents: "These are the questions we have been discussing. We spent an hour to-day on all sorts of matters with the various Ministries and those were the replies which we received." These matters never reach our constituents, except when we have some opportunity of bringing them into contact with HANSARD.
  My hon. and gallant. Friend has done very valuable work in calling attention to what HANSARD means in the public life of this country. It is the medium of information between the House and the country, and I hope the Financial Secretary will see his way, without adding very much to the public expenditure, to permit HANSARD to be more accessible to the people, through the public libraries, and to the Forces. All our Defence Services would be delighted to receive a more liberal distribution of HANSARD than obtains at the present. I believe that the Financial Secretary appre-

  1543
  ciates the importance of the suggestion, and I ask the awful, difficult Treasury, which is reputed to stand against every proposal of this kind, to see its way to accept the suggestions of my hon. and gallant Friend.
  Mr. Driberg: I shall try to make three points in about one minute. The first is to emphasise the great importance, for reference libraries in particular, of the bound volumes, with their very valuable and thorough indexes, and to ask that they should be made better known. The second is, if it is possible, as my hon. and gallant Friend suggested, that a second edition of HANSARD should be produced for wider distribution, that it is very important that that edition should not be in any way condensed or edited, but should be equally full, because the problems of editing or condensation would inevitably create controversy. Thirdly, my hon. and gallant Friend mentioned shore establishments of the Royal Navy. When ships are at sea, too, there is a crying demand now for reading matter of all kinds, and it seems to me that that demand could be partly met by supplying HANSARD. Recently, I turned out an old bundle of HANSARDS, of the kind which I am sure clutters up the desks and window sills of many hon. Members, and gave them to the crew of a small naval patrol boat, numbering four men. When I saw them a few weeks later, they told me that all their spare half-hours at sea, by day and night, had been spent in reading these old HANSARDS with fascinated and astonished delight.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton): As the House is aware, the Treasury Ministers are responsible for a number of Departments, and the Stationery Office is one of them. I think the reason is that, originally, all Departments of the Executive were under the Treasury, and gradually, one after another broke away and obtained their own Ministers. But the Stationery Office is still under the control of the Treasury Ministers, and it is not often we have a Debate which concerns the Stationery Office, a Department which, I think, serves the public and the House extraordinarily well. It is very seldom that the Stationery Office gets Ministers into any sort of trouble. I am not suggesting that to-day they are going to get into
  1544
  trouble at all because the hon. and gallant Member for Ormskirk (Commander King-Hall), to whose speech we have all listened, I am sure, with great interest, is himself a friend of the Stationery Office just as much as he is a Friend of HANSARD.
  I agree very much with what the hon. and gallant Member and the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) said as to the value of a full and complete publication of the Debates of the Houses of Parliament being available to the public, and I think my hon. and gallant Friend has made a valuable contribution in enlarging or helping to enlarge the sales of HANSARD. It is, in fact, the case that during the war the sales of HANSARD have been increased three-told. I am sure this is partly due at any rate to the activities of the hon. and gallant Member for Ormskirk and his friends.
  He asked me one or two questions. I will try to answer them. First, he asked about the Service Departments. As far as the Treasury and the Stationery Office are concerned, we, of course, have the duty of entertaining all the applications the Service Departments may make to us. My hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office, who has been sitting on the Bench beside me, will have listened with care to all that the hon. and gallant Member has said. Should he come to me later as a result of the hon. and gallant Member's representations, and make an application for a further number of copies of HANSARD for the use of the Services, I can assure the House that, from the point of view of the Treasury and the Stationery Office, no obstacles will be put in the way.
  I would like the House to remember one thing, that there is a very definite physical limit to the number of copies that can be produced—my hon. and gallant Friend made that clear—and it is something like a margin of, perhaps, 2,000 copies above the present edition. So my hon. and gallant Friend must be very careful what he does, because there is no question of increasing that number, at any rate as long as the war lasts, and there is no question of ever substantially increasing the number in the same form. He is quite right in saying that if it was ever desired to produce, say, 40,000 copies, it would have to be done in quite a different way. We might still have our

  1545
  HANSARD book ourselves, but if the public were to have an edition, it would have to be done on quite different lines, and would look much more like a newspaper. As far as Members of the House are concerned, I feel sure that they would insist on maintaining the present form. There is no question of any change of that sort during the war. The obvious difficulties of machinery and labour put it quite out of the question. My hon. and gallant Friend must restrict his activities, or he may put us in the embarrassing position of not being able to make the small supply of HANSARD available go round among all his clients, that is, as far as the Services are concerned.
  My hon. and gallant Friend also asks about the general public relations of Parliament after the war. That is a rather wide question, and I cannot go into it fully now, but I assure him that I will give it the consideration which it merits. The House ought to be grateful to the hon. and gallant Member, and I am grateful to him, for one particular reason. I would like to thank, on behalf of all Members of the House, not only the Editor of HANSARD, but also the reporters for the quite remarkable job of work which they do for us all. We are all very grateful. We do not often have an opportunity of saving so, and I would like to say it now. We are grateful also for what the Press do. In wartime it is almost impossible for them to make the public aware of the proceedings of Parliament as they would like to do. That is due to the limitations of paper and so on. I have nothing to add now to what I have said, but I think the
  1546
  House would wish me to say that we are grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ormskirk for raising the matter.
  Sir P. Hannon: Could my right hon. Friend not take the opportunity to limit some of the publications, of which, goodness knows, we are tired, and to allow HANSARD additional paper?
  Mr. Assheton: It is not a question of paper at all; it is a question of printing. The printing machinery will not permit the printing of more than 2,000 copies above what are printed now. There is plenty of paper, and, whatever the Ministry of Information may have to go without, I assure hon. Members that they will have their HANSARD.
  Major Woolley: Will my right hon. Friend consider requests from the other two Service Departments in the same light as that in which he indicated he would consider requests from the War Office?
  Mr. Assheton: Certainly.
  Mr. Driberg: Would it not be possible to farm out the printing of HANSARD, in view of the shortage of machinery, to one of the big firms of printers?
  Mr. Assheton: If the hon. Member would like me to go into the technical details with him, I would explain to him that in the short time available, that cannot be done.
  Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

  UNITED KINGDOM COMMERCIAL CORPORATION
  UNITED KINGDOM COMMERCIAL CORPORATION
PUBLIC HEALTH
  Diphtheria (Notification)
  Diphtheria (Notification)
  Statistics (Diseases)
  Statistics (Diseases)
  BRITISH COLONIES (OIL-BEARING STRATA)
  BRITISH COLONIES (OIL-BEARING STRATA)
  COLONIAL RESEARCH COUNCIL (GRASS LANDS)
  COLONIAL RESEARCH COUNCIL (GRASS LANDS)
  PALESTINE (JEWISH TERRORISTS)
  PALESTINE (JEWISH TERRORISTS)
  WELSH CHURCH COMMISSIONERS (FUNDS)
  WELSH CHURCH COMMISSIONERS (FUNDS)
  AGRICULTURE (PRICE FIXING)
  AGRICULTURE (PRICE FIXING)
  BRITISH NAVY (ELDERLY RESERVISTS)
  BRITISH NAVY (ELDERLY RESERVISTS)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Fruit (Advertisements)
  Fruit (Advertisements)
  Fish Supplies (Chatham and Rochester)
  Fish Supplies (Chatham and Rochester)
  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY (MR. W. W. HAMILL)
  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY (MR. W. W. HAMILL)
  PRISONERS OF WAR AND INTERNEES, FAR EAST
  PRISONERS OF WAR AND INTERNEES, FAR EAST
  MINISTRY OF PRODUCTION (LIAISON REPRESENTATIVE, EAST AFRICA)
  MINISTRY OF PRODUCTION (LIAISON REPRESENTATIVE, EAST AFRICA)
  PERSIAN OIL (PIPE LINE PROJECT)
  PERSIAN OIL (PIPE LINE PROJECT)
  OFFICER CADET TRAINING UNITS (CANDIDATES, EDUCATION)
  OFFICER CADET TRAINING UNITS (CANDIDATES, EDUCATION)
CIVIL AVIATION
  Post-war Transport (Conversations)
  Post-war Transport (Conversations)
  British Overseas Airways Corporation (Casualties)
  British Overseas Airways Corporation (Casualties)
  Radiolocation
  Radiolocation
  CENTRAL REGISTER (SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL PERSONNEL)
  CENTRAL REGISTER (SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL PERSONNEL)
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

HERTS AND ESSEX WATER BILL. [H.L.]
THE ACTING CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD STANMORE): My Lords, I beg to move that Standing Order No. 105 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of this Bill. The Second Reading of this Bill is not within the time allowed under Standing Order No. 105 (that is to say within twenty-eight days after the First Reading thereof) owing to the special meeting of the company to approve the Bill under Standing Order No. 72 having been fixed for and held on the same day as the ordinary annual meeting of the company, in order to minimize the practical difficulties due to war conditions and to save expense. It is therefore respectfully asked that the Standing Order may be suspended.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 105 be considered in order to its feeing dispensed with in respect of the Bill.—(Lord Stanmore).
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
Bill read 2a, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

DISABLED PERSONS (EMPLOYMENT) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
REINSTATEMENT IN CIVIL EMPLOYMENT BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to foe printed.
YORKSHIRE REGISTRIES (WEST RIDING) AMENDMENT BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Resolution standing in his name.
Moved, That Standing Orders Nos. XXI and XXXIX be considered in order to their being dispensed with for the purpose of taking the House of Commons Disqualification (Temporary Provisions) Bill and the Income Tax (Offices and Employments) Bill through their remaining stages and of giving precedence to Government business over the other Notices and Orders of the Day.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

HOUSE OF COMMONS DISQUALIFICATION (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Bill read 3a, and passed.

INCOME TAX (OFFICES AND EMPLOYMENTS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Bill read 3a, and passed.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

Landlord and Tenant (Requisitioned Land),

1049

Courts (Emergency Powers) (Scotland),

Prize Salvage,

Guardianship (Refugee Children),

Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment),

Disabled Persons (Employment),

House of Commons Disqualification (Temporary Provisions),

Income Tax (Offices and Employments).

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

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

LAND FERTILITY.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE rose to ask His Majesty's Government, what steps they are taking, by making provision for larger supplies of fertilizers and/or by prescribing different methods of husbandry, to maintain the ebbing fertility of the farm lands of Great Britain, with a view to the continued maximum output of home-grown food both during and after the war; and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I think I can best preface the observations I propose to make in submitting this Motion to your Lordships' House by reference to two remarkable speeches which were made eleven days ago, one by the Minister of Agriculture at Taunton and the other by the new Minister of Food, Colonel Llewellin, at Oxford. Mr. Hudson, in addressing a large gathering of farmers at Taunton on February 19, said that last year they had increased
1050
the arable acreage by over 1,000,000 acres, and there had been a total increase over pre-war of nearly 5,000,000 acres in arable and over 4,500,000 acres in the tillage area. He stated that this area must be maintained if it be not actually increased. Then he is reported as follows:
"The stricken peoples of Europe were crying out for food, and food would be short—very short—in the world. British agriculture would not, therefore, be able to case up, and that was why last summer he had announced a four-year production plan which would carry them up to the harvest of 1947. One of the greatest shortages of food in the world would be meat and fats. British soil and climate were particularly suited for the production of live-stock products, and one of the objectives, therefore, would be to make a gradual change of emphasis from the production of crops for direct human consumption to an increase in live stock and live-stock products."
On the same day, the Minister of Food made this corroborative statement:
"We cannot go on very long being dependent on the charity of our friends."
In that connexion, I have no doubt that he referred very particularly to the splendid contribution to our food requirements of the United States of America.
"Take the supply side of the food picture. Looking round the countries engaged in this war, you will find that they are getting less and less from the land every year and the supply position becomes tighter as the war goes on. There will be a world shortage of. some foods for several years after tile war is over."
He ended by saying:
"For three years at least we shall have a shortage of meats and of all dairy products. It may take us five or more years to get up to equilibrium on these particular supplies."
I am going to submit to your Lordships that we cannot satisfy our own post-war food requirements as well as the crying needs of the enemy-occupied countries unless we make good serious soil deficiencies, the chief of which are undoubtedly humus on the one hand and phosphates on the other. On December 9 last, as your Lordships may remember, I intended to initiate a debate on phosphate deficiency in our farm soils; but, as this date was required by the Government for the second day of the debate on Reconstruction, I starred the three questions which I had put upon the Paper with this object, and received oral replies, with, of course, no subsequent debate. To the first two I propose, inter alia, again to refer. The third related to serious phosphate deficiencies in Australia and New Zealand, which

1051
I do not propose to follow up to-day, except to thank His Majesty's Government, and incidentally the Government of the United States, on behalf of my friends at the Antipodes, for such help as they are able to give in this connexion. I think that I ought to add, in case your Lordships are unaware of it, that the most serious soil deficiencies in New Zealand, and also in parts of Australia, are phosphate deficiencies. The people there normally apply a very large amount of superphosphate and basic slag to enable them to get such a manurial balance, in their pastures in particular, as to make it possible to furnish to this country the large amounts of meat and dairy products which they normally provide. I may also remind your Lordships that the two islands from which they derive their phosphates, Nauru and Ocean Island, have been for a long time past in the occupation of the Japanese, and it is only thanks to supplies coming in limited quantities from Florida, and to some small extent from North Africa, that they have been able to dress their fields with 43 per cent. only of their normal dressing.
My inquiry of the Government to-day is of somewhat wider scope; it relates to the whole problem of the maintenance of the productivity of our soils here in Great Britain. Apart from the physical condition of the soil, which is influenced mainly by the presence of sufficient humus in it, and, of course, micro-organic activity, your Lordships are aware that the main contributors to soil fertility and productivity are nitrogen, phosphoric acid and potash. Potash, of course, is the least essential of these three manurial requirements, although in certain areas, and particularly on light soils and for crops such as tomatoes, potatoes and the like, it is essential; but potash, although the least essential, is the most difficult to obtain, because the bulk of our potash requirements is normally obtained from Germany. Nitrogen is now the most readily available of the three. We no longer depend, as we used to do, upon Chilean deposits, which used to furnish the greater part of our nitrogenous fertilizers. As your Lordships know, nitrogen can now be obtained from the air, through synthetic fixation by electricity. It is also, of course, obtainable in a smaller degree by the nitrogen-fixing capacity of the root-
1052
nodules of all leguminous crops, such as clover, lucerne and sainfoin.
Phosphates, which are usually applied in the form of superphosphate, basic slag, and ground phosphatic rock, are in a very different category. They are essential to the ripening and the quality of all roots, fruits and cereals, as well as to the production of meat and milk. That is one of the reasons why I read just now a quotation from the recent speech at Taunton of the Minister of Agriculture. The bone structure of all farm animals is largely composed of phosphate of lime. This animal requirement, if I may so put it, has a very particular bearing upon the production of protective foods, which, as I understand, are going to be regarded as the main desideratum for the production of our own soil in days to come. The cumulative effect of the non-application of phosphates to cultivated land is of all these factors the most serious, and is most conducive to plant starvation and also to deficiency diseases. This is especially so in the case of permanent pasture. This was recognized by the Government—and I want very much to emphasize this—in the years immediately preceding the war by a very special drive or campaign to induce farmers to apply basic slag to all their permanent pastures. They provided a special subsidy for this purpose. Well, their present policy is the exact reverse. No basic slag or other phosphatic fertilizer is to-day available for unploughable permanent pasture. The practice of applying phosphatic fertilizers to grassland, except for temporary grass, is, in fact, forbidden by the Government.
My first question to the Government on December 9 was directed to the general problem of phosphatic deficiency, and particularly with regard to this embargo as affecting detrimentally the phosphate-starved grassland of this country. The noble Duke's reply was to the effect that broadly speaking, as he put it, the cultivated land of Great Britain is not suffering from serious phosphate deficiency, although the available supplies of phosphatic fertilizers are insufficient to permit of optimal dressings of this fertilizer. This reply was to some extent reassuring, although to my mind at any rate not wholly convincing. And may I say at once that I realize quite as much as any of your Lordships can do the seriousness of the shipping problem? Although there

1053
are immense quantities of phosphate rock at present awaiting shipment in Morocco, in Algiers and in Tunis, that natural phosphatic material cannot be shipped in any large quantities to other countries; but in passing I may mention that Portugal is receiving, as I understand, quite appreciable quantities of those phosphate deposits. Well, no one would grudge—certainly I would not grudge—to our oldest Ally any phosphates that we can spare from our own essential requirements, but I do venture to suggest that our people here at home should have at any rate a fair share of those North African phosphates, at least on a par with our Portuguese Allies.
My second question on December 9 had particular reference to basic slag, which by the way, as your Lordships know, is a by-product of the open hearth system of steel manufacture, and I lay particular emphasis upon this because it does not require ships to carry it from its source to the land of this country. Incidentally, it has another great merit—namely, that, unlike super-phosphate it has a high lime content. Bearing in mind how sour a very considerable portion of our grassland is, particularly in Wales and the West of England and in areas of high rainfall, basic slag is of very special value as a source of phosphate at all times, and particularly at present. The noble Duke's reply to this question of mine relating to basic slag was to the effect that the whole of the basic slag that is suitable for grinding is already being utilized as fertilizer, and that steel manufacturers were being given encouragement in the production of this by-product by a subsidy of £65,000 a year to secure them against commercial loss consequent upon its grinding and its bagging. He further stated that production cannot be increased except by the grinding of low-grade slags, which would not justify the present cost of material and labour required for the operation. I beg with all respect to question the full accuracy of that statement. He added the hopeful assertion that, while the use of basic slag on phosphate-starved pastures was then still forbidden, it was hoped that there might be a sufficiency of phosphatic fertilizers in 1943–44 (which I take to be the period through which we are at present passing) to provide a limited quantity to be applied to
1054
phosphate-deficient grassland that is used primarily for milk production.
The Minister of Agriculture not very long ago gave as his estimate of the area of unploughable permanent pasture that it was no less than six million acres, that is, leaving out altogether what are known as rough grazings. My present Motion will, I earnestly hope, evoke from the Ministry of Agriculture and the noble Duke some more definite assurance on this subject, in face of the steadily ebbing fertility of our cultivated land, and in view of the vital importance of continued, and indeed augmented, output of human and animal food in order to satisfy the requirements during the war, and still more, after it, both of our own population and those of enemy-occupied and semi-starved countries, as well as for the full implementation, so far as Great Britain is concerned, of the decisions of the Hot Springs Conference—and, I suppose I ought to add, the contemplated programme of U.N.R.R.A. I want in passing to say this. Pre-war supplies of phosphates are no criterion whatever of present requirements On the basis of food output the need justifies something like treble the pre-war supply.
My submission is that the most clamant and growing needs of British soils—and it applies also to some extent to those of the Antipodes—are humus on the one hand and phosphates on the other. When I was an agricultural student at England's then premier agricultural college more than fifty years ago, we were instructed that farmyard manure was a complete fertilizer. The scientists have thought better of it since then, and we have been perpetually reminded that farmyard manure—and the same applies to stable manure which, by the way, is very deficient in quantity now owing to the supersession of the horse by motor traction— has an adequate content of nitrogen and also of potash, but not of phosphates. The wise farmer, even if he has a sufficiency of farmyard manure, will always add phosphatic fertilizers in order to obtain a complete fertilization of his soil. Let me put in perfectly simple language what has been done these last three years. Vast areas of pasture land, some of it temporarily enriched by the basic slag pre-war policy of the Government, have been ploughed up and successive cereal crops taken from them.

1055
These crops—let us have no hesitation in admitting it—have been fed with both humus and phosphates by the ploughedin turf, and with each year that passes there is a steady depletion of both humus and phosphates, the latter being absolutely essential to the production of both milk and meat.
I see the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, is once more in his place in this House. May I offer him, on your Lordships' behalf, a very warm welcome back from his 7,000 miles agricultural tour of our premier Dominion, Canada? I noticed that in a public statement which he made last week on his return, he called attention to what I may describe as the very level quality of the cattle to be found in Canada, both meat cattle and dairy cattle—a tribute which I, from my own experience of Canada, can well confirm. Exactly the same thing can be said of the cattle of New Zealand, which, of course, I know even better. It is one of the sad facts one has to admit that our cattle, very largely owing no doubt to the use of second-rate sires on the ordinary farms of this country, are of nothing like so high and level a standard as those which are to be found in many other parts of the British Empire. May I be allowed to add that the quality of cattle in Canada and in New Zealand is very largely due to the fact that they recognize that, in order to maintain high quality and economically productive live stock, you must have enough phosphates in the soil.
I remember perfectly well that some years ago, when with the British Association I visited the University and Research Station of Saskatoon—I do not know whether the noble Earl visited Saskatoon in his recent trip—I found they were laying the greatest emphasis on two points. One was the enormous importance of lucerne or, as they call it across the Atlantic, alfalfa, as the greatest and most valuable of all fodder crops, hardly to be found in Great Britain, or at any rate only in very small quantities, and especially the value of frost-resisting lucerne; and the other the absolute necessity of a sufficiency of phosphates if you wish to maintain the quality of live stock. The Minister of Agriculture is initiating a campaign for a large increase in our live stock—the backbone of British agricul-
1056
ture. It has always been the backbone, it is the backbone to-day, and as far as I can foresee it will always be the backbone of British agriculture, and the main source of our all-too-scarce protective foods. His professed object is to furnish adequate supplies not only of liquid milk and milk products, but also of meat which cannot now be supplied in sufficient quantities from overseas. Without increased dressings of phosphates and lime such a programme appears to me to be wholly incapable of fulfilment. Even the body structure of our farm animals cannot be built up without lime and phosphates. The lack of phosphates, by the way, hits hardest the small dairy farmer, especially in the West of England and in Wales, who has little or no arable land, even in war-time, and whose pasturage is undeniably phosphate starved.
I am assured by experts, contrary to the opinion quoted by the noble Duke on December 9, that even basic slag of low solubility, if it has a high phosphoric acid content, is well worth the cost of grinding and would be of great value, especially to the small dairy farmers. That is exactly the experience in the North Island of New Zealand, where large quantities of basic slag of low solubility but of high phosphoric acid content are being used in those areas of high rainfall. There is another factor of which your Lordships ought to be reminded. In the old days we used to have rotational cropping, perhaps the Norfolk four-crop rotation being the most popular. One result of that four-crop rotation was to maintain in the soil, to a great extent, both the humus and phosphates from the residues of the different crops entering into their normal rotation.
I want to put certain suggestions to the noble Duke and his Department. First, that a seeds crop—that is, of course, clover and rye grass—should be sown in all white straw crops, including wheat, this coming spring, and if it be not maintained as a ley be ploughed up after the corn harvest in order to augment both humus and natural nitrification. Secondly, in the absence of farmyard manure and stable manure, green manuring with mustard or lupins or vetches be definitely encouraged if not actually insisted upon, as also the sowing of lucerne as a continuing crop providing concentrated protein food for all classes of

1057
live stock. As I have mentioned before, in every civilized country except Great Britain, it is acknowledged as the most valuable of all fodder crops. Thirdly, that the ban on the application of phosphatic fertilizers to unploughable pastures be now lifted and their use be authorized and encouraged so far as they are available. Fourthly, that as the basic slag grinding plants are mostly old and getting out of repair with consequent reduced output per unit, further grinding plants be provided to steelworks at the public expense. Then, fifthly, that as in the opinion of many agricultural chemists basic slags of low solubility but with a good phospheric acid content can be used with great benefit on grassland, particularly in an area of high rainfall, their production and sale should be authorized and their use encouraged at the present crisis even if the cost of production is not financially a sound economic proposition. What is a sound economic proposition in these days of subsidies and bounties and controlled prices? That at any rate is an argument that carries no conviction to me. If there is, as I believe, a crying need for this low-grade basic slag, and as there seems to be some doubt about the justification of this course, I think that the Ministry might usefully institute an independent expert inquiry into the matter. I suggest that possibly Sir John Russell, the former Director of Rothamsted, who is now free from all official duties, might well be asked to conduct such an inquiry.
Sixthly, that so far as available shipping tonnage permits every opportunity should be given to transport to Great Britain increased quantities of phosphate rock from North Africa for conversion into superphosphate or for use after grinding in its raw state. And lastly, in the light of recent discussions in this House and in the Press, there should be an immediate and impartial investigation into the question whether chemical fertilizers are in fact inhibiting the natural fertilization of the farmlands of this country, and particularly whether the salutary activities of earthworms in promoting soil fertility are, as alleged by Sir Albert Howard and others, checked if not stopped altogether by the use of sulphate of ammonia and other nitrogenous fertilizers, whether associated with lime (or chalk) in its various forms or not.
In conclusion I would ask, can we confidently face up to our national obligations and commitments arising out of the decisions of the Hot Springs Conference unless we tackle now with courage, determination and vision this vital problem of the ebbing fertility of the farmlands of Great Britain? Our farmers, in face of many handicaps and under the powerful direction of the two Departments of Agriculture and of our war agricultural executive committees, have done their full share in saving this country during this critical period from starvation. They have indeed fed us generously with home-grown food. But is it at the cost of serious prospective soil exhaustion and future food scarcity? If so, I venture to suggest that posterity will be our unmerciful critics. We have been definitely promised by the Government after this war a healthy and well-balanced agriculture as a permanent part of our national economy, bat how can our agriculture be healthy and well-balanced if the soil upon which it is based is unhealthy through lack of humus and is ill-balanced in the supplies of its essential manurial constituents? I beg to move.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, the noble Lord has called attention to a matter which is undoubtedly of first-rate importance as affecting our agriculture if in the post-war years we are to continue to provide increased food supplies from our own country and to take our share in what will be the efforts of the Allied Nations afterwards. I would like to say that I am glad he emphasized the necessity of the importation, so far as shipping makes it possible, of the phosphates from North Africa. I must say that it has been a puzzle to me why it is that ships coming from that part of the world, where we know there is a large quantity of this material awaiting shipment, should not have been able to bring more. No doubt it is a question which the Ministry of War Transport and Shipping have considered and I am sure the Department of Agriculture have represented their case. I hope that as a result of the noble Lord's speech they will represent it with increased vigour. I cannot but think it should be possible to ship more of this valuable material.
But I confess I am not so lacking in confidence for the future as the noble Lord seems to be. I think that this country

1059
has only yet begun to tap the unused fertility of its own soil. The thing that impresses me more and more, as one sees this from the inside every month or almost every week, concerns what we have neglected in this country in times past and what we can do if we will. I have no doubt myself about our being able to maintain very many more herds of live stock in this country quite successfully by using scientific methods, at the same time, of course, making use of the phosphates to which the noble Lord referred. I am sure everyone of us who is associated with this work in the country knows of the wide extent of pastures which, whatever may have been the fertility of the land, were often very indifferent grasslands carrying a very, very small head of live stock. Now, after they have been ploughed up and by the use of the splendid knowledge which is made available to us as to the proper kinds of grasses to sow (after very likely a period of cereal cultivation), they are producing herbage capable of carrying three and four and many more times the head of live stock that they were carrying before.
We see that almost everywhere, and the acreage of neglected grassland in this country still untreated is prodigious. I myself, for example, visited a place only about two or three weeks ago where, on the other side of the road, there were large fields of the kind I have described. Each of them was about 30 to 40 acres in extent. Adjoining them was another. In that case the farmer had ploughed the field at his own expense. He had not taken a cereal crop, but had directly re-seeded the field under the advice of the scientific experts provided for him. I do not know what head of live stock the land on the other side of the lane would carry, but it would be very few indeed, whereas this farmer was provided with splendid herbage for his milk cows. By a little scientific cultivation he was carrying certainly four times as many live stock on that field as his neighbour on the other side of the road. I am emphasizing this side of the case only because I think we should be committing a serious error if we allowed ourselves to think that we are draining away the fertility of our land as much as some people may think. In the land of our country, if it is scientifically treated in the light of the knowledge we now have, apart from the knowledge
1060
we shall acquire, there is a reservoir of fertility still unused that is almost incalculable.
I am not a pessimist in this matter. But in saying that I am well aware that in regard to land that has been used we must have phosphates. I heard the other day of a farmer who for several years, I am sorry to say, had neglected live stock altogether, as he should not have done. He had sown trefoil and other seeds with his corn crop and ploughed it right in. He had also rolled his straw and ploughed that in. At all events he had no shortage of humus. What I fear is that in emphasizing the need for these supplies of phosphates—I am not in any way modifying my support of the noble Viscount—we may distract attention, as we ought not to do, from the necessity of making full use of our land. I think that the postwar demand will certainly be for greatly increased supplies of milk, and increased supplies of meat will follow in consequence. I believe that if the grasslands of this country are properly treated with leys, as they are now beginning to be treated and will be treated in the four-year programme of the Minister, we shall have abundant humus and shall be bringing into use for the first time an amount of fertility hitherto unsuspected. For many years to come I shall be perfectly hopeful of results if the right methods are employed.
Like the noble Viscount, I am sceptical of some of the things we are told about the land being poisoned. I must say that one or two noble Lords have told us things which are to me entirely unproved assertions. It is clear that land requires humus, and it is quite possible to provide it and it should be provided. But when we are told, as we are sometimes told, that these fertilizers are poisoning the land, and that in consequence we are getting food which is deficient in this or that ingredient, I confess I feel we are listening to statements which have not been proved. They may be true, I do not know, but at all events they simply have not been proved. So far as I know, there is no evidence to show that wheat grown on land treated in this way is lacking in any ingredient which it otherwise would have contained if fertilizers had not been put on the land. Whether the Minister of Agriculture thinks these assertions require a

1061
Royal Commission to inquire into them is for him to decide, but for my part I should want more evidence before I appointed a Commission for that purpose. The noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth, will follow me, and will be in complete disagreement with all that I am now saying, but while supporting him to the full as to the necessity of providing humus in the soil, I do beg the champions of this particular doctrine not to mislead the public by asking us to accept a series of statements of an exceptionally serious character when, so far as I know, they are not filly established and there is no proved evidence for them.
We have, in my view, available with our present knowledge, if it is applied, a capacity in this country of rearing a much greater quantity of live stock, and I hope it will be of a much better quality than hitherto. On that I would say that I hope the efforts of the Ministry to induce farmers to use a better kind of sire for their cows and to breed no longer from indifferent animals will be very energetically pressed forward. It is because of that that the quality of the Irish stock has improved, and we ought to do much more in that direction in this country. We can and do produce the finest live stock in the world, but while you can see magnificent live stock in one parish you can find farms in the adjoining parish with live stock that one would be ashamed to put into the market. I hope that the noble Duke when he replies will tell us that the Ministry will energetically press forward their effort to induce the county war agricultural committees to do all they can to encourage the use of proper sires.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, I think we are all indebted to my noble friend Viscount Bledisloe for having initiated this debate. He has already said so much on the subject of fertilizers that there is very little to add. It would be impossible for me to add to his knowledge or wisdom. The noble Lord who has just spoken—I do not know whether he wanted to draw me into a diversion— must, I think, have been speaking in terms of his own county, as many people are inclined to do. His own county before the war was almost entirely grassland. Therefore reserves of fertility in that county are likely to be very high. But there are other counties where the position is exactly the opposite. However, I
1062
do not intend in this debate to deal with the question whether or not artificial fertilizers do harm to the soil. I am content to leave that to the long verdict of time.
There are, however, two points which I should like to bring to your Lordships' notice, and which I think are very serious as a deterrent to fertility in the future. The first is the danger of desiccation through the intensive cropping of our land while, at the same time, we are of necessity spoiling our woodlands by cutting for war-time purposes. In the exigencies of war, we have not only ploughed up many millions of acres but forced all our ploughlands, quite naturally and rightly, to bear the largest possible crops; and, again quite naturally and rightly, in order to achieve this we have made the maximum use of the artificial fertilizers that were available. Unfortunately, we have been short of potash, and so we have got out of balance by the extra use of sulphate of ammonia. This must mean a very high degree of transpiration of water from the soil to the plant. An acre of cabbages can transpire every day three tons of water into the air from the soil. At the same time that we have been doing that, we have been rapidly consuming the existing available reserves of humus in the soil. Labour difficulties, lack of machinery and emphasis on immediate production have all rendered it extraordinarily and increasingly difficult to return to the soil the organic wastes which we have taken from it. The countryside is littered with unused straw ricks, just as most farmers' yards are still littered with old iron. For our safety I think that we should do today everything that is in our power to return to the soil, in such a period of intensive cropping, all the animal and vegetable wastes of the farm, and by no means neglect any opportunity of returning the wastes of the cities wherever it proves possible to do so.
The importance of humus in this problem of desiccation is that humus has a water-holding capacity which is about eight times that of sand and four times that of clay. The humus under the forest lands of the world provides much greater reservoirs of water than any engineering works which man can possibly achieve; nothing we do can come near it. It is true that in our ploughlands and ordinary open lands the humus content is not high;

1063
perhaps on the best land it is about 10 per cent. The water within the soil, however, is affected not only by the direct water-holding capacity of the humus but by the general porosity of the soil which the presence of an adequate amount of humus ensures. The reasons for this it would take too long to go into, but I think that is an accepted fact. It is noticeable that the low water-table and level of our springs and wells which are most affected by the existing drought and water-shortage occur, generally speaking, in the areas where the most intensive cropping has gone on from the beginning of the war, and indeed before that—the big arable areas. One wonders whether that water shortage is entirely due to deficient rainfall for a couple of years, or whether there is a deeper and more serious reason connected with this exhaustion of humus as well. In my own county I have seen many successive dry seasons, but never have I seen anything like the low level of the wells at this time of the year.
I should not like to be thought to be taking too alarmist or far-fetched a view, but it is worth inquiring into the moral of the Fens. In the Fens there is a sinkage in the vegetable fens going on at the rate of three-quarters of an inch to an inch a year. As against the adjacent silt land, there is known to be a difference now, through that sinkage, of something like fifteen feet. To-day little claying is being done, and we are not returning the wastage in the form of humus through dung and so on, and it is reckoned that, in spite of the £2,000,000 drainage scheme to overcome the dangers already apparent through this sinkage, that scheme can last only for sixty years if the sinkage continues at its present rate. I do not say that this is entirely due to cropping and extraction of humus, but it is a vicious circle—more cropping, more transpiration, more drying out of the peat land, and therefore more sinkage and more wind erosion. It is really like the Sybilline Books, in its way.
This particular form of shrinkage is happening throughout the world, where-ever the same problem is occurring. I should like to read an extract from a report made in 1941 by a most authoritative and well-known American agricultural sociologist, with regard to the Scioto Marshes in Ohio:
1064
"It took almost a hundred years of intermittent effort, in the face of great difficulty, to drain the Scioto Marshes in Ohio—17,000 acres of the richest farm land in America. While the reclamation projects were not finally completed until about 1922, considerable headway had been made by 1907. As the marshes were drained, onions became the dominant crop, yielding as much as 1,000 bushels an acre…In the years from 1929 to 1934 a crisis had developed in Hardin County. The land had been cropped continuously with onions for years and, as the soil became drier each year, the depth of the muck decreased. It shrank from a depth of eight and ten feet to two and three feet. Continuous planting of onions developed fungus and insect growths; and the blowing and burning of the soil decreased its fertility.…Stranded on the marsh to-day are about three hundred 'poor white' families. For them the marsh has become a rural dead end, from which at the moment there is no escape. As onion production has decreased, employment opportunities have dwindled.
That, I think, is the logical result of paying insufficient attention to fertility as against output; for the fertility potential of humus is inextricably interwoven with the water-holding capacity of the soil.
That is one aspect of the problem, but there is another, of quite a different nature. For my part, I can see few better ways of immediately wrestling with this problem of fertility than that advocated in the Government's four-year plan for ley farming and increased live stock of all sorts. I believe that we should make every effort to re-establish not only our beef and milk cattle but also sheep and pigs on the land at the earliest opportunity. Apart from certain difficulties of supply, which are well known to your Lordships, I think from personal experience in meeting farmers all over the country that there is a danger that the four-year plan may not reach fruition, if it does at all, in time to have the full effect which it should have on fertility.
I believe that His Majesty's Government could do a very great deal to set one's quite natural fears at rest if they could tackle the problem of the immense capital required for this change-over in farming in most parts of the country. Farmers are faced with three separate difficulties. First of all, they were, by common consent, very much undercapitalized in 1939. Since then their need for working capital has been at least doubled. We know also the extraordinary price to which implements have gone, both old and new, and in general it is

1065
safe to say that, very rightly, agricultural wages are double what they were in 1939, and that means double the working capital to carry on. Secondly, the already undercapitalized farmer, to meet the requirements of food production, has had to undertake the very heavy cost of mechanization at inflated prices, and he has not got the implements which are perhaps best suited to his knowledge, or to his land or to his needs and methods; he has had to take what he could get, and when he could get it. The third difficulty which he is up against is the new Schedule D assessment of all farmers with an assessment of over £100 a year. This means that farmers on most of our land—not the majority of our farmers—have not been able to put aside from their profits enough to meet the demand for the new working capital required, nor for the mechanization required also; and I know myself many good fanners who never had an overdraft in their life before who now have got one.
If the four-year plan is really to be implemented I feel there are only two alternatives to make it succeed. Because there is a new outlay of capital once more required. It falls both on the farmer and on the landlord. On the farmer, generally speaking, falls, first, the cost of putting-down long leys, which comes quite easily to £6 an acre if he is going to do the job properly. Secondly, he has to provide wire for fencing; and thirdly, in most cases he has to increase his stock himself. He has got to get more stock, and I most heartily concur with what was said by both the noble Lords who have spoken, that that stock will have to be improved. And it will be that much more expensive to buy or to breed. If that is going to be the case, according to the amount of stock the farmer will have to purchase to make the four-year plan really successful, the new capitalization which he will require for these improvements will be anything from £5 to £15 an acre. On the other hand, the already hard beset landowner is in most cases faced with problems of new and extended water supplies, the cost of fencing material, and farm buildings very often. Neither farmer nor landlord is enabled to keep out of his taxed income anything like enough to meet these new demands. And these improvements are not unrisky. It is true that we are promised a small return of tax at the end
1066
of the war, both as farmers and as landlords, for what might he called deferred repairs. But what is wanted is capital now. We cannot wait for an indefinite to-morrow.
I respectfully suggest that perhaps the simplest way of meeting costs—costs which are, after all, almost entirely incurred to feed this nation, would be to allow expenditure on approved and earmarked improvements as against taxation in relation to the four-year plan. If you cannot earmark money out of pockets which would otherwise be taxed for this necessary improvement, then the only other alternative is the provision of adequate capital at the lowest possible rate of interest in the near future, both for the farmer and for the landlord. But this carries a corollary. Far too many farmers look back to 1939 and before and realize what a sorry tiling it is to be in the hands of the banker when there are unstable prices and fluctuations from day to day. Even in 1941 there were literally millions—something like seven millions, I believe—of farmers and their families in the United States living in squalor and poverty unbelievable as a result of lost fertility and foreclosed mortgages. So if the farmer is going to be forced to borrow money, then the four-year plan can only succeed if the Government can come out into the open with a post-war programme—something more than the four-year plan, so that the good farmer will have a guarantee that his outlay will not be wasted. I think it is hopeless to expect that, with the insecurity and low capitalization of 1939, you will get, after 100 per cent. inflation, the "promised land" in 1947. In one of our more intellectual weeklies I found not long ago a phrase whose pedigree might be described as by Gilbert out of Bloomsbury: "Let the farmer beware not to bite the hand that feeds him." Let us as a nation beware not to bite the soil that feeds us.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE DUKE OF NORFOLK): My Lords, I would like, first of all, to thank my noble friend who has put this Motion on the Paper for his courtesy in giving me beforehand certain information on matters on which he required answers. When such an expert as he speaks in this House on the subject

1067
of the soil and its fertility, I can assure him that information which he tenders to me beforehand is extremely welcome. I think it would be best if at the outset I dealt quite briefly with certain questions which the noble Viscount, as he mentioned himself again this afternoon, asked, on the 9th December last, and then came to the various points which have been brought up in the debate. I stated on December 9 that, broadly speaking, the cultivated land of Great Britain is not suffering from any serious deficiency of phosphates. I also stated that there were particular areas where there is some marked deficiency of phosphates, but remedies and special provisions have been made to provide supplies of this type of fertilizer. The supply of the nitrogenous fertilizers is satisfactory and, apart from the difficulty in transport, which must from time to time arise, it should not be difficult for farmers to get all the nitrogenous fertilizers that they require. War conditions have imposed a shortage in supplies of potash, but arrangements have been made for the distribution of fertilizers containing potash or for straight potash fertilizers to ensure that those crops for which dressings are necessary receive a reasonable quantity. While conditions of transport will inevitably affect the supplies of all kinds of fertilizers now and in the near future, it is reasonable to suggest that the supplies will be adequate for 1944, and at any rate they will not be less great than in 1943.
In reply to the second part of the question, the Government do not consider that, taking Great Britain as a whole, fertility has been lost. In fact, large areas have greatly improved in this respect by mechanical cultivation, drainage, and liming. There are, we all know, individual districts and farms which have been heavily cropped during the last few years, and much of the fertility stored up in grassland has been expended. Steps have already been initiated to encourage the return of straw to the land to expand our live stock and to increase the area of seeds and temporary leys in order to restore humus and build up fertility where necessary. These steps, I am sure, have the support not only of the proposer of this Motion but also of your Lordships' House. The area under temporary grass has been increased in the last two years by no less than 700,000 acres, and it is expected that there will be a further increase
1068
in 1944. This development in itself will permit an increase in the numbers of cattle and sheep, which the Department are making active preparations to encourage as far as the situation allows.
The noble Viscount in his opening speech referred with some doubt to the future, and the noble Lord, Lord Addison, we might say, disagreed with him. None of us could possibly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Addison, when he talked about a future increase and also an improvement in the quality of the live stock of this country. I have little doubt in my own mind that a large increase in the quality of our live stock will be possible before many years, and I believe that if we set about it in the right way we can bring that about far more quickly than some people believe.
The noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth, very kindly wrote and asked me about the matter of taxation. If I may, I shall give him a question and answer in another place yesterday. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked
"if he will adjust farmers' Income Tax so as to make some allowance to compensate them for the dissipation of their capital by the exceptional use of the store of fertility in their land in the present emergency."
My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied as follows:
"I cannot see my way to propose an allowance such as is referred to by my honourable and gallant friend. I may remind my honourable friend that any manuring expenditure that may be necessitated by loss of fertility would be allowed as revenue expenditure as and when incurred."
Whether the noble Earl will be satisfied with that I do not know.
The noble Viscount who moved this Motion has raised certain specific points. I was glad to note that he favours the increased under-sowing of seeds, whether to be left as a ley or subsequently to be ploughed in, but I do not agree with his suggestion that this should be made compulsory in the cropping of 1944. There are many considerations which practical farmers will appreciate, and the House will agree with me, I think, that persuasion and education are more suited generally to farming measures than is compulsion. We should only use compulsion in these matters when the necessity of the nation demands it. The same remark applies to the practice of green manuring. It is often a useful practice,

1069
but it is not always so, and here again discretion should be left to the individual farmer. As regards the noble Viscount's remarks on the growing of lucerne, there is no doubt that a great deal of good can be done by an extension of the growing of this crop, and steps will be taken to see if it can possibly be encouraged.
I now turn to the suggestion that the ban should be lifted on the application of phosphatic fertilizers to grassland. Perhaps the noble Viscount has not quite appreciated that county committees have already been instructed that they may sanction the use of these fertilizers for permanent grassland which is used for grazing dairy cows. If the phosphates were available we should lift the ban altogether. No one would dispute the importance or value of phosphates on grassland, and this was fully recognized in the Land Fertility Scheme. The reason why the ban cannot be lifted entirely is one which is no doubt well understood by the House. The supply of phosphates, though greatly increased, was not sufficient to meet all the demands, and it was necessary to get an immediate return from the supply available. If we put phosphates on to ploughed land they get down to the roots of the crop in the first year, and the benefit is made available immediately. If, on the other hand, phosphates are applied to established grassland, it may be two, three, or even four years before any benefit is received.
I do not propose to make any comment on the suggestions thrown out with regard to increased supplies of basic slag through the renovation of plant and the utilization of lower grades of slag. Neither can I touch on the point of increased quantities of phosphate rock. These matters, as I said earlier, are irretrievably bound up not only with shipping but also with the internal transport position. Transport is an overriding factor on the whole of the fertilizer position to-day and no further remarks of mine can, at the present moment, help. But the suggestions that have been made will naturally be borne in mind as and when facilities may offer themselves.
Finally, I would return to the noble Viscount's suggestion in the Motion as to the ebbing fertility of the land. I have already indicated that if we regard England as one large farm then no one who travels round the country, as I do,
1070
could possibly think that the fertility from that farm was inadequate; in fact, far from diminishing, I think it is fair to say that it has increased. I agree that no one can doubt that certain farms and certain fields have expended their reserves of fertility in the prosecution of the war just as many of us in other forms have had to expend a certain amount of our reserves of capital. I do not think it is right that it should go out from this House that His Majesty's Government consider there is any foundation for the noble Viscount's gloomy forebodings regarding the fertility of this country either now or in the future.
Knowing as I do the noble Viscount's interest in the great work done at Rothamsted, I would like, if I may, to quote an extract from an article published in the current number of Country Life by a distinguished member of the staff there. He says:
"There are those who speak and write as if there is a sharp and violent antithesis between the so-called artificials and the organic manures. In actual fact, of course, this is not the case. In all intensive practice both types are used and it is widely recognized that the presence of an adequate organic content of the soil may render more efficient the action of the added inorganic fertilizer."
I consider that to be an admirable summary of the whole issue. I think we are all agreed that we must use every means available to us to maintain the fertility of the soil, but the programme of the four-year plan, as outlined already by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, is the policy which we hope will maintain a proper balance between live stock and crops together with a proportionate use of fertilizers. We agree that the fertility of the soil of this country is of paramount importance to the future production of food, and I only hope the noble Viscount will feel slightly more happy as a result of the answer I have endeavoured to give him.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I do not know that there has been any marked increase of felicity on my part over the reply made by the noble Duke. I can only venture to say this. He has referred to my gloomy forebodings. I cannot help wondering whether some five or ten years hence what has been described as gloomy forebodings may not be spoken of as a certain measure of practical vision. At any rate I would suggest this. If we are going to pull our

1071
full weight in making good the prospective deficiencies of food in other countries than our own, and also bear in mind the probability that we shall not ourselves be able to get the same proportion of our food from overseas that we have had in the past, then we ought to do everything in our power without appearing in the smallest degree complacent. Judging by the considered views of scientific experts in every part of the world, we ought to do what we can to make preparations for a full measure of food output from our own soil, if only to fulfil the obligations we have made to those unfortunate people who are threatened with starvation in enemy occupied countries.
In this connexion I would venture to remind the noble Duke and the Ministry of Agriculture that New Zealand and Australia have provided a very large proportion of the food on which we have subsisted in this country in the past, and I wonder whether the noble Duke has read the so-called gloomy forebodings that they are giving utterance to on this very same subject, but if he has not I commend to him a perusal of Government Reports emanating from those sources. Soil phosphate deficiency in those countries is becoming very grave and unless it is improved we cannot expect to get imported into this country, and still less rendered available for the half-starved countries of Central Europe, supplies of meat and milk products, butter and the like, that have been forthcoming from those countries in days gone by. We ought to regard ourselves as one unit for this purpose and be treated as one unit. I think any independent expert would admit that we cannot afford to be complacent in this matter.
I have only one further remark to make before sitting down, and it is in regard to the contribution to the debate of the noble Lord, Lord Addison, who has given as his opinion that there are huge untapped reserves of fertility in our own soil. My answer to that is very simple. You cannot, in the matter of mineral requirements, win by cultivation and management what is not there. The only statement made by the noble Duke which is of abounding felicity and comfort is the fact that the area of ley land has been increased apparently during the last year or two by no less than 700,000 acres. That
1072
is an effort that is bound to contribute to the increased fertility of our land, and if he, with all the influence which he and his chief possess, can manage to raise that to at least 1,000,000 acres of ley during the next twelve months I, at any rate, will feel very much happier than I do at the present time. I beg for leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

FORESTRY.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS called the attention of His Majesty's Government to problems connected with forestry in this country; and moved for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving the Motion which stands in my name I would like to state that I am not an expert forester, but merely one who has been watching with some interest the changing appearance of our countryside and trying to understand the effects of that change on our life. We all know the importance of our hardwood forests to this country in the past. Without them sea trade or even our national existence would have been impossible. I wonder if your Lordships quite realize the extent that these forests covered or the enormous volumes of wood which were necessary for the building of our sea-going ships. I think about the only way you can get any idea of that is to go and look at some of the old oak-built sailing barges which you will still find in the London Docks—the last and most insignificant of our oak-built sea-going ships. They have enormously stout beams and require enormous quantities of hard timber. These, as I say, are the last survivors of a very large fleet of ships.
During the Napoleonic wars, when of course all ships were built of timber, enormous oak forests were destroyed in order to provide them. I read some time ago of one convoy in the Napoleonic wars consisting of 800 vessels. This convoy was continually in sight for three days from Dover Cliffs as it passed on its voyage. Of course, these vessels were by no means the size of vessels we have now, and the tonnage of this convoy must have been dwarfed by the tonnage of many modern convoys. But many thousands of acres of fine oak must have been needed to build those ships, and that was just one convoy. Now the sea has finished with wood as a material, and industry has taken its place

1073
in consuming wood. It is largely the soft woods now that are needed. In the last war to relieve the shipping situation, just under 500,000 acres of woodland were cut. I am taking these figures from the Forestry Commission's Report. This led to the establishment of the Forestry Commission in 1919 to try to repair the damage. In spite of repeated cuts in monetary grants to the Commission in the name of economy, and in spite of violent fluctuations in their finances which did far more harm to the Commission than the cuts, in that there were considerable financial losses due to the necessity of destroying thousands and even millions of seedlings which, owing to lack of money, could not be planted—in spite of this, the Forestry Commission succeeded in buying 700,000 acres and in planting 430,000 acres of that area. They have also given financial encouragement to private owners of wood ands to replant and to tend their woods. That is a very important point, as private woodlands constitute a very large proportion of our timber.
As I have said, financial considerations have hindered the Forestry Commission, and, worse still, insecure social conditions have frightened private owners from planting, with the result that when this war stared we had barely made up the loss of the last war. In regard to our timber situation we were just about where we were when we entered the last war, or a little bit worse. Just before this war started we grew only 2 per cent. of the wood we needed. We had about 2,000,000 acres of timber-producing woodlands, and there was a further 1,000,000 acres of amenity woods, that is, woodlands used for other purposes than timber-producing (for example, beauty spots, parklands and woods used as shelter for agricultural purposes, in fact any kind of woods which were not meant to be cut down). These 3,000,000 acres made up just 5 per cent. of the requirements of this country. We were in fact at the beginning of this war just about the poorest European country in woodlands. Of course we can have no hope of emulating countries which are great producers of wood. But it is interesting to compare this country with Belgium, which, like this country, is very densely populated and, again like this country, depends for its life largely on industry. Even Belgium had 18 per cent. of woodlands compared to our 5 per cent.
1074
In their Report the Forestry Commission say that by planting until we have 5,000,000 acres of woodland we can supply 30 per cent. of our normal needs. That is to say, we could run level, taking wood from our woodlands and replanting, and get 30 per cent. of our wants, while in times of emergency by emergency cutting we could probably supply a far larger percentage.
The land we should need to use for this purpose would be rough grazing land of little agricultural value and the Commission propose to reach the 5,000,000 acre total in fifty years. This is indeed a modest programme. We must remember that our woods are now being felled faster than ever before. In fact, we shall be lucky if we lose less than a million acres of woodland directly or indirectly as a result of this war, as against the half million acres we lost in the last war. To safeguard our national asset of fine timber—and this is a country very suitable for timber growing—and to give us some margin of safety in similar national emergencies, we must plant, and plant quickly, at least to the minimum which is advised in the Report of the Forestry Commission. Setting aside all questions of land ownership, which my Party might raise at some future date, woodlands in private hands must be controlled to ensure that they are tended properly and that they produce good timber, and owners must be encouraged financially to make sure of this.
All this can only be done by a separate Forestry Commission with statutory powers, but the Commission must be linked in the matter of supplies with the Ministry of Agriculture, and clearly in the matter of planting it must be linked with the Board of Trade in order to make certain that the wood that is planted is the wood that is needed. I hope that the Government will be able to announce a policy soon, because the raising of seedlings takes time and many millions will be needed. As a first step, I suggest that this Report of the Forestry Commission should be looked into by the Government as well as the Supplementary Report published in January this year, dealing with post-war forest policy for private woodlands, which contains some very good suggestions for looking after woodlands and remunerating private owners. I do not think that I need ask your Lordships to listen to me on technical matters con-

1075
nected with woodland, because I am no expert. I beg to move for Papers.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD CROFT): My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for moving this Motion to-day and more especially, if I may do so, for the spirit in which he has moved it. The whole of his speech appeared to me to be most co-operative and helpful, and I am grateful to him for the manner in which he put his case. Your Lordships will remember that we had debates on this subject on June 22 and July 29 of last year, with a very full debate on the latter date. I think I am right in saying that nearly every speaker on the latter occasion—with the exception of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, who was no doubt restrained by modesty—paid tribute to the Forestry Commission's Report. It was made quite clear in that debate that all your Lordships felt that you had before you a document which placed the facts, the needs and the possibilities clearly and forcibly before the public, and which indicated a very definite move forward in the direction of large-scale forestry development as well as a hopeful measure of assistance towards reafforestation of felled areas.
Rarely do we find members of this House united on a main goal of policy, but in this case I think it may be said that we are all convinced that it is a supreme national duty that at the earliest moment when labour and materials are available we should set to work to insure this country against the perils of a timber shortage which on the present occasion, as during the last war, has resulted in felling very large areas of timber which was not fully grown, and in locking up, at a time when all shipping is so greatly needed, a large tonnage of ships to transport timber for our war needs. Planting cannot be for the immediate pleasure or gain of the planter; it is definitely associated with statesmanship, both national and domestic, which looks twenty-five, fifty or more years ahead. The length of time before planting can show a return necessitates a very long vision. It may be added that, thanks to our soil and climate, soft timber is frequently of economic growth in this country within twenty-five years—a fact which is not generally known—and, thanks to the aid of science
1076
and mechanization, and the general knowledge which has been brought to us largely through the efforts of the Forestry Commission, I think that we are also now able to say that we can expedite the growth of young trees to an extent which was previously not considered possible.
It may be many years before we are able to balance our trade, but, however long that may take, it is our duty so to increase the productive character of our industries, such as afforestation, that they can make a real contribution to our prosperity by providing a considerable proportion of our needs from our own soil. Early in his speech the noble Viscount mentioned that 500,000 acres were felled in the last war. As a matter of fact, the figure is 450,000. I should like in tabloid form to try to present the main points of this big policy. With regard to the history of the reconstruction plans, we have before us, as the noble Viscount remarked, the Report on Post-War Forest Policy presented in June, 1943, in which the immediate and ultimate objectives for British forestry were defined. The two main heads were: First, 5,000,000 acres to be planted in fifty years, comprising 2,000,000 acres of replanting and 3,000,000 acres of new afforestation; and secondly, more intensive State action for the encouragement of private woodland owners to dedicate their woods to the main object of timber production, to give grants for replanting and maintenance, and to enlarge the facilities for giving technical advice.
We then come to the programme for the first decade. The desirable programme advocated is 1,100,000 acres, of which 600,000 represent replanting and 500,000 new woods. Emphasis is laid on the very great importance, from the point of view of national safety, of getting the maximum possible areas planted in the first and second decades. Next, we come to forest research, services for which have been continuously maintained by the Commissioners, in contact with other institutions and organizations both at home and abroad, with the help of an Advisory Committee appointed in 1930. Grants in aid have also been made to university and research institute investigators in ancillary fields. It is proposed that this policy be continued, and that a central research station be set up, in accordance with the recommendation of the Cabinet Sub-

1077
Committee of 1920. Education has hitherto been provided at four universities and at the Commissioners' forest apprentices' schools. Additional facilities are now required for the training of forest officers, foresters, and woodland owners and their agents or factors, and the requirements can be met by suitably revised courses at the universities and forest apprentices' schools, supplemented by facilities for shorter courses. The Forestry Commission propose to continue their series of reports, bulletins and leaflets, and to extend the scope of their publications to cover all aspects of forestry and forest protection.
Three statements have been made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on the subject. There was the statement by my noble friend Lord Selborne on June 22 of last year, in reply to a Motion by Lord Mansfield. Secondly, there was a statement by Sir William Jowitt, the Minister without Portfolio, in July, 1943, and there was a third statement, again by Lord Selborne, in this House, in reply to a Motion by the Duke of Sutherland. All the statements have the following points in common. First of all, the Report on Post-War Forestry is a Report by the Forestry Commission and not by the Government. Secondly, the Government are still considering the Report, and have not yet come to a final decision, which must be fitted into the general framework of post-war reconstruction. Thirdly, the Government will be guided by the advice of Parliament and by representations from outside bodies. Fourthly, they are determined that there shall be a vigorous post-war forest policy.
Sir William Jowitt, the Minister without Portfolio, speaking in another place, made additional statements, and perhaps, as he was speaking with great authority in his position in connexion with the work of reconstruction, I may be permitted to quote from his speech. First of all, dealing with the continuity of finance for forestry, which I think interests the noble Viscount very much, he said:
"We realize that it is impossible to achieve a satisfactory programme unless there is a continuity of finance, and therefore in whatever plans we finally announce to the House we shall provide for that continuity."
With regard to the need for rapid postwar action, he said:
1078
"It is a matter of great importance that we should now, as soon as possible, within ten years after this war, plant to a very considerable extent."
Then, with reference to the question of immediate steps to be taken, he gave us a positive assurance that
"The Forestry Commission have asked for an answer now as to what steps they should take, and I want to say, on behalf of the Government, that they should take all steps that are now open to them to prepare for a great expansion of their efforts. In particular, the Government want them to take steps to acquire land, even although it need not be diverted from its present use for some years. Here I need hardly say that it must be acquired in the fullest consultation with the Agricultural Departments. Surveys should be made and plants should be raised on a large scale and such preliminary steps as are possible with a view to increasing training and education should be taken now. We want them to get ready to go full speed ahead when peace comes."
Then we come to the five pre-requisites mentioned in the main Report, which are all, I am sure, familiar to your Lordships and I will not quote them. Sir William Jowitt again touched on these points with the following important statements:
"It is obvious that, whatever policy the Government may decide to adopt, the carrying out of that policy must be entrusted to an ad hoc forestry authority."
"It is not settled yet what the relationship between the forestry authority and the responsible Minister should be."
He also pointed out that close collaboration is required between the interests of forestry and agriculture. He said that there are obvious advantages in having a unified Forestry Service for the whole of the United Kingdom, and that the Royal Scottish Forestry Society and the Scottish Land and Property Federation concur. He stated that there is no difficulty in devolving executive functions to the respective parts of the Kingdom. He said that the necessity for greatly extending research is also accepted by the Government. Sir William Jowitt offered to receive representations on the Commission's scheme of dedication, and blessed the steps which the Commission were taking to consult the various bodies interested in forestry. Quotations are always unpopular, but it seemed to me that we wanted to have before us those definite statements by His Majesty's Government.
Since these pronouncements the Commission have been in close consultation

1079
with the woodland owners resulting in the agreements which are set forth in the Supplementary Report on post-war policy, which I think is worthy of your Lordship's attention and which was published in January. Fundamental principles agreed in the Report include rapid procedure with the rehabilitation of woodlands; financial assistance to owners who are prepared to carry out the work and can give satisfactory assurances; continuation of the war-time system of felling licences until the reserves of standing timber are adjudged satisfactory; and the necessity for some control of private forestry. That I think largely answers some of the important points raised by the noble Lord. Other fundamental principles are that the act of dedication on the part of the owner is to include an undertaking to make timber production the main object; to work to an approved plan; to employ skilled supervision; and to keep adequate accounts. Agreed principles are that owners must be prepared to bear a substantial portion of the costs; that in the event of dedication tending to break down, so that the State has to assume management, assistance afforded shall be taken fully into account in the terms of settlement; and that assistance shall cease when the woods are self-supporting.
The proposal that State assistance should take the form of 25 per cent. of net expenditure was not seriously controverted, but woodland owners expressed a unanimous desire for an alternative option, and after "very thorough" discussion it was agreed, in regard to dedicated woods, that there should be: (a) A planting grant of £7 10s. od. Per acre both for hardwoods and softwoods; (b) loans according to circumstances at the rate of interest at which State forestry is financed, plus a small operating charge; (c) a maintenance grant for 15 years at 2s. 6d. per acre per annum, planted and properly maintained; (d) a maintenance grant for 15 years of 2s. 6d. per acre per annum on all productive woods other than new plantings covered by (c); (e) the grants to be revised after five years on the basis of ascertained costs. The Commissioners recommend these proposals as a reasonable agreed measure of assistance in the immediate post-war period. It is further agreed with the owners that assistance for the replanting of small woods
1080
(not suitable for dedication), so far as they are specifically available for timber production, should take the form of a planting grant of £7 10s. per acre. This, I think, will be a great encouragement to several of your Lordships who took part in the last debate, when they specifically raised this question.
But I must point out that this Report has only recently come to hand; it is a recommendation, and not a Government decision. The Commission have discussed education with the forestry professors and other interests, and have reached agreement regarding the general measures required. Discussions have also taken place with representatives of the home timber trade. If I may mention something still fresher, the Commission have been working out a scheme in outline for the organization of a Forestry Corps of 25,000 to 35,000 men to be employed on suitable operations in the forests, road-making, etc., on demobilization, the men to be housed in camps sited with regard to the distribution of woodland, and to be available for work in the State forests and private woods. It is suggested that men should engage for a term, say, of six months in the first instance, with provision for the release of any man who may secure suitable civil employment at any time; work done by members of the Corps on private estates to be paid for by the owners. I need hardly say, as one who most earnestly is seeking for means by which we can ensure the early employment of our demobilized Service men, that this proposal appeals to me very much. But the plan is in course of preparation still by the Forestry Commission and, of course, has not yet been accepted.
The societies have raised the question of advisory versus executive committees in the future administration of private woods. The Commission are not in favour of executive committees on the ground that recipients of grants should not be the parties to administer these grants. On the other hand, it is thought that there is scope for advisory committees and that with good will on both sides they can do effective work. Some progress has been made in defining the procedure of advisory committees and their relation to the Commission. These are matters which the Commission are prepared to discuss further with the representatives of woodland owners. I may mention that I noticed

1081
with pleasure that at their annual meeting on February 23, the Royal Scottish Forestry Society passed the following resolution:
"That this general meeting of the Royal Scottish Forestry Society, after full discussion of the post-war proposals by the Forestry Commissioners, recognizes that a substantial advance has beeen made towards full agreement, more especially in the alternative of planting and maintenance grants in place of a deficiency grant. It is glad to hear from paragraph 4 of the Supplementary Report that the Conference will meet again for further discussion in an endeavour to reach agreement on all points."
I think your Lordships will agree that it is very satisfactory to see the spirit of agreement which has been brought about among the interests concerned under the aegis of this Commission, which, as your Lordships are aware, is of a non-Party character, and which has done admirable work.
The Commission had been instructed to increase nursery stocks, which was a point the noble Lord mentioned, to proceed with land acquisition, and to carry out other preparatory work, and it is proceeding within the limits of the labour and materials available. Large quantities of home-grown seed, conifer and hardwood, have been collected for sowing, and supplies of spruce and Scots pine seed, which keep we I when properly stored, are being kept in reserve. During the last sowing season some 10,000 lbs. of conifer seeds and 95,000 lbs. of hard woods, chiefly oak and beech, were sown in State nurseries and 73,000,000 seedlings were lined out to provide trees for planting out in future seasons. I am also glad to read in this Supplementary Report the striking tribute paid to the woodland owners who, notwithstanding many difficulties in the past and, your Lordships will agree, with very meagre encouragement in years gone by, have made such a massive contribution to our war effort. Indeed it is slated that only three or four per cent. of the timber available in this great crisis has come from other than the woodlands to which I have referred. That is, of course, no kind of criticism of the Forestry Commissioners, who only started in 1919 and could not have produced timber at an earlier date. Here I should like to add my own small tribute to the many tributes paid to the Forestry Commission in the last debate. I happened to succeed to a property a year or two ago, and found that some
1082
hundreds of acres were in the hands of the Forestry Commission. They had secured the property very economically for a small amount, and I was impressed by the very efficient way with which the whole business was carried on.
It is clear from the proposals in the Report that forestry is intended to take a real place in our reconstruction, and will be of an imposing character, ranging up, as the noble Lord has mentioned, to 5,000,000 acres as the ultimate aim. Forestry will assume a place in our national economy of vital importance, not only from the point of view of providing work for our people, which it will in some measure do, but of balancing our trade, strengthening our exchange position, and, most important of all, promoting our safety in time of national emergency. On that all of us in this House, and I expect in the other Chamber as well, are united. I have no doubt that these proposals will receive the most sympathetic consideration because the Government share with your Lordships the desire to promote wide-scale planting along scientific and economic lines at the earliest date.
Whilst the final form is still under consideration, I can say that the Government are prepared to go a long way, and we are generally in agreement as to the prerequisites which I mentioned earlier. Your Lordships will appreciate that owing to the man-power situation labour at this moment is not available and, even if it were, there is a very great scarcity of materials, so that it is impossible on any large scale to start to-day as we all should wish; but those with knowledge of forestry will realize that in many areas this is not wholly to our disadvantage as weevil must be eliminated and plants are not as yet available in sufficient quantities. I think, however, your Lordships will agree that the mere fact that the Government proposal is for a grant of £50,000 in the coming financial year proves that, although this may only be a token of our intention, it is a real gesture of sympathy with the proposals which I have endeavoured in compressed form to enumerate to your Lordships to-day.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: May I ask the noble Lord whether he can add something about the Forestry Corps of which he spoke? Will the workers be obtained locally through the local agricultural

1083
committee on will the labour be centralized in London, and will private woodland owners be able to negotiate direct with headquarters in the matter of wages?
LORD CROFT: My Lords, I am afraid it would be improper for me to enlarge on the very brief statement I have made because this proposal has only been entered upon very recently, and the plan is only at this moment under discussion. I gather that there is no doubt that private owners will have opportunities of securing men from this Corps. That is the intention that is being worked upon because, as I stated earlier, private owners would in that case have to pay the wage
1084
concerned. I am sorry I cannot give any further answer.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: I thank the noble Lord for his very helpful reply, and especially for the new information he has given us on the subject of the Forestry Corps. I can imagine that there will be many men in the Services who, on reading of the proposal in respect of this Corps, will welcome it as a trade really fit for a man after the war. I thank the noble Lord, and beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned.