Sitting of 8 March 1944

Preamble
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  JEWISH COLONIZATION ASSOCIATION BILL [Lords].
  Read the First time, and referred to the Examiners.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  UNITED STATES CLAIMS COMMISSION, UNITED KINGDOM
  Sir John Mellorasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now make a statement with regard to the U.S.A. Claims Commission in the United Kingdom.
  The Secretary of State for Foreiģn Affairs (Mr. Eden): I cannot yet make a comprehensive statement on this subject. We have, however, made considerable progress in our discussions and I have good reason to hope for a settlement in the near future. As soon as this is finally agreed, I shall make a full statement to the House.
  Sir J. Mellor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at present, a person who obtains judgment in a British court against the driver of a United States Army vehicle can neither obtain payment from the United States Claims Commission, nor any assistance in the collection of the Damages awarded to him?
  Mr. Eden: I am aware of the difficulties of the situation, and my hon. Friend is aware that that is why I have been trying to get a settlement. As I have said, we are making good progress, and I hope to be able to make an announcement very soon.
  Mr. Bellenģer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has given us a somewhat similar answer previously? What is holding up the negotiations?
  Mr. Eden: If the hon. Member is aware of this subject, he will also be aware of its great complexity, and I am anxious to get a settlement which will finally cover all aspects of this question. I have given a lot of time to it myself, and I cannot do more.
  Sir J. Mellor: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the settlement will cover all outstanding claims that have not been satisfactorily disposed of?
  Mr. Eden: If my hon. Friend will await the outcome of the settlement, he can then judge whether it is a good one or not.

  KING'S MESSENGERS (DEPENDANTS)
  Miss Wardasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the King's Messengers, who render the nation invaluable service often under most dangerous circumstances, are entitled to no pension for the dependants if they are killed; that there have already been deaths and disablement from their service; and will he take immediate steps to remedy this.
  Mr. Eden: I think the hon. Lady must be under a misapprehension. Provision does exist for compensation to dependants of King's Messengers serving abroad who die as a result of war injuries sustained on duty, or of an accident specifically attributable to the nature of their duty.
  Miss Ward: Could I ask my right hon. Friend when that decision came into operation?
  Mr. Eden: As far as I know, it has been in operation for some considerable time.

  ALLIED NATIONALS (STUDY FACILITIES)
  Fliģht-Lieutenant Teelinģasked the Secretary of State for Foreiģn Affairs whether he has offered any facilities to foreigners serving in this country, or

  2027
  resident here because of the war, to study the Parliamentary history of this country, the constitutional position of the Dominions and the possibilities for future trade between their countries, ourselves and our Colonies.
  Mr. Eden: With the approval of the Foreign Office, the British Council organise courses of lectures on a great variety of subjects for members of the Allied Forces and for civilians of Allied countries. These courses include lectures on British institutions, constitutional history and general economic subjects relating to the British Empire. In addition, the Council arrange contacts between individuals, civilian or military, of Allied countries and British experts on various subjects, and assist in supplying books or arranging access to libraries. Lectures on commercial subjects and the promotion of trade and trade contacts are outside the British Council's sphere, but I am always ready to give sympathetic consideration to applications addressed to me by the diplomatic representatives of persons desirous of studying the trade possibilities of the Empire.

  AMBASSADORIAL APPOINTMENTS (DURATION)
  Fliģht-Lieutenant Teelinģasked the Secretary of State for Foreiģn Affairs what is the practice regarding the duration of ambassadorial appointments, especially to the larger countries of the world which it takes ambassadors time to cover and to understand; and whether, as in these critical days disappointment will be caused to our friends in these countries if the ambassadors are withdrawn almost as soon as they have begun to find their feet, he will see that such appointments are not frequently changed.
  Mr. Eden: I recognise the disadvantages of frequent changes in our representation abroad, especially in countries which require time to know and understand and I therefore try to avoid unnecessary changes. But it is impracticable to fix a definite term for ambassadorial appointments, especially at the present time when developments in the war situation may make it necessary suddenly to transfer an ambassador or other
  2028
  Foreign Service officer who has special qualifications for a particular post.
  Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, so far as some of us are concerned, there are some ambassadors who, in our view, ought to be changed very soon?

  ARGENTINA (RELATIONS)
  Mr. Ivor Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Foreiģn Affairs whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to maintain relations with the present Government of Argentina.
  Mr. Eden: On 25th February it was announced in Buenos Aires that "fatigued by the intense tasks of Government," President Ramirez had delegated his functions to the Vice-President, General Farrell. In view of the obscurity surrounding the circumstances in which this announcement came to be made, His Majesty's Ambassador has, since that time, confined his communications to the Argentine Government to routine matters only, and a similar procedure is being observed as regards communications between His Majesty's Government and the Argentine Ambassador in London. This attitude will be maintained pending developments in Buenos Aires.
  I might add that His Majesty's Government attach particular importance to definite action being taken to fulfil the declarations made by General Mason on 28th February and General Farrell on 3rd March that the foreign policy of General Ramirez will be continued unchanged. The House will observe that this attitude corresponds to that taken up by the United States Government with whom we are of course in close and constant contact on this matter.
  Mr. Neil Maclean: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform us when he is likely to make to the House a full and complete statement with regard to affairs in Argentina?
  Mr. Eden: I think the statement I have just made is as complete a statement as I can make about an indefinite and incomplete situation.
  Mr. Lipson: Is trade with Argentina continuing?

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Ground Duties, Scotland
    Mr. Bellenģerasked the Secretary of State for Air to what extent volunteers for duty in the Shetland Isles have been asked for and what is the period of tour of duty in that station.
    The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): Airmen employed on ground duties have been invited to express a preference for service in the Orkneys, Shetlands and Western Islands. The normal period of tour of duty is 18 months.

    Class E Reservists
    Mr. John Duģdaleasked the Secretary of State for Air whether there is any likelihood of Class E reservists in the R.A.F., who were called up prior to the outbreak of war when they were already over military age and some of whom are now between 45 and 50 years of age, being able to obtain their discharge.
    Sir A. Sinclair: Under the Military and Air Forces (Prolongation of Service) Act, 1939, the airmen referred to are liable for service until the end of the present emergency, and I regret that it is not practicable to release them meanwhile. Applications for release or discharge on compassionate grounds are considered on their merits.
    Mr. Duģdale: Would the right hon. Gentleman see that these men, who showed very great patriotism in joining up long before the war, are not penalised? Many of them are now quite old and incapable of carrying out full military duties.
    Sir A. Sinclair: Certainly, Sir, these men will not be penalised.

    Requisitioned House (Damaģe)
    Mr. Keelinģasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that in an early Georgian house of great beauty, which he requisitioned three years ago, his department have recently smashed the seventeenth-century tiles, Chippendale girandoles, other fixtures and brickwork, and removed the staircases and mantels without giving any opportunity for their preservation; and whether those responsible have been dismissed or reprimanded.
    Sir A. Sinclair: It was urgently necessary last autumn for structural alterations to be made to this property and I very much regret to say that the valuable nature of certain fixtures and decorations was not recognised at the outset of the work. The officers concerned acted in good faith and no disciplinary action was called for. Representations were made by the owner at an early stage and work was immediately suspended and a competent architect was charged with arranging, in consultation with the owner's surveyor, for the panelling, walls, ceilings and fittings to be taken down as carefully as possible, and as much as possible of what bad already been taken down to be properly stored. A letter of apology was sent to the owner and further instructions were immediately issued which will, I hope, prevent such mistakes in future.
    Mr. Keelinģ: Can my right hon. Friend explain how it is that after all the experience he has had of this sort of thing in the first four years of the war, it is still going on? Will he say, quite definitely to all those who may be concerned in the future, that very severe steps will be taken if it happens again?
    Sir A. Sinclair: My hon. Friend asks me to explain how it happened in this case. This property had been taken over for a long time before it was found necessary to make the structural alterations for operational reasons. Unfortunately, the officers who had to make them were not aware of the importance of these fittings. That is how this very deplorable destruction came about. I hope that the instructions which I have issued since, will have the effect which my hon. Friend wants.
    Mr. Shinwell: Will the same solicitude and generosity be afforded to those working-class people who have been "blitzed" out of their humble homes?
    Sir A. Sinclair: Of course, Sir. We try to do all we can to have regard to the convenience of people, irrespective of whether they are rich or poor.
    Mr. Leach: Is there anything really very beautiful about an early Georgian house?
    Hon. Members: Yes.
    Mr. Granville: May I bring to the notice of the Minister the destruction of houses of a similar character in other parts of the country, particularly in East Anglia?

    2031
    Will he see that the owners get the some treatment and consideration as have been given in this case?
    Sir A. Sinclair: I shall be very glad if the hon. Member, or any other hon. Member, will bring to my notice such cases.

  CIVIL AVIATION (AIR LINE CONFERENCE)
  Mr. Granvilleasked the Secretary of State for Air if it is intended to hold an international air-line conference in London in the near future; and whether his Department is to be represented at such a meeting.
  Sir A. Sinclair: I understand that a company which operated services in this country before the war, has on its own initiative issued invitations to a number of air-line operators to attend a meeting in London in May. The arrangements for this meeting are entirely unofficial and the Air Ministry will not be represented. I should, perhaps, add that statements which have appeared in the Press to the effect that the meeting has the support of the Air Ministry are without foundation.
  Mr. Granville: Does that mean that all the suggestions of official and governmental talks with the United States will be allowed to drop?
  Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sir, that is quite a different and a much larger question.

  MINISTRY OF INFORMATION

    Film, "The Hiģhland Doctor"
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Information if he will arrange for the film entitled "The Highland Doctor" to be shown throughout England.
    The Minister of Information (Mr. Brendan Bracken): Yes, Sir, this film will be shown by the Ministry's mobile units throughout England.

    United States Army Unit (Publicity)
    Major Sir Jocelyn Lucasasked the Minister of Information if he will publicise the name of the American unit which fought beside the Guards in their recent gallant action in the bridgehead.
    Mr. Bracken: The decision when to publish the name of units engaged in operations is made by the Commander-in-Chief who has to take into account security considerations. He has been informed of my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion.

    New Guinea Operations (Films)
    Sir J. Lucasasked the Minister of Information if he will see that propaganda films showing the fighting in New Guinea show both United States and Australian troops and not those of one country only.
    Mr. Bracken: I know not what my hon. and gallant Friend means by "propaganda" films, but I can assure him that in any films made under the auspices of the Ministry of Information care will be taken to do justice to the valour of the Australian and American troops in their warfare in New Guinea.

    Public Utility Companies (Reports and Accounts)
    Sir Irvinģ Alberyasked the Minister of Information what restrictions are still imposed upon the publication of the accounts and annual reports of public utility companies; and whether these restrictions can now be removed.
    Mr. Bracken: I understand that the publication of the accounts and annual reports of various classes of public utility companies is forbidden by Orders under Defence Regulation 56, issued by the Ministries of War Transport and Fuel and Power. But the shareholders in these companies are entitled to inspect the accounts upon application to the Departments. The security reasons for imposing these restrictions still exist.
    Sir I. Albery: Do I understand that my right hon. Friend has no responsibility in this matter?
    Mr. Bracken: That is a perfect explanation of my position.
    Sir I. Albery: Then why does my right hon. Friend reply?
    Mr. Bracken: Because I have to carry out the functions of censorship under the directions of other Departments.

    French Guerilla Warfare (Film)
    Mr. Driberģasked the Minister of Information if he will secure the widest possible showing, in ordinary commercial

    2033
    and in special Ministry programmes, of the film of French guerilla warfare recently smuggled to this country.
    Mr. Bracken: The Ministry of Information has already offered its services to the French authorities in London for securing the widest possible public exhibition of this film.

  POST OFFICE

    Stamps (Stocks Held by Public)
    Sir Herbert Williamsasked the Postmaster-General if he can furnish an estimate of the interest free loan to the State represented by the stocks of postage, National Health Insurance and Unemployment Insurance stamps held by the public.
    The Postmaster-General (Captain Crookshank): I regret that I have no means of making an estimate of the value of the stamps held by the public at any time.

    Parcels for Forces (Thefts)
    Major Nieldasked the Postmaster-General what inquiries have been made by his Department as to the quantities of cigarettes and tobacco posted to the Forces overseas that have been stolen in transit; and if he is satisfied that all possible steps are being taken to put a stop to it.
    Captain Crookshank: A joint investigation is being made by my Department and the War Office and I must await the results, but a number of steps have already been taken which I hope will diminish the losses of cigarettes and tobacco posted to the Forces overseas.

  HOUSING

    Repairs (Licences)
    Lieut.-Colonel Dowerasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works whether he will except cases of burst pipes and leaking roofs from the rule that where £100 has been expended on a single house in a period of 12 months no further repair may be carried out in that period without a certificate of essentiality from the local authority and a licence from his Department.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Hicks): Work such as that described can be carried out
    2034
    without licence if it is urgently necessary and is done in circumstances of emergency which render it impracticable to obtain a licence beforehand. No certificate of essentiality is required from the local authority but the Ministry of Works Regional Licensing Officer should be notified as soon as possible.
    Lieut.-Col. Dower: Notified after the work has been carried out?
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: Can my hon. Friend say when the word "essentiality," was admitted to the English language?

    Prefabricated Houses
    Mr. Reakesasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works on what grounds his Ministry assumes that houses factory-produced, or produced by other deviations from traditional technique, will necessarily be of a temporary nature; and what progress has been made in the erection of the experimental foam slag houses; and will he give some indication of the date on which it will be possible for local authorities to inspect these.
    Mr. Hicks: As stated by my Noble Friend in the course of a Debate in another place on 8th February, it is the view of His Majesty's Government that prefabrication could be used for either temporary or permanent housing. Work on the foamed slag houses is in progress, and the first of them should be available for inspection by the middle of May.

  WEST INDIES

    Royal Commission (Report)
    Miss Wardasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will now publish the evidence on which the Report of the Royal Commission to the West Indies was based.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Colonel Oliver Stanley): As regards the question whether the full Report should be published, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) on 10th November last. The question of publishing the evidence cannot usefully be considered in advance of the publication of the Report.
    Miss Ward: When will the Report be published?
    Colonel Stanley: Perhaps my hon. Friend will look at the answer to which I have referred.

    Trinidad (Civil Servants)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been drawn to an ultimatum addressed to certain civil servants in Trinidad; whether he is aware that this has caused considerable resentment; and what action is likely to be taken both to ease the position and to have the grievances of the men considered without their employment being jeopardised.
    Colonel Stanley: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 1st March to the hon. Member for Rugby. (Mr. W. J. Brown).

  MALTA (MACLEOD REPORT)
  Miss Wardasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why he has not issued instructions for a copy of the Macleod Report to be flown to England in order that it might be placed in the Library of the House.
  Colonel Stanley: I much regret that no copy of this Report has up to now been available for the use of hon. Members. A number of copies were, however, received from the Governor two days ago, and two of these are being placed in the Library of the House to-day.
  Miss Ward: In view of the fact that I arrived in this country with a copy, why could not the Report have been flown over by a B.O.A.C. aircraft, immediately after publication?
  Colonel Stanley: The copies which are being put into the Library came out of a large consignment which, I think, probably weighed more than the hon. Lady, and, therefore, had to be delivered by sea.

  WEST AFRICA

    Appointments (Salary Differentiation)
    Mr. S. O. Daviesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will now consider the removal of racial discrimination in the payment of salaries in the professions in West Africa, particularly in view of the fact that the development of these Colonies will largely
    2036
    depend upon increasing numbers of Africans qualifying for posts in these professions.
    Colonel Stanley: I do not accept the suggestion that there is racial discrimination in West African salaries. The differentiation that exists is based on the factor of expatriation which affects staff recruited from outside West Africa. The question of salary relationship in West Africa is now under consideration and I am proposing that a senior member of the staff of the Colonial Office should visit West Africa in the early summer so as to acquaint himself with local conditions and to discuss the whole subject with the Resident Minister and with the Governors. I agree with my hon. Friend as to the importance of stimulating and encouraging the staffing of the Colonial public services by the people of the Colonies themselves and I emphasised this in the House last July when speaking on the Colonial Office Estimates.
    Mr. Davies: Is the Minister tackling this serious problem now, in view of the fact that we cannot encourage Colonials to prepare for professional and administrative posts unless they are treated in the same way as others similarly qualified?
    Colonel Stanley: I agree that it is a most important problem. I want to press on with it as soon as I can.
    Mr. Sorensen: If no discrimination or disparity exists, why has any investigation been made?
    Colonel Stanley: I do not say that there is no difference between salaries but there is no racial discrimination. The people who go from this country and leave their families incur much heavier expenses than people who are recruited on the spot.

    Gambia (Press Regulation)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the Newspaper Registration Bill and the False Publications Bill have now been introduced in Gambia and whether there is any recent reason for this extension to Gambia of Regulations, Ordinances or legislation operative in other West African Colonies.
    Colonel Stanley: I understand that the Bills in question were passed by the Legislative Council of the Gambia at its meeting in January. I have not yet seen

    2037
    their texts, but I expect shortly to receive from the Governor a despatch submitting them and explaining the reasons for their enactment. I will then communicate with the hon. Member.

    Scholarships
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what method is employed in the selection of recipients of scholarships in West Africa; and why no Press notice is given to encourage volunteers equitably to offer themselves for consideration.
    Colonel Stanley: I assume that my hon. Friend has in mind scholarships awarded under the auspices of Government to enable Africans to take up a course of training at universities or other similar institutions in the United Kingdom. Full information about the conditions on which it is proposed to award such scholarships is normally published in the official gazette of the Colony concerned, and applications received as the result of such announcements are considered by a local Committee constituted according to the nature of the training to be provided.
    Mr. Sorensen: Does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman feel that, in addition to being published in the official gazette, it would be worth while to consider publishing these announcements in the Press?
    Colonel Stanley: I will certainly look into it but the hon. Member will realise that the official gazette is open to the Press, which very often copies the announcements.

  EAST AFRICA

    Labour Commissioners
    Mr. Rileyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there are Government labour advisers now stationed in Kenya, Tanganyika, Northern Rhodesia and Uganda, respectively, who are fully qualified to advise on trade union and labour problems.
    Colonel Stanley: There are experienced Labour Commissioners in charge of the Labour Departments in each of the territories named, who are fully qualified to advise on African labour problems.
    Mr. Riley: Are there any experienced trade unionists in these territories?
    Colonel Stanley: No trade unionists, who have proved so successful in these jobs, are yet in East Africa.
    Mr. Riley: Is it the intention of the Minister to have such trade unionists sent there?
    Colonel Stanley: The experiment has been such a success where it has been tried, that I hope to see it widely extended.

    Armed Forces (Volunteers)
    Mr. Rileyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of Africans who have joined the Fighting Forces in Kenya, Tanganyika, Northern Rhodesia and Uganda, respectively; and whether he has under consideration any schemes for making suitable provision for these African volunteers when war terminates.
    Colonel Stanley: It would not be in the public interest to give detailed figures but the numbers represent a high proportion of the able-bodied male population of these territories and reflects the greatest credit on their people. Schemes for development which will take fully into account the special needs of Africans reverting to civilian status in these territories on demobilisation are under active consideration by all the Colonial Governments concerned.

  RAILWAYS

    Station Names (Announcement)
    Mr. W. H Greenasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport if he will consider, in consultation with the railway executives, the possibility of steps being taken to ensure that the names of railway stations are announced either by loud-speaker or otherwise, during periods of black-out, when trains arrive at station platforms.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): As my hon. Friend is, no doubt, aware, loud-speakers have been installed at the more important stations and junctions throughout the country, and the railway companies add to the number, when they can obtain the equipment and the skilled labour which are required. Elsewhere, the staff are constantly reminded that they must call out the names of the

    2039
    station on the arrival of every train, and checks are made at frequent intervals to ensure that this instruction is carried out.
    Mr. Green: Is my hon. Friend aware that at less important stations, where perhaps the greatest difficulty arises, names are not announced? Is he also aware that countless people who are compelled to travel during the black-out feel that a little common sense would soon remove the grievance from which they suffer?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I am afraid that at most of the smaller stations loud-speakers would require extra staff, which we have not got. We endeavour to get the porters to call out the names. If my hon. Friend would give me examples of places where it is not done, I will have inquiries made.
    Mr. Thorne: Is my hon. Friend aware that on the District Railway the porters do not in all cases call out the names of the stations?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I will look into that.
    Viscount Hinchinģbrooke: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this does not apply only to the black-out? Frequently even in daylight it is impossible to read the names of country stations, and the railway staff should be encouraged to call them out.
    Mr. Granville: Is it not possible to have larger lettering?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Larger lettering has, in fact, already been authorised.
    Mr. Gallacher: Will the hon. Gentleman see that the attendants on the railways speak a little more loudly than Members on the Front Bench?
    Mr. Shinwell: Is it not the case that frequently at wayside stations, when the porter announces the names you do not know what he is talking about?

    Profits
    Sir Frank Sandersonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he can state the profits earned by the railway companies to the year ended 31st December, 1943; the amount which has been paid to the railway companies under the hire agreement; and the amount of profit which has accrued to the Treasury.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I would ask my hon. Friend to await the White Paper which will be issued shortly.

    Electrification
    Mr. Hisģģsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport what steps he is taking to extend the electrification of main line railways after the war.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: The extension of electrification to the main line railways is a matter which my noble Friend will consider in relation to post-war development. It is, I understand, already under examination by the railway companies themselves.
    Mr. Hisģģs: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the vast amount of replacement which will be necessary immediately after the war, and that an exceptional opportunity will arise for electrification? Is he, furthermore, aware that coal consumption will be reduced by more than 50 per cent.?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I should not like to accept the last figure without examination, but a great deal of work on the subject has been done, and we are well aware of the opportunities of which the hon. Member speaks.
    Sir F. Sanderson: Will the hon. Gentleman see to it that reasonable and adequate allowances are made for depreciation, so that the necessary funds may be built up to enable companies to electrify their lines?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: That is another question. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put it on the Paper.

    Armed Forces (Accommodation)
    Mr. Dobbieasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he is aware of the complaints being made that members of His Majesty's Forces have to stand in corridors on long journeys owing to the absence of third-class accommodation, while seats are available in first-class compartments; and whether the position has been made clear by the railway companies to their staff that members of the Forces and other passengers should be permitted to occupy available first-class seats on trains when the third-class accommodation is fully taken up.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: The railway staff have been given discretion to allow passengers with third-class tickets to occupy seats in first-class carriages without any extra charge when third-class carriages are seriously overcrowded. My hon. Friend will understand however that it is necessary to have regard to the requirements of passengers with first-class tickets who may join the train later on its journey.
    Mr. Dobbie: In view of the difficulty that has arisen, would the Minister ask the railway companies to instruct their servants not to turn Service men out of compartments at the request of first-class passengers?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: That is a very difficult matter as put in those terms. I think the present instructions have worked reasonably well, though they are hard both on Service men and civilians in some cases. I hope my hon. Friend will agree that the railway staffs do their best.
    Mr. A. Bevan: Is my hon. Friend aware that quite often the communicating doors between coaches are locked so as to ensure that first-class passengers are not disturbed, and this means that people cannot distribute themselves over the train?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: There are other reasons, which I think more important, for the locking of communicating doors. The matter is to be discussed on the Adjournment, and perhaps my hon. Friend will attend on that occasion.
    Mr. Dobbie: Will my hon. Friend give instructions that Service men are not to be turned out of compartments at the request of passengers?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: If there are passengers with first-class tickets they ought to have the seats.
    Mr. A. Edwards: Is my hon. Friend aware that within the last year or two there have been accidents and lives lost as the result of locking communicating doors?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: There was an accident two years ago, after which instructions were changed, so that that cause of danger was removed.
    Hon. Members: They are still locked.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: No, not the doors that cause the danger.
    Winģ - Commander Grant-Ferrisasked the Secretary of State for War (1) if he is satisfied with the arrangements made at St. Pancras and Euston stations for advertising the existence of the United Services Club so that Service men and women do not find themselves stranded;
    (2) If he is assured that Service men and women arriving at King's Cross station after 8 p.m. are able to obtain food and accommodation in the station or very near; and whether all such facilities are clearly advertised.
    The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Arthur Henderson): There are two canteens for Service personnel at King's Cross Station, one of which is open 24 hours a day. This canteen is immediately opposite the main line booking office and the way to it is indicated by signs. In addition to these canteens there are six hostels in the vicinity of King's Cross, St. Pancras and Euston Stations. Posters advertising their addresses are displayed in the Railway Traffic Officers' offices, in the canteens, in the military cloakrooms, in the information bureau and in the stations. There is no evidence that Service men and women have any real difficulty in finding their way to the canteens and hostels.

  TRANSPORT, NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE
  Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport if he is aware of the proposal of the local authorities to form a North Staffordshire Transport Board; that it is the intention of the city of Stoke-on-Trent to organise a transport department after the war and arrive at an understanding with local omnibus companies; and if he will take steps to restrain the proposed merger between a subsidiary of the British Electric Traction Company and the Associated Omnibus Company in view of the restrictions on municipalities and the desirability of avoiding controversial measures during the war.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I have received no proposals for the creation of a North Staffordshire Transport Board. Such proposals, if put forward by the competent local authorities would require the consent of Parliament. I do not think

  2043
  that the purchase of one local omnibus undertaking by another could prejudice the action either of the local authorities, or of Parliament. I should not, therefore, feel justified in objecting to any such transaction on the grounds suggested by my hon. Friend.

  ROADS

    Empty Lorry Journeys
    Captain Stricklandasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport why two six-ton road vehicles were despatched by his Department empty from London to Birmingham on 27th February, involving double-time pay for that Sunday, to be loaded on Monday, 28th February, at West Bromwich with empty cordial bottles for London.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I have had some difficulty in tracing the particular consignments to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers in his Question. I regret that my inquiries are not yet complete but I will write to him as soon as they are, unless he proposes to put down another Question for next week.
    Captain Strickland: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the grave discomfort caused to drivers of road transport by being despatched on Sundays to places like Birmingham, where there is very little accommodation, and will he avoid as far as possible this double time payment for Sundays?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I am aware of the discomfort, which many transport workers suffer as a result of war conditions, but we must use transport as best we can for the national advantage.
    Mr. J. Duģdale: Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituents in West Bromwich would be glad to see these lorries return with full cordial bottles?

    Accidents
    Mr. Granvilleasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport if he can state the number of casualties upon the roads for the months of January and February, together with the figures of such casualties during the hours of black-out.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate the figures for January in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I regret that the figures for February have not yet been received.
    Following are the figures:
    The numbers of persons killed and injured on the roads during the month of January, 1944, are as follows:

    Killed.

    Injured.

    Total Persons Killed and Injured.

    Seriously.

    Slightly.

    Blackout

    312

    1,431

    3,335

    5,078

    Daylight

    248

    1,434

    4,511

    6,193

    Total

    560

    2,865

    7,846

    11,271

  BRITISH WAR PRODUCTION (STATISTICS)
  Sir Patrick Hannonasked the Minister of Production whether, in view of the magnitude of the war production of the United Nations in relation to that of the Axis, he can now give figures of British war production comparable with those which have been published by the Americans.
  The Minister of Production (Mr. Lyttelton): Yes, Sir. I am glad the circumstances are now such that I can meet the hon. Member's request, and I propose to circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Hon. Members may, however, like to hear some of the salient figures now.
  From the beginning of the war to the end of 1943, we have made in this country:—

  83,000 tanks, armoured cars and carriers.

  Over 115,000 guns of calibres larger than 20 mm.

  150,000,000 rounds of gun ammunition.

  Nearly 5,500,000 machine guns, rifles, sub-machine guns and automatic pistols.

  Nearly 7,000,000,000 rounds of small arms ammunition.

  More than 1,000,000 wheeled vehicles of unarmoured types.

  Just on 90,000 aircraft, mainly of combat types.

  2045
  Our naval construction has more than replaced our losses, so that by the end of 1943, in most types of vessel, our strength was greater than at the beginning of the war. These are heartening figures of which we have every right to be proud.
  Sir P. Hannon: In view of the exhilarating statement which he has just made, will my right hon. Friend take steps to have this announcement of production during the war exhibited in the canteens in the principal industries throughout the country, the workpeople in which have done such marvellous work?
  Mr. Lyttelton: I shall be glad to consider that.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider going a little further and have this information published in leaflet form, so that it can be distributed among the soldiers?
  Mr. Lyttelton: I will try to make some arrangement of that kind.
  Mr. A. Edwards: Do the figures account for local production committees being no longer consulted?
  Mr. Lyttelton: I do not admit that for a minute.
  Mr. Edwards: Has the right hon. Gentleman had any protests from local production committees at not being consulted?
  Following is the statement:
  Since this Island is a base for Allied operations and no factory, store or depot in the United Kingdom is outside the range of German bombers, it would obviously not be in the public interest to publish complete statistics of war production in this country. There can, however, be no harm, and it will certainly give no comfort to the enemy, if I make public for the first time a few actual figures to illustrate the magnitude of war production in this country.
  From the beginning of the war to the end of 1943 we have made for the Army alone:—

  83,000 tanks, armoured cars and carriers.

  Over 115,000 guns of calibres larger than 20 mm.

  150,000,000 rounds of gun ammunition.

  Nearly 5,500,000 machine guns, rifles, submachine guns and automatic pistols.

  Nearly 7,000,000,000 rounds of small arms ammunition.

  In addition, we have produced hundreds of thousands of 40 and 20 mm. cannon guns and machine guns for aircraft, guns of all calibres from .5 inch to 16 inch for the Navy, and very large quantities of the necessary ammunition.
  2046
  We have manufactured more than 1,000,000 wheeled vehicles of unarmoured types for war purposes of every kind. We have produced just on 90,000 aircraft of all types, by far the greater part of which consisted of combat types. Just over 4/5 of all the aircraft we are now producing are combat planes—bombers, fighters and naval reconnaissance planes—the balance being made up of transports, trainers and target aircraft. When it is remembered how large a proportion of our output has been heavy bombers, each of which is equivalent in terms of man hours to four fighters and 40 primary trainers, it will be realised that the operational value of our production is far greater than the figures alone reveal. As a result we have been able to provide over three-quarters of the total structure weight of new aircraft delivered to the R.A.F. and Fleet Air Arm during 1943 from production in this country; 6 per cent. came from the rest of the British Commonwealth, while 18 per cent. came from production in the United States.
  Our naval construction has also been on a massive scale. At the end of 1943 our naval strength was greater than it was at the beginning of the war in most types of vessels, total construction having been more than sufficient to replace the losses which we have sustained, particularly in the earlier years. While the United States, in addition to their great naval programme, have carried the main responsibility of building the merchant shipping required by the United Nations, we have concentrated our main effort on naval work, and about 70 per cent. of our total effort in new construction is devoted to it. In addition, a large proportion of the labour employed in this country on repairs and conversions has been contributing to our naval strength by making merchant vessels available for operational use. Our own vast production has been helped and supplemented by supplies of war materials of all kinds from the United States of America and the Empire; and, whilst we may legitimately take pride in our own achievement, we shall never cease to be grateful for that aid.

  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

    Royal Ordnance Factory (Administration)
    Mr. Loverseedasked the Minister of Supply the reason for the recent strikes and the present strike notice at a Royal Ordnance factory, of which he has been informed; why a report by Colonel W. A. Grierson, D.S.O., made two years ago regarding mal-administration at this factory was not acted upon or published; and whether he will institute a public inquiry into the past and present administration with a view to allocating responsibility for the wastage of large quantities of guns and war materials and the establishment of efficient management in the future.
    The Minister of Supply (Sir Andrew Duncan): There was a misconception on the part of certain employees at the factory referred to as to the circumstances of the release for other important war work of certain tool room workers at the request of the District Man-power Board. The matter has been settled to the satisfaction of the Trade Union of the men concerned. The allegations made by Colonel Grierson in 1941 were investigated at the time. Subsequently, there was a further investigation by the Select Committee on National Expenditure, and I would refer the hon. Member to Section II of their 9th Report and Appendix 5 to their 14th Report, Session 1941–42.
    Mr. Thorne: Was any effort made to settle the trouble before the strike occurred?
    Sir A. Duncan: Yes, Sir, certainly.

    Paper Supplies
    Mr. Lindsayasked the Minister of Supply (1) from what source the many publishing firms, started since 1939, obtain their supplies of paper; and whether he has any accurate knowledge of the amount of paper so used;
    (2) whether he approves of the policy by which an established firm of publishers is now permitted to start a subsidiary firm to compete in the free paper market with firms started since 1939, but is warned that it is undesirable to do so.
    Sir A. Duncan: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberģ) and the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Jewson) on 20th October last. I would be glad if he would give me particulars of the case he has in mind and I shall have inquiries made.
    Mr. Lindsay: I will gladly accede to that request. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that some of the older firms have lost over 500,000 books in the blitz and that 200 new firms have started? Will he also bear in mind that while private enterprise is preferable, in this case licensed piracy is a new doctrine?
    Mr. Driberģ: Has there been any subtantial change in the position since the right hon. Gentleman gave me his former reply—because it was not satisfactory then?
    Sir A. Duncan: As I explained on 20th October, we are keeping a close watch on the extent of the use of paper other than by the authorised quota. It has gone down considerably, and, as I explained, it is less than 1 per cent. of the total paper confined to general printing.

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Local Authorities (Prosecutions)
    Mr. John Duģdaleasked the Minister of Food whether he will consider the possibility of an alteration being made in paragraph 5 of Defence (Sale of Food) Regulations, 1943, so as to allow local authorities without obtaining prior approval of his Ministry to institute proceedings against persons alleged to have violated the Regulations.
    The Minister of Food (Colonel Llewellin): No, Sir.
    Mr. Duģdale: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman allow local authorities the same right as private individuals to decide whether or not they should prosecute?
    Colonel Llewellin: The point here, as I have explained before, is that this is a Regulation concerned with labels and advertisements, and the reason for having to have the authority of the Ministry is so as not to prosecute people two or three times over for what is in fact the same offence.

    Unfermented Apple Juice
    Sir H. Williamsasked the Minister of Food why he has refused permission for the sale of unfermented apple juice.
    Colonel Llewellin: My hon. Friend is, I am afraid, misinformed. There is no prohibition on the sale of unfermented apple juice. This product as defined in the Soft Drinks Order, 1943, is expressly exempted from the control provisions of the Order.
    Sir H. Williams: Do I understand that the lady who wrote to "The Times" and said she had 5,000 gallons and had been forbidden to sell it had been wrongly informed by an official of the Department?
    Colonel Llewellin: I do not think that that would be a right inference at all.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is it not clear from what we have heard that it is not the hon. Member who is concerned about this?
    Mr. Edmund Harvey: Cannot the Ministry take some active steps to encourage the sale of this valuable product?
    Colonel Llewellin: I believe that unfermented apple juice sells all right and that as much is being made as existing facilities will allow.
    Mr. Driberģ: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the letter in "The Times" referred to brought hundreds of requests from schools, doctors and hospitals which the lady is unable to meet owing to the restrictions imposed by the Ministry?

    Imported Canned Marmalade (Retail Sales)
    Sir Reģinald Clarryasked the Minister of Food if he will state the purpose of the Emergency Powers Food (Marmalade) Order (S.R. & O., No. 174, of 1944), which prohibits the sale by retail of imported canned marmalade between 27th February and 1st April.
    Colonel Llewellin: The reason for the temporary prohibition of retail sales of imported canned marmalade is to accumulate adequate supplies in the hands of retailers for orderly distribution when it becomes available on the "points ration" on 2nd April.
    Mr. Thorne: The Minister ought to be congratulated on the amount of oranges and lemons we are getting.
    Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Is the Minister aware that there are already stocks of marmalade on the shelves of retailers far in excess of what is required in the grocery trade, and will he reconsider the necessity for this Order?
    Colonel Llewellin: The result of this Order is to bring imported marmalade on to points while the other marmalade remains part of the preserve ration, and it leads to what often does not happen in life, that is, people getting it both ways.
    Sir R. Clarry: Why did not my right hon. and gallant Friend put in the original Regulation the reason he has given me now, and so save the trouble of putting a question down?
    Colonel Llewellin: I think perhaps that some of the Orders are already long enough without putting in the reasons for them.

    Milk Rationalisation Scheme (Briģhton and Hove)
    Fliģht-Lieutenant Teelinģasked the Minister of Food if he will give an estimate of the number of gallons of petrol per week saved by the milk rationalising scheme for Brighton and Hove; and what other transport saving has been effected by the scheme.
    Colonel Llewellin: The information asked for is not yet available, but it will be obtained in due course when distributors have had an opportunity of adjusting their businesses to the new delivery arrangements.
    Fliģht-Lieutenant Teelinģ: Is the Minister aware that the feeling, especially amongst dairymen, is that there are very few savings at all; and in view of the inconvenience caused and the great discontent, will he consider getting rid of the scheme altogether?
    Colonel Llewellin: These milk rationalisation schemes have saved a lot of labour and petrol. It might interest the House to know that over the country as a whole, which has 676 rationalisation areas, it is estimated that there will be a saving of 6,700 men, 2,150 women, and some 39,000 gallons of petrol a week.
    Fliģht-Lieutenant Teelinģ: Is it not a fact that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman never expected to save more than 70 men at Brighton?

  ARMY OFFICERS (DEATHS ABROAD)
  Sir Granville Gibsonasked the Secretary of State for War why, in the case of an officer dying as a result of illness whilst on service abroad, his nearest relatives at home are debited with the expenses of the funeral and the cost of the cable informing them of his death.
  Mr. A. Henderson: An officer who dies abroad is normally buried under arrangements made by the military authorities at the expense of Army funds, unless his relatives or other persons concerned prefer to make private arrangements. If private

  2051
  arrangements are made the cost of the funeral is a charge against the officer's estate under the Regimental Debts Act, 1893, but a grant of £10 would be allowed from Army funds towards those expenses. I do not understand my hon. Friend's reference to the cost of cables. The cost of the official notification is borne by public funds.
  Sir G. Gibson: If I give my hon. and learned Friend a specific case where a father was charged the cost of funeral expenses and cabling the announcement of death, will he see that he is reimbursed?
  Mr. Henderson: I will certainly look into the case.

  COAL FREIGHT REBATES
  Sir Frank Sandersonasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he can state, in regard to the suspension of coal freight rebates (Railway Freight Rebates Act, 1943) which relates to freight rebates on export and bunker coal, the total amount of the appropriate proportion of railway rates relief as from 1st July, 1943, which would have been available for rebates on coal traffic and has been paid to his Department; and in what manner it has been used for the production or marketing of coal.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Tom Smith): The amount paid over up to 29th February, 1944, is £1,012,343. This money has been used, as to £688,943, as a relief in respect of transport subsidies granted to facilitate the movement and marketing of coal and coke, and, as to £323,400, for the general purposes of the Coal Charges Account.
  Sir F. Sanderson: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the amount expended is wisely spent?
  Mr. Smith: I do not know anything to the contrary.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Household Requisites (Stocks)
    Mr. Lipsonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that utility brands of alarm clocks, sheets and other household requisites are
    2052
    not available for all who require them whereas non-utility varieties are on sale at much higher prices, he will restrict the manufacture of all essential goods to the utility brands till there is an adequate supply of these on sale in the shops to meet reasonable requirements.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): There is no utility production of alarm clocks, and it would not be possible to organise it. For some time past releases of raw material for sheets and other cotton household textiles have been directed to the maximum practicable extent to the manufacture of utility articles.
    Mr. Lipson: Is not my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that while only a limited number of people can get alarm clocks and other articles of the utility or cheap kind, there are some available at much more expensive prices? Is he aware that the present practice is causing great hardship to people with small incomes in general, and to the wives of serving soldiers in particular?
    Captain Waterhouse: I am aware that there are certain stocks available but there is no manufacture going on at the moment.

    Retail Traders (Coupons)
    Major Lyonsasked the President of the Board of Trade what scheme he has in operation, or is to be in operation, in connection with a coupons float for the relief of retail traders who suffer from coupon loss through price or quality reduction of stocked goods.
    Captain Waterhouse: Coupons are issued to traders whose stocks of rationed goods have been lost or Damaģed by war risks and by certain civil risks. I am also prepared to consider applications for the issue of coupon floats to retailers where it is established that this is necessary in order to enable the needs of consumers to be met. I have no information that other arrangements are necessary and have none in view.
    Major Lyons: Has my right hon. and gallant Friend seen the statement made by the chairman of Lewis's Ltd. that when the scheme is in operation they will get the benefit of it? Will my right hon. and gallant Friend take care that the small retailer who cannot set-off for depreciation, will get a proper share?
    Captain Waterhouse: I have seen an account of the speech, but I have not read it in detail. I will read it. We will certainly take any steps to see that the small retailer is not disadvantaged.
    Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Is the Minister aware that most retailers already have a big pull through their credit, and that their difficulty is that they cannot get stocks to restock?
    Captain Waterhouse: That is not universally true. Some retailers are short, I know.

  GOOD FRIDAY (BANKING FACILITIES)
  Mr. Hisģģsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the first deductions under the Pay-as-you-Earn system will be made during the week in which Good Friday falls and that this day is a bank holiday; and, owing to the dis-organisation that will exist in many industrial concerns through having to do this complicated work with depleted staffs in a short week, will he transfer the bank holiday to Saturday, 8th April, so that wages can be drawn from the bank on Friday.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton): The arrangements under which the banks will be closed on Good Friday rather than on Saturday, 8th April, were made after full consideration of all the relevant circumstances. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the general public interest will be best served by these arrangements. The banks have already announced that where any customers urgently require banking facilities on Good Friday suitable local arrangements will be made.

POST-WAR HOUSING POLICY
The Minister of Health (Mr. Willink): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and with the leave of the House, I should like to make a short statement on the Government's housing policy for the first two years after the end of the war in Europe.
Mr. A. Bevan: Before the statement is made, might I ask your guidance in this matter, Mr. Speaker? Is the Adjournment to be moved and are we to have a Debate on this matter? Is this the sort
2054
of statement that ought to be made at this time? On several occasions, in the last three or four weeks, I have asked for facilities for a Debate on housing; now we are to have a very important statement made after Questions, which we cannot debate, although in the other place there have been two Debates on the matter. It is an outrageous abuse of Parliamentary procedure.
Mr. Willink: No doubt my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to—
Mr. Bevan: I have asked for Mr. Speaker's guidance. On a point of Order, may I ask you Mr. Speaker, whether this procedure is not used, as a general rule, for statements which it is in the public interest to hear at the earliest possible moment? I submit there cannot be any urgency about making the statement now proposed. We ought to have had this statement before. This proposal is an abuse of procedure.
Mr. Speaker: I am afraid I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman says. A Minister may, at any time, make a statement. The responsibility is his, and if the House does not like it, it can show its objection.
Mr. Shinwell: In the ordinary course, that would be legitimate. Indeed, hon. Members have very rarely objected to Government statements being made at the end of Questions, but, be it noted—and this is the peculiar circumstance—that hon. Members have asked the Government for a day on which to debate housing, which has already been debated in another place. Now the Minister comes forward to make a statement on housing which is not debatable. Is it possible to ascertain from the Leader of the House whether, in view of the statement that is about to be made, he will arrange for an early Debate on this subject?
Mr. Eden: I really do not know why the hon. Gentleman is so indignant about this matter. I have arranged it in this way, in consultation with my right hon. and learned Friend, simply because I thought it would be the most convenient method. My right hon. and learned Friend is going to make a brief statement now, and that is quite a normal thing to do. It was my intention, as I knew that hon. Members might ask for

2055
a Debate, to say that naturally I would make facilities for a Debate at the earliest possible time. I must remind the House that I have several times been asked to let the House have these statements a little in advance of the Debate, so that the Debate could take place more usefully and more intelligently.
Mr. Granville: Is there not some difference between the war-time practice of a Minister making a statement on an item of Business, and a declaration of major Government policy which cannot be dealt with except by question and answer? If this is a precedent which is to be followed, is it not an entirely new departure?
Mr. Maxton: This is what happens. A Minister makes a statement. The gentlemen of the Press get it, and the papers come out and say that it was accepted with the heartiest approval on the part of the House. Immediately the whole country believes that this is the housing policy and that the whole House has approved it.
Mr. Molson: Is it not the case that this House is always very embarrassed in debating any matter, if it has not had previous notice of the intentions of the Government? [HON. MEMBERS: "By a White Paper."] Is it not for the general convenience of Members that the statement should be made in advance in order that Members might consider the matter?
Earl Winterton: On the point of Order. I would like to pursue a point which I put to you, Mr. Speaker, on a previous occasion. You then ruled, I think, that a statement of this kind was quite in Order and that it was in accord with the procedure of the House that a Minister should make such a statement. To-day you have said, I believe, in reply to the point of Order, that it is within the competence of the House to decide whether the statement should be made or not. Does that mean that, if objection is taken by hon. Members to the statement being made, we can have a discussion on it?
Mr. Speaker: I said that it was within the discretion of the Minister.
Sir Percy Harris: May I ask whether this is to be made a precedent, and that it will be the general practice for important
2056
statements on policy to be made at Question time, rather than in the form of a White Paper?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me, but a matter for the House to decide, and for the Leader of the House.
Mr. A. Bevan: I understand you now to say, Mr. Speaker, that it is always competent, under the Rules of the House, for the Government to make a statement. Is it not a fact that you have been placed on more than one occasion in a very embarrassing situation because there has been no Motion before the House and it has not been possible for you to decide when the discussion of questions stops? Is it not the case that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to make a statement of this nature, of which no Private Notice has been given, he should do so by moving the Adjournment of the House, in order that the Chair might be put in command of the House? The Chair will not be in command of the House if the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes his statement in this way. I submit that on many occasions it has been very embarrassing for the House. Further, is it not a fact that the procedure of the White Paper is far better than springing a statement of this nature on the House?
Earl Winterton: May I submit a further point? In the past, when statements of this kind were made, if the House was dissatisfied, an hon. Member rose and moved the Adjournment on a question of definite and urgent public importance, in order to call attention to the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's statement. Without reflecting upon your predecessor, I would state that the most ingenious Member of the House never succeeded, during the last 10 years, in getting the Adjournment moved on a question of definite and public and urgent importance, as your predecessor always ruled that it was not a matter of definite and urgent public importance. Therefore, a most important right of this House has been taken away.
Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that in a matter of this kind there can be no question of urgency, in view of the fact that this concerns the Government housing policy for the two years following the war? Is it not therefore clear that the matter is presented to us in this form, not for the benefit of the House, but arising

2057
out of the trend of the by-elections in the country? I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, not to allow this to be put across the House, because the Minister of Health has already been used as the Government stalking horse.
Mr. Eden: Perhaps I might be allowed to say another word. I am sorry that this view should have been taken of the procedure we are following. It was not the intention of the Government to cause embarrassment to the House. When the hon. Member complains that Members have no chance to comment on this statement, and says that it would be better to produce a White Paper, I must point out that exactly the same argument could be advanced—
Mr. Bevan: No.
Mr. Eden: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to finish my sentence. I say exactly the same result would have followed, namely, that the Press could have commented on the White Paper before the House debated it, just as the Press can comment on this statement. The House is in no way limited by a statement which my right hon. and learned Friend will make to-day. It is being made in response to appeals which I have had several times that such statements should be made before a subject is debated. Therefore the sole reason for this procedure, for which I take responsibility, is because I thought it would be for the convenience of hon. Members. I was about to suggest, after the statement—anticipating that hon. Members would wish to discuss it—that I would arrange an early day for a Debate. I thought that was the best possible way in which to meet the wishes of the House.
Mr. Bevan: In my respectful submission the right hon. Gentleman is not correct. There is all the difference in the world between a White Paper and a statement made in the House. A statement in the House is open to the abuses I have already mentioned; the immediate reaction of the House is obtained to it without effective debate, and as the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) has pointed out, the Press takes the immediate reaction of the House as an indication of the temper of the House on that particular matter. That is not the case when there is a White Paper.
Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Following on what the Noble Lord has said, may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, as the guardian of the liberties of hon. Members, how hon. Members can express their disapproval of this system of introducing the Government's view on what may be highly controversial legislation? How can the House express its views as to whether it likes this procedure or not?
Mr. Rhys Davies: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to make this statement, he said he would do so "with the leave of the House." I would like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, what technical form the House can adopt to show that it does not give leave?
Mr. Speaker: I cannot answer the hon. Member's question, but the House can always make its wishes known and it has made them known fairly clearly. I might point out that had any hon. Member put a Question down, the Minister might quite well have said, "As the answer is rather long, I will, with permission, give it after Questions."
Mr. Arthur Greenwood: Seeing that there is a difference of opinion about the procedure in these matters, and that there are, as I appreciate, arguments on both sides, may I ask whether if this statement were made to-day there could be consultations, before any future statements of the kind are made, between all parties in the House through the usual channels on the kind of procedure which should be followed? There is growing up a very strong feeling against a large number of Ministerial statements being made at the end of Questions, not merely because such statements tend to waste an amount of debating time, but because the House is not in a position, under its Rules, to debate the statement which has been made. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman would wish the Minister of Health to make his statement but I suggest that before this kind of experiment is tried again there should be consultations and that the temper and wishes of the House should be considered.
Mr. Eden: It is my task to ascertain the wishes of the House and sometimes I find it is a little difficult. I was distinctly under the impression that a number of hon. Members—the right hon. Gentleman among others—felt it desirable that the

2059
House should be given the fullest information at the earliest possible moment. That is the general reason for these statements which I have consistently encouraged my colleagues to make, but if I am to modify that attitude, naturally, I will attempt to discover what is the feeling of the House. I suggest that meanwhile the House should be good enough to hear what my right hon. and learned Friend has to say.
Mr. Shinwell: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the usual procedure, when the House has agreed to the Minister making a statement at the end of Questions, is to permit questions to be put to the Minister? May I also ask whether you would put any limit on the number of questions put by hon. Members to the Minister following his statement?
Sir A. Southby: Following upon your reply to my earlier question, may I respectfully submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that had this statement been made in reply to a Question, it would have been open to the hon. Member who asked the Question, to give notice to raise the matter on the Adjournment. Is it possible for any Member to give notice to raise this matter on the Adjournment, after the statement has been made?
Mr. Speaker: My duty is to obey the Rules of the House. Perhaps I might read what Erskine May says:
"Explanations are made to the House on behalf of the Government regarding their domestic and foreign policy; … announcing the legislative proposals they intend to submit to Parliament; or the course they intend to adopt in the transaction and arrangement of public business. The time when these explanations are made is after the questions to ministers and to other members have been answered and before the commencement of public business; though a ministerial explanation has been made before the Speaker began to call on members to put their questions upon the notice paper. As no question is before the House, debate on such statements is irregular."
Those are the Rules of the House.
Mr. Shinwell: I have asked a direct question. If hon. Members desire to put questions to the Minister on an important statement of public policy, will there be any limit imposed?
Mr. Speaker: That is a hypothetical question. I would have to hear what the
2060
questions are. If the questions are unreasonably long, it is my usual practice to impose a limit and go on to the next Business, but I do not curtail questions unduly. I like to give a fair show to either side but there are limits.
Mr. Willink: May I say that there is nothing I should welcome more than an early Debate on this subject? I would repeat at the outset, for the convenience of the House, that this statement deals with the first two years after the end of the war in Europe. During that period our primary task must be to meet the urgent needs of those who have no homes of their own. These could not be fully met or met with sufficient speed by building new houses of permanent construction. In addition, we shall have to undertake a substantial amount of emergency housing both by adapting existing buildings and by providing temporary accommodation of various kinds.
My Noble Friend the Minister of Works has already outlined the preparations that are being made in the sphere of temporary housing. The object of this statement is to indicate the lines on which the Government propose to proceed, simultaneously, with the construction of new houses of a permanent type. Both types, the permanent and the temporary, are complementary parts of a single Government policy for providing the largest possible number of new homes during these first two years.
To enable local authorities to make an early start, as soon as conditions permit, with the construction of new houses of a permanent type, the Government have decided to introduce temporary legislation extending the present scope of housing subsidies So as to include dwellings built to meet general needs. Local authorities will be enable to buy in advance land required for these housing operations, using compulsory powers if necessary. And Parliament will be asked to empower the responsible Ministers, as after the last war, to confirm compulsory purchase orders for the acquisition of land for housing purposes without holding an inquiry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I are informing local authorities of these decisions to-day.
We hope to be able to introduce the necessary legislation shortly after the

2061
Easter Recess. Meanwhile, I am to-day inviting representatives of the associations of local authorities and of the London County Council to meet me at an early date to discuss the arrangements for housing subsidies. The local authorities will be invited to proceed on the basis that all preliminary preparations should be made to ensure that, if building resources should permit, 100,000 houses can be completed or under construction by the close of the first year after the end of hostilities in Europe and a further 200,000 by the close of the second year. These 300,000 houses will be in addition to those built under the programme of temporary construction. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has asked me to make it clear that the decisions and the programme to which I have referred cover Scotland as well as England and Wales, and that he is taking similar action to give effect to them.
This statement has necessarily been brief. There are still many important decisions to be taken, including the part to be played by private enterprise. These will, I can assure the House, be taken at the earliest possible moment. The Government considered, however, that in view of the keen interest which is taken in this vital subject the House would wish to be informed of these decisions at the first opportunity.
Mr. Bevan: On a point of Order. Are we to understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has already anticipated the decision of the House upon the proposals?
Mr. Buchanan: I was not taking sides earlier, but, in view of the protests that have been made, I ask what is it proposed to do? I understand that the Minister has now informed the local authorities of the steps that he is going to take, without having discussed the matter with the House of Commons. Could I ask the Leader of the House, in view of that statement, on what is perhaps the most important social issue before this country at the moment, whether if the Minister has already taken certain steps and made certain decisions, one of two things should not happen—either that the Debate should take place now, or that the Minister should postpone these commitments for a day or two, until Parliament has had some opportunity of discussing them?
Mr. Bevan: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman re-read that portion of the statement which referred to local authorities?
Mr. Willink: Perhaps I may put it in my own words. [HON. MEMBERS: "No; read it."] I will, in due course.
Mr. Sloan: The Minister has been asked to read the statement, and he is now going to give his own version of what he has read. Are we not entitled to have it re-read?
Mrs. Tate: One of the statements made by the Minister was that he proposed to give the local authorities compulsory powers to acquire land for the building of houses. Personally, I heartily approve of that. That is recommended in the Uthwatt Report on which the House has repeatedly asked the Government to declare their policy.
Mr. Willink: I said that I would say something in my own words and then reread the passage. The discussions which I propose to have with the local authorities will be entirely without commitments. The legislation which I propose to introduce will be brought forward after Easter. Really no commitment is being entered into at all. May I remind the House of the terms of this statement? It deals entirely with the character of the legislation I hope to introduce, which will not be until after the Debate. Meanwhile, in what is the perfectly normal course, I wish to discuss the matter with the local authorities to obtain their views.
Mr. Buchanan: Let the Minister re-read the statement. If he wishes to give his explanation first, that is the customary thing; but if we are to extend courtesy to him, let him do the thing properly, and re-read the statement. [Interruption.] The lackeys can shout what they like, but I am not yet a lackey. I put to the Minister that there were two statements made about the local authorities: one was, that he had instructed the local authorities, and the second was, that he was consulting the local authorities. Those were two distinct statements, and I ask the Minister to read them again.
Mr. Willink: With the greatest pleasure; but my hon. Friend is under a misconception. We are not instructing local authorities. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read

2063
it."] I doubt whether the House wants to hear it all again. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I only wanted to save time, but I will read it if hon. Members wish.
"During that period"—
that is, the first two years after the end of the war in Europe—
"our primary task must be to meet the urgent needs of those who have no homes of their own. These could not be fully met or met with sufficient speed by building new houses of permanent construction. In addition, we shall have to undertake a substantial amount of emergency housing, both by adapting existing buildings and by providing temporary accommodation of various kinds.
My Noble Friend the Minister of Works has already outlined the preparations that are being made in the sphere of temporary housing. The object of this statement is to indicate the lines on which the Government propose to proceed, simultaneously, with the construction of new houses of a permanent type. Both types, the permanent and the temporary, are complementary parts of a single Government policy for providing the largest possible number of new homes during these first two years.
To enable local authorities to make an early start, as soon as conditions permit, with the construction of new houses of a permanent type, the Government have decided to introduce temporary legislation extending the present scope of housing subsidies so as to include dwellings built to meet general needs. Local authorities will be enabled to buy in advance land required for these housing operations, using compulsory powers if necessary. And Parliament will be asked to empower the responsible Ministers, as after the last war, to confirm compulsory purchase orders for the acquisition of land for housing purposes without holding an inquiry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I are informing local authorities of these decisions to-day"—
[Interruption.] Those are decisions to introduce legislation. Then the date of the proposed legislation is given.
"We hope to be able to introduce the necessary legislation shortly after the Easter Recess. Meanwhile, I am to-day inviting representatives of the associations of local authorities and of the London County Council to meet me at an early date to discuss the arrangements for housing subsidies. The local authorities will be invited to proceed on the basis that all preliminary preparations should be made to ensure that, if building resources should permit, 100,000 houses can be completed or under construction by the close of the first year after the end of hostilities in Europe and a further 200,000 by the close of the second year. These 300,000 houses will be in addition to those built under the programme of temporary construction.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has asked me to make it clear that the decisions and the programme to which I have referred cover Scotland as well as
2064
England and Wales and that he is taking similar action to give effect to them. This statement has necessarily been brief. There are still many important decisions to be taken, including the part to be played by private enterprise. These will, I can assure the House, be taken at the earliest possible moment. The Government considered, however, that in view of the keen interest which is taken in this vital subject, the House would wish to be informed of these decisions at the first opportunity."
Mr. Bowles: We have recently been told over and over again by Ministers that they have entered into commitments with outside bodies. The Minister is not going to introduce his latest legislation until after Easter. In the meantime he is going to have consultations with various local authorities in this country and in Scotland. Will he undertake now and promise the House that no undertaking entered into will in any way influence his decision in coming to the House?
Mr. Willink: I should indeed be mad if I were to enter into any such commitments.
Sir Alfred Beit: I should like to ask whether any decision has yet been reached as to the price which is to be paid for the land which the local authorities are to be allowed to purchase compulsorily or how that price has been determined?
Mr.Willink: The position under the law as it stands at present is that if an agreement is not reached the land will be acquired under the terms of the Acquisition of Land Act.
Mr. McGovern: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us, with regard to the 100,000 houses to be built in the first year and the 200,000 to be built in the second year, what number of those houses will be for Scotland alone in each year?
Mr. Willink: I have not that figure precisely in mind. There is a tentative idea as to the proportion. The House will realise that this whole programme is for a period when this country is still at war.
Mr. Lipson: In his statement my right hon. and learned Friend mentioned a target of 300,000 permanent new houses within the first two years. Will he tell us what is the target for temporary houses within that period? Is there a target?
Mr. Willink: I cannot give the hon. Member any figure for that at the moment.
Mr. McNeil: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us, even approximately, what proportion of these 300,000 houses are ear-marked for Scottish needs?
Mr. Willink: I would ask my hon. Friend to put down a Question on that point. I should not like to give an answer now.
Mr. A. Bevan: I understood from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's second reading of his statement that in consequence of a statement made in another place, or following a statement made in another place, expenditure has already been incurred by the Minister of Works for temporary housing schemes. Is it not a fact that there is very great controversy about temporary housing schemes, and that the House of Commons has not yet agreed to this expenditure? The Government are spending public money in anticipation of the consent of the House to its being spent, and we ought to have had an opportunity of deciding the merits of temporary housing before any steps were taken to spend public money. Further, is it not a fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not be able to have intelligent discussions with local authorities on these matters except by anticipating that the House of Commons will, in fact, endorse the details of the legislation brought before the House, and is not that reducing Parliament to a rubber-stamp status?
Mr. Willink: On the two points put to me by the hon. Member, I should have thought that in our present situation it would have been in accordance with the wishes of the House and of everybody in the country that experimental work should be done both in the sphere of houses called permanent and in the sphere of houses called temporary.
Mr. A. Bevan: The Minister did not say "experimental."
Mr. Willink: Experimental work is going on in both fields. With regard to the other matter, I hope to be in a position to carry on intelligent discussions with the local authorities, because they will have much to tell me with regard to the type and arrangement of subsidy which will be most convenient for them.
Mr. Shinwell: I was under the impression before we had this little fracas about procedure that my right hon. and learned
2066
Friend was going to make a far-reaching statement. I now wish to ask him if all that the Government have so far decided is that at the close of the European war—whenever that happens, and that is hypothetical—whether in the first year after the close of the European war all that the Government propose to do, in conjunction with the local authorities, is to build 100,000 houses of a permanent character? Are we to understand that all their plans are designed to produce only that small number of houses, and does the right hon. and learned Gentleman really imagine that that will satisfy the needs of the people of this country one year after the close of the European war?
Mr. Willink: The housing needs of this country will certainly not be satisfied while this country is still at war.
Mr. Maxton: The hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) appears to think that the mountain in labour will produce only a ridiculus mus. Two or three Ministers are concerned here, including the Minister of Health and the Minister of Reconstruction, but could the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us this? As 100,000 is the figure of his programme for permanent houses he must have some idea in his mind as to the number of temporary houses, and must have some idea, having regard to the use of labour and materials, as to the number under private enterprise which can be built. Could he elaborate this a little to give us the round figure of all the houses?
Mr. Willink: I think all I can say is that I shall amplify this information ha the course of the Debate. I am sure the House will realise that during the course of a major war, during a period which is hypothetical, it is impossible to give an estimate as to the amount of materials and the building capacity which will be available for temporary housing. I really should not be asked to give such an estimate while even the type or types of temporary houses are in the experimental stage.
Earl Winterton: I desire to put a question to the Leader of the House which I think may be helpful in this matter. In view of the obvious desire of all hon. Members in all parts of the House to discuss this matter further before legislation is introduced, will he not consider putting down, on a day before Easter, a substan-

2067
tive Motion in order to get over what, if I am permitted to say so, I would describe as the ridiculous rule which we have about the Adjournment. I would suggest a Motion somewhat in these terms: "That this House desires to consider future housing legislation." The advantage of that would be that hon. Members in all parts of the House would be able to give their views before the Minister introduced his legislation.
Mr. Eden: I was trying to say earlier, when things became so heated, that it was my intention to suggest to the House that we should have a day to discuss housing policy before my right hon. and learned Friend introduced his legislation. That was exactly the procedure I was intending to follow. As to how exactly we should do that, whether by a Motion or on the Consolidated Fund Bill, I have not decided.
Mr. Moelwyn Huģhes: May I put a further question? With regard to the local authorities, is it intended that they should proceed to acquire land, exercising now their existing powers, before this legislation is passed as a contribution towards the total amount of land they have to get? Secondly, is it intended to legislate for the powers that the Minister has mentioned before the Government have come to a decision and announced it upon the solution of the questions of compensation and betterment?
Hon. Members: The Uthwatt Report.
Mr. Willink: Yes, that is the Uthwatt Report. The legislation to which I have referred would, I think, be properly introduced and become law even if these decisions had not been reached. It would certainly be a great convenience to my Department and the local authorities to have the particular legislative Measures indicated in this statement in advance of or at the same time as a decision of that kind. With regard to the acquisition of further land at this moment, there is no doubt that many authorities are desirous of acquiring further land, and I will consider whether that should be done by administrative action or within the Bill.
Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether that land is going to be acquired before it is paid for?
Mr. Sloan: Can we have this Scottish business made a little more clear? The Secretary of State is sitting on the Treasury bench and it is difficult for us to receive an answer from an English Minister. Can he tell us whether the 100,000 houses include the Scottish quota, or are we to have a Scottish quota definitely fixed for each year in the post-war years?
Mr. Buchanan: May I ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, seeing that housing has always been under his purview in Scotland, whether he is intending to inform the House how many houses Scotland is to have built in the post-war years? A second question I would put to the Minister of Health. It is about the 100,000 houses; I think his statement was a little confused. He said 100,000 houses either built or in course of construction, which are totally different things. We might have only 10,000 houses built and 90,000 in course of construction. Has he any idea as to the number of houses that will be definitely constructed in the first 12 months?
Mr. Willink: All I can say is that I shall do all I can to see that the number is the maximum in relation to our supplies of labour and material. If hon. Members will study the statement they will see that of set purpose I have been most careful not to make promises with regard to a period of 12 months which will undoubtedly be a period of intense military activity.
Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I say a word on the point made by my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton)? When the promised discussion takes place, as it affects possible legislation it is quite clear that it must be on the basis of untrammelled debate, and therefore the ordinary Adjournment Motion would not meet the case, and I would support my Noble Friend in the view that it had better take place on a Motion by the Government which would enable us to discuss all the possible legislative changes that might have to be made.
Mr. Eden: I was not contemplating an Adjournment Motion; it was not in my mind. I was considering a positive Motion. We have some Business to get through, but I think we can so arrange the Business as to allow the discussion to take place.
Mr. Buchanan: With regard to the Scottish position, for good or ill Parliament has decided that in this matter Scotland stands separate, and I would ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, in all seriousness, seeing that we have had a statement about the number of houses to be built, whether he, as the responsible Minister for Scotland, could make a statement as to how many permanent houses Scotland will secure in the two years after the close of the war?
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): The statement made by the Minister to-day dealt primarily with the question of immediate procedure and of consultation with the local authorities. What was incorporated in that statement was a sentence or two to the effect that part of our consultations would be taking place between the Scottish Office and the Scottish local authorities. For my part, I would not care to condescend upon an actual figure as to the number of houses of permament construction that can be built or be under construction within a one-year period until I am more fully informed as to the amount of labour that will be available.
Mr. A. Bevan: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to tell the House how it is possible for local authorities to set about the immediate compulsory purchase of land? He has said that the local authorities are going to be invited immediately to purchase land.
Mr. Willink: I did not say that. What I said was that I would consider whether they should be allowed to acquire more land immediately or await legislation.
Mr. Bevan: Is it not a fact that the local authorities will take no steps to acquire land if they suspect that more favourable conditions for the purchase of land will exist in the future? I know that is the whole difficulty.
Mr. Molson: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether he is bearing in mind the promise of the Minister of Reconstruction to introduce legislation this Session with regard to the compulsory acquisition of land; and whether, in his statement to-day, he is contemplating using the legislation now on the Statute Book, or whether the Government are going to introduce the legislation promised by the Minister of Reconstruction?
Mr. Willink: That is not really a question for me. I have in mind what my Noble Friend said. Land could be acquired under the law as it stands to-day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [1ST ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]

  SUPPLY

    CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1944 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT)
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £220,101,790, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for the following Civil and Revenue Departments (including Education and Broadcasting, Pensions, Health Insurance, Unemployment Insurance and Assistance, Roads and other grants and Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues) for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, namely:

    CIVIL ESTIMATES

    CLASS I

    £

    House of Lords Offices

    28,000

    House of Commons

    155,000

    Registration of Electors

    7,000

    Treasury and Subordinate Departments

    374,500

    Privy Council Office

    7,500

    Privy Seal Office

    3,000

    Charity Commission

    12,000

    Civil Service Commission

    11,500

    Exchequer and Audit Department

    96,000

    Government Actuary

    7,000

    Government Chemist

    35,000

    Government Hospitality

    4,000

    The Mint

    10

    National Debt Office

    500

    National Savings Committee

    189,000

    Public Record Office

    15,500

    Public Works Loan Commission

    6,000

    Repayments to the Local Loans Fund

    25,000

    Royal Commissions, etc.

    17,000

    Miscellaneous Expenses

    26,000

    Secret Service

    10

    Tithe Redemption Commission

    10

    Ministry of Town and Country Planning

    76,000

    Scotland:—

    Scottish Home Department

    79,000

    CLASS II

    £

    Foreign Office

    700,000

    Diplomatic and Consular Establishments, etc.

    2,400,000

    League of Nations

    83,000

    Dominions Office

    35,000

    Dominion Services

    100,000

    Oversea Settlement

    10

    Colonial Office

    131,000

    Colonial and Middle Eastern Services

    1,500,000

    Development and Welfare (Colonies, etc.)

    400,000

    Development and Welfare (South African High Commission Territories)

    45,000

    India and Burma Services

    745,000

    Imperial War Graves Commission

    40,000

    CLASS III

    Home Office

    370,000

    Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum

    42,000

    Police, England and Wales

    7,430,000

    Prisons, England and Wales

    625,000

    Approved Schools, etc., England and Wales

    190,000

    Supreme Court of Judicature, etc.

    10

    County Courts

    150,000

    Land Registry

    10,000

    Public Trustee

    8,000

    Law Charges

    70,000

    Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

    29,500

    Scotland:—

    Police

    240,000

    Prisons

    64,500

    Approved Schools, etc.

    37,000

    Scottish Land Court

    3,500

    Law Charges and Courts of Law

    32,000

    Register House, Edinburgh

    6,000

    Ireland:—

    Northern Ireland Services

    3,500

    Supreme Court of Judicature, etc., Northern Ireland

    20,000

    Irish Land Purchase Services

    618,000

    CLASS IV

    Board of Education

    22,000,000

    British Museum

    64,000

    British Museum (Natural History)

    40,000

    Imperial War Museum

    3,500

    London Museum

    1,500

    National Gallery

    11,000

    National Maritime Museum

    3,500

    National Portrait Gallery

    3,000

    Wallace Collection

    4,000

    Scientific Investigation, etc.

    175,000

    Universities and Colleges, Great Britain

    1,000,000

    Broadcasting

    4,000,000

    Scotland:—

    Public Education

    3,850,000

    National Galleries

    5,000

    National Library

    1,500

    CLASS V

    Ministry of Health

    9,000,000

    Board of Control

    93,000

    Registrar-General's Office

    102,000

  NUTRITION AND INFANT MORTALITY
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): After four years of the intensive strain of war, with women workers—hundreds and thousands of them unaccustomed to factory and workshop production—with blackout conditions in every home, with housing difficulties accentuated, with imports of many fruits and foodstuffs severely restricted, how fares the nation nutritionally? In pre-war years between a fourth and a third of our population is estimated to have lived on food that did not provide
  2082
  for all the requirements of health. Sometimes that was due to ignorance of the nutritional values of foodstuffs. There was a famous comedienne who popularised in the music-halls a song, the refrain of which went:
  "A little of what you fancy does you good."
  That may or may not be gastronomically accurate, though no doubt the lady was right to the extent that our foodstuffs, can be more attractively processed and cooked. We can educate our palates in the nutritionally right direction.
  At any rate, Sir John Boyd Orr has noted and commented that the war has produced a remarkable change in our food policy. The Government now control production and imports, and they arrange for the foodstuffs which can be most easily obtained to meet human needs, in so far as needs can be met under war conditions. Distribution is according to needs. Foodstuffs are subsidised to keep the retail prices within the purchasing power of the vast majority of the people. In addition to the usual rations, food is provided in works' canteens to meet the special needs of heavy workers. Additional milk, eggs, and vitamin concentrates are provided to meet the special needs of mothers and children. The total consumption of liquid milk has risen 34 per cent. since 1939. In Scotland 67 per cent. of the whole school population is now receiving a milk ration at school. In England and Wales the proportion is even higher. It is 78 per cent. of the children at school who are receiving this milk ration. One of my happiest memories is that I initiated in 1930 the milk-in-schools experiment in Lanarkshire, from which these great nutritional developments have come.
  Sir John Boyd Orr says that a survey of working-class families in industrial towns in Scotland has shown that there is a definite improvement in the health value of their diets, the average intake of some of the important vitamins and minerals being over 20 per cent. higher than in the pre-war years. Over a quarter of the children attending school are given a nutritious mid-day meal in Scotland. In England the figure is 29 per cent. Vegetable consumption has remarkably increased and the result of this drive and organisation is shown in the school meal reports. Medical examination reports are

  2083
  a good test, or, at any rate, as good a test as we can get. In Glasgow, for example, in 1943 boys entering school life were .40 inches taller and 1¼ lbs. heavier than boys who entered school life in the pre-war quinquennium. Girls increased .28 inches in height and nearly one lb. in weight. From Aberdeen school medical inspectors' reports similar evidence is available. Tuberculosis, however, rose again upon us, but I think that clearly is due to deterioration in our housing conditions and less, if at all, to nutrition.
  While it may not be possible, for perhaps four or five years more, to obtain an accurate measure of the benefits to health that have resulted from the application of the Government's nutritional plan, no medical or scientific expert has expressed a doubt that, if this plan be continued, it will ultimately have the following consequences: first, anaemia will be less common; secondly, there will be fewer premature and still-births; thirdly, there will be even less rickets and other nutritional diseases in children. There will be a continuation of the better growth and development in children, better teeth, less dental caries and better vision. There will be increased resistance to disease and a larger expectation of life. Personally, if I may say so, I think the efforts of the Ministry of Food in all these directions are most admirable, and, from a health point of view, most commendable.
  About 18 months ago I drew the attention of the House to the figures of infant mortality in Scotland, and after consultation with the Council of Ex-Secretaries of State for Scotland I decided to ask the Scottish Scientific Advisory Committee to arrange for a special and urgent inquiry into the causes of the high infant death rate in Scotland. That death rate is decreasing. Last year it was 65 per 1,000 births, the lowest in our annals; but our Scottish figure maintains a ratio of about 30 to 40 per cent. higher than England's infant death rate. The report from the Scientific Advisory Committee, which has now been published, has aroused, and deservedly aroused, widespread interest. Despite some criticisms that it is unduly weighted in favour of nutritional aspects of the problem, it is, I think, a Report of great competence and importance, and we
  2084
  are all in Scotland greatly obliged to Sir John Boyd Orr, the Chairman, and his fellow members of the Committee for their services in collating and marshalling this evidence.
  The comparative tables of infant morality in the various countries of the world are shown on page 8 of the Report. That table carries us down to the end of the quinquennium 1934–38. It shows Scotland with an infant mortality of 77 and England and Wales with a mortality of 57. The chief medical causes of that infant mortality are shown on page 19 of the Report. There it will be observed that the main cause of the high mortality is infection, epidemic diarrhoea, pneumonia, etc., and this infection is further commented upon in the Report on page 27. I will say something about this aspect of the problem later.
  On page 33 Members will see references to the adverse economic and social conditions which have a direct bearing upon an infant's chances of survival. These are (1), that unemployment was higher than in England, ranging year after year from 4 to 7 per cent. higher than the United Kingdom figure. Hon. Members will see that on page 30. (2), In July, 1938, our unemployment figure in Scotland was 15.8 per cent. of the insured population. To-day it is 1 per cent. (3), According to Sir John Boyd Orr (on page 28) the people in Scotland who were living in poverty were in proportion to population twice as high as that section of the population in England. This statement, I understand, was based upon a Report by Professor Bowley to the Minister of Health in England. The Report has not been published, but I understand that Sir John Orr's comment bears reference to the fact that in Scotland twice the percentage of the population is in the under 10s. a week income group. [An HON. MEMBER: How does that compare with England?] I cannot say. There are some other countervailing considerations, however, which require measurement—for example, the higher rents paid in London and English towns generally than in Scotland diminish the disproportion between the purchasing power of respective wage incomes in the two countries. (4), Overcrowding, at the time of the last census, was six times as high as in England, but it is impossible to estimate what the proportion is to-day. I merely give the last available official figures known to me.
  Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Is it six times as high in the big towns, or does it relate to the whole of Scotland?
  Mr. Johnston: It is six times all over Scotland. Some of our housing conditions are appalling. One ward in Glasgow—the Gorbals Ward—according to an analysis just made by the Medical Officer of Health, contains 1,854 houses with newly born infants in them. Of these houses 286 are sub-lets and 191 are cases where the families are living with relatives. In other words, in 477 houses where infants are born, or 25 per cent. of the total, the parents are not themselves the tenants in chief. It is no wonder that infant mortality last year in that ward was high; indeed, it was 126 per thousand births.
  Mr. Buchanan: Is the figure for that ward the highest figure?
  Mr. Johnston: It is the highest in that one ward.
  Mr. Maxton: To say that so many houses are sub-let conveys nothing. I live in a flat in London of which I am not the principal tenant, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is a comfortable and even commodious residence, and when the right hon. Gentleman refers to "sublets" does he intend to indicate that they are only of one apartment with no separate sanitary conveniences?
  Mr. Johnston: I cannot say without notice the state of affairs of all these "sub-lets," but I am sure that the overwhelming proportion of them in that ward are without separate sanitary conveniences. But bad housing, while a high contributory factor to infant mortality—and this is an important point to which I should like to direct special attention—is by no means the sole factor in infant mortality. I have consulted Sir Alexander Macgregor, the Medical Officer of Health for Glasgow, Dr. Clark, Medical Officer of Health for Edinburgh, Dr. Burgess, Medical Officer of Health for Dundee and Dr. Rae, Medical Officer of Health for Aberdeen, and they all concur that bad housing is not the sole factor in the causation of infant mortality. In Edinburgh, for example, Dr. Clark supplies figures from a new housing scheme to illustrate this point. A considerable
  2086
  population from the overcrowded ward and the slum houses of St. Leonards were transferred to the new housing scheme in the Niddrie area of Liberton Ward, with the result that in 10 years the infant mortality in the Liberton Ward has risen from 57 to 81, while the average rates for the City of Edinburgh have fallen in the same period from 80 to 61. It is obvious, says Dr. Clark, that neither housing nor food alone can be singled out as the primary factor in the creation of a high infant mortality rate.
  Mr. Buchanan: The right hon. Gentleman will have us all back in the slums. This is just nonsense and special pleading.
  Mr. Johnston: I am going to try to face up to realities.
  Miss Rathbone: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, from the comparable figures in England, that where people are removed into good houses they experience the same sort of thing because of poverty?
  Mr. Johnston: Let me say what the evidence is at once.
  Mr. McNeil rose—
  The Chairman: Hon. Members are not entitled to intervene unless the Minister or an hon. Member gives way.
  Mrs. Hardie: Was that not the time when there was a large amount of unemployment, and many of the people who were moved out to this place had to pay higher rents and were not able to get the food that they needed? Therefore, nutrition has a lot to do with it.
  Mr. Johnston: If my hon. Friend had listened, that was precisely the point I intended to make. I was only at the beginning of my explanation. I was trying to face the realities.
  Mr. McNeil: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to give the comparable figures for the area from which the people have been transferred so that we may know the position?
  Mr. Johnston: Naturally, these figures are vitiated by the fact that populations from other areas have moved in since, and Dr. Clark was very emphatic that they ought not to be used to further the case in that regard. I will refer further

  2087
  to this Liberton Ward experiment. It to some extent confirms the remarkable analysis of infant mortality at Stockton-on-Tees published in 1936 by the then Medical Officer of Health there, Dr. McGonigle. His book is entitled, "Poverty and Public Health." He shows that, while the infant mortality fell from 172 to 117 in the new housing estate to which a slum population was transferred, the figure of 117 still compared badly with the average for England and Wales of 66.2 or, indeed, for the average figure for Stockton-on-Tees of 78. But what struck me most on studying the Stockton-on-Tees analysis was that in the new housing estate there was an increased rent of 4s. 4d. per week, and how this 4s. 4d. diminished the amounts available for food, especially among the unemployed families. Dr. McGonigle gives a remarkable table, which hon. Members should study, showing that the death rates per 1,000 of population were 26 per cent. in the income class of 25s. to 35s. per week and only 11.52 in the 75s. and upwards class.
  But if hon. Members will turn to the table on page 69 of the Report of the Orr Committee, they will see that the industrial town of Falkirk has the lowest infant mortality rate among the large burghs in Scotland. I suggest that the primary cause of this is to be found on page 29, where Falkirk is shown as having the lowest rate for unemployment. That means there was in Falkirk more family income, more money for food, clothing, comforts and attention, and the evidence is overwhelming that the prime cause of excessive infant mortality is poverty; that it is insufficiency of purchasing power in the family. Down to 1935, as hon. Members know well, they were still paid only an allowance of 2s. per week for the child of an unemployed person, although 30s. a week was spent on each mentally defective child in a home and 54s. a week on each youth in a Borstal institution.
  On housing we are, as hon. Members know, making preparations with the local authorities for the mass servicing of the sites for a large number of both temporary and permanent houses, and the Minister of Works assures me that by the end of May we shall have a prototype house in Scotland ready for inspection by local authorities, this prototype house being an emergency house capable of production
  2088
  on a large scale and of great speed in erection. These houses, it is intended, will be all publicly owned and will be licensed only for a limited period of years. We hope, by mass construction of one or two standard types, that we shall be able to hold our own in speed and construction with any foreign production whenever the capacity is available.
  Mr. Alexander Walkden: Is that a permanent proposal?
  Mr. Johnston: No, Sir, an emergency proposal. There are a surprising number of varieties in component parts of houses, many of which can with advantage be dispensed with when speed of erection is so urgently and vitally necessary. I am assured, for example, that there are no fewer than 374 types of chimney-cans, but I am not in a position to make any further statement on that subject pending the erection of the prototype house and the full information which the Minister of Works hopes to be able to give us in about ten weeks' time.
  Mr. Hynd: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea of the estimated life of this prototype house?
  Mr. Johnston: I hesitate to answer that question. I am not a technical expert, but I am assured by people who know that at any rate they will have a life of ten years as a maximum. I do not know, and I do not want to commit myself to that at all. On nutrition on a United Kingdom basis I have already said something, but on the subject of infant mortality I should like to draw the attention of local authorities in Scotland to the fact that in January of this year our intake of welfare foods for mothers and children was still surprisingly lower than the corresponding figures for England and Wales. We are 7 per cent. worse in cod liver oil, 20 per cent. worse in vitamin A and D tablets and 18 per cent. worse in the intake of orange juice, That is a matter which I am sure will be corrected by Medical Officers of Health, and I entreat the active co-operation of the doctors, the Press and the cinemas in this regard.
  Now as to maternity hospital beds. We have, as a matter of fact, rather more maternity hospital beds to births than have our neighbours South of the Border and we have more births in institutions.

  2089
  During the war, also, the number of hospital beds in Scotland has increased by 50 per cent. We now have 2,260 such beds and the local authorities, the larger ones at all events, are endeavouring to improve upon that figure
  In Glasgow 55 per cent. of births are in hospitals and nursing homes (they were 40 per cent. in 1938), in Edinburgh between 60 and 70 per cent., in Dundee 77 per cent., in Aberdeen 75 per cent. There is a vast and steady increase in the use being made of ante-natal clinics. In Glasgow last year about 77 per cent. of expectant mothers attended these ante-natal clinics. Our health visitor arrangements are steadily increasing. We have now in Scotland 970 trained visitors and we are endeavouring to see how far it is possible, even duirng wartime to get more of them trained. In so far as personal hygiene and cleanliness can be improved under existing conditions the Council on Health Education will no doubt do everything possible in that direction.
  But there is one aspect of these mortality figures which still gives me considerable concern. If hon. Members will turn to page 27 of the Report they will find there the assertion that about one quarter of the total deaths in the first month of babyhood are due to infections, and in a consecutive series of 225 post-mortem examinations of children dying during the first month in the Maternity Pavilion, Edinburgh Royal Infirmary, 27 per cent. of the deaths were judged to be due to infection. Apparently, at one time there were similar outbreaks in English and American hospitals. These outbreaks there were followed by administrative action.
  Dr. Edith Summerskill: May I draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to something on that page? If he reads on, he will find that it says that almost all the infants affected were bottle-fed, which means that the mother was so exhausted, from underfeeding, that she could not feed the child herself.
  Mr. Johnston: It may be due to that and it may not. The point is that in other institutions where the children were bottle-fed these infections did not arise. As I said, these outbreaks in American and English hospitals were followed by administrative action which partly succeeded. Clearly this is something to
  2090
  which immediate attention must be given. I am, therefore, inviting the Scientific Advisory Committee to pursue as a matter of urgency a special inquiry into this aspect of the question. If I might, therefore, summarise what we are doing upon the conclusions of the Orr Report it would be in this wise:

  (1) We are asking for a detailed examination as to why 25 per cent. of the deaths of newly-born babies are caused by infections;

  (2) We are taking every step in our power to prepare the way for a vast increase in sanitary and healthy housing accommodation;

  (3) The Local Authorities are doing their utmost to increase the intake of certain vitamin products by mothers and babies, to increase the number of qualified health visitors and home helps and the quality and use of the clinic services and the number of maternity beds;

  (4) The National Council for Health Education will assist in every way possible to inculcate the advantages of high standards of personal hygiene and conduct.

  And on nutrition, I make the confident claim that, despite all the adverse conditions and stresses and strains of war, there are now more people than at any time in our history getting three meals per day, and that, judged by all the available medical and statistical evidence in our schools, the health and vitality of the next generation is improving.
  Mr. Gallather: Will the right hon. Gentleman take really drastic steps to secure the necessary land in view of the enormous housing programme that will have to be carried out?
  Miss Rathbone: Before the right hon. Gentleman concludes, might I ask him one question? He admitted in his statement that the major cause was poverty. How then is it that not one of all the various remedies he indicated cuts at the problem of poverty, which can only be met by adequate children's allowances?
  Mr. Johnston: That leads us far afield. Many of the references which I made at the end of my statement were to remedial action which does affect poverty conditions. I should have thought that better housing was one.
  Mr. Buchanan: May I say a word or two in what I think is one of the most important Debates in which this House has taken part? I hope we shall not make this a Debate on a narrow issue, as if it were something confined to some isolated case. I would make an appeal to my English colleagues, for I often feel that I would like to bring a picture of parts of the industrial belt of the West of Scotland and towns like Dundee to people who are more fortunately situated, for I believe they would experience the same revulsion as swept this country when it understood what slavery was. I often think that if those English Members who are inclined to think we are irritable, over-bearing, and unjust, could picture the living conditions of these men and women they would not tolerate them for a day.
  The right hon. Gentleman based his speech mainly on the On Report, which has been the subject of some criticism, most of it terribly petty. Like every other human being the author of that Report has made mistakes and has limitations, but every human being who makes mistakes endears himself to me. This fact, however, does stand out. In his Report there are facts which we should have known, and possibly did know, but he, and a number of very celebrated medical people, have sat down and examined these facts, and the result is a Report that is easy to read and easy to understand. When I used to state the facts over 21 years ago, as did also the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), especially in regard to a district of Glasgow, they were taken as if they were our beliefs, but now, these facts are simply stated in the Report, and have received the hall-mark of approval of perhaps the most eminent people in the medical profession in Scotland. To that extent I express my thanks.
  But what of the future? The right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that poverty is the cause. He has stated quite truly that up to 1935 only 2s. was paid to an unemployed man for one child. Please bear this in mind, that at the height of the unemployment period the figure rose to over 2,000,000, but that figure turned over three or four times in a year, so that the actual population affected by it was at least one in every four. Glasgow Town Council gave in Poor Law relief, until shortly after the
  2092
  Assistance Board took over, to a man and his wife, no matter how big their family, 40s. a week to maintain the lot. That was the maximum, whether they had four or eight children, and that maximum, laid down by the Poor Law authorities, continued for about two years after the Labour Party took office in the town council. It was a shocking and outrageous state of affairs.
  Let me give a comparison between two towns, Falkirk and Greenock, both of which I know well. Falkirk is situated in the middle belt of Scotland, while Greenock, in my view, is perhaps one of the best situated towns in the whole of Britain. What is finer than the Firth of Clyde? On health grounds Greenock ought to beat Falkirk. But what do we find? The death rate in Falkirk is 71 per 1,000 and in Greenock it is 102 per 1,000. Nobody can convince me that the Clyde, or the different character of the people in the two towns, is responsible for that difference. One of the few things that are common to rich and poor alike, to people of different religious or social standing, is that when once a woman has given birth to a child she will do everything she can to preserve its life. That is common to all. Yet one of the terrible tragedies of it all is that mothers are being underfed. What is the explanation of the difference in the figures I have given for Falkirk and Greenock? Greenock is, in the main, a ship-building and a heavy industries area and at one time unemployment there rose to such height that almost half the people were unemployed. Falkirk makes light castings which are used in the housing and building industries and has never suffered the same blast of unemployment as Greenock. I always feel that Socialists are inclined to accept new ideas, which in itself is not a bad thing. Until I read the Boyd Orr Report I took the view that bottle-fed babies, with the best milk, were, on the whole, the best—
  Dr. Russell Thomas: No.
  Mr. Buchanan: I know that the hon. Gentleman does not need to read Reports, because he knows everything. I am only saying that I learned something from reading that Report.
  Dr. Thomas: It is so elementary.
  Mr. Buchanan: The hon. Member is so clever that nothing matters to him. I was surprised to find that breast-feeding is much preferable to bottle-feeding. That shows how absolutely vital is the necessity to feed the mother who is to have a child. I like to see good-looking women and well-dressed men. I have seen women of about 50 on the terrace here at Westminster and then I have gone back to Glasgow to see women of about 30 looking very much older and very care-worn. Why? Because of their poverty. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says that the problem is being tackled now, but are we sure that we have marched away from the time when little more than 2s. was provided in order to keep a child? Have we reached the stage when decent food can be given and proper housing conditions can be provided? Take the Minister of Pensions' scale of 18s. a week for a woman, plus rent. Divide that sum and see how far it goes. There must be coal, light and payment of insurances. Talk about it as you may you cannot produce good children on such a miserable income. I have noticed that the authorities always seem to tip the balance towards keeping people as poor as they can instead of tipping it the other way.
  The Ministry of Fuel and Power are responsible for the coal allocation. What is the position? [An HON. MEMBER: "We have not got any coal."] Yes, I am coming to that. The total allocation, if you are lucky enough to get it, is one and a quarter bags per week. Do not forget that that is the allocation for everybody. I have no children, I live in a tenement and I have what nearly everybody in my position would have—gas and electric fires. I can store a little coal. I am entitled to get one and a quarter bags each week. Within 100 yards of where I live is a man with three children, aged one, four and seven. He has no gas or electric fire. In a country like Scotland and a city like Glasgow warmth is just as important as food, clothing and housing. Yet many people there are not getting it. I say, give the children coal before anyone else. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State ought to be protecting the child life which is now being endangered.
  I would like to say something about housing. My right hon. Friend's statement on this matter was very disappoint-
  2094
  ing. A strong case has been made out for Scotland and the Government ought to proceed with housing now. Glasgow has a population of 1,000,000, half of whom have no baths and one-third of whom share lavatory accommodation with other people, sometimes to the extent of four, five and six families. My right hon. Friend quoted figures of sublets. Let me put them another way. In Gorbals where my parents were married and I was born, the Glasgow Corporation sent out skilled health visitors, who visited 1,800 houses. Out of that number one out of every four families with young children of 12 months and under were either living in over-crowded houses with relatives or were living in what were even worse conditions, in sub-lets. The word "sub-lets" does not convey a very graphic picture of what I mean. A sublet is merely a big house with no privacy, the door always open, no sanitary conveniences, no place even to wash, and nowhere to cook.
  The Secretary of State is not taking enough steps. He has to do far more for housing now than he is proposing to do. There is a move in certain quarters to get higher rents for houses now. When we asked in the past for 5s. for the unemployed man's child, we were met with the argument of the financial position of the country. To-day no one will believe that. We believe you have told lies, because in the past four years you have spent sums which make our previous expenditure look insignificant. The moment American soldiers come here, as they have done in large numbers, up go huts and houses to accommodate I do not know what number of men. The American soldier is housed quickly and, compared with some of the places our folk have to live in, is housed well. But when I say that a man returning from the Army should have a decent place, you say, "We cannot do it now." The funny thing is that you cannot do it for the wives and children, but you can always do it for the man while he is in the Army. There is a terrible responsibility upon the Secretary of State, and I am not going to make it more difficult if I can avoid doing so. The future population will not judge him on his excuses, for not going on with it. They want him to go on with it, and they will expect it.
  One of the things that we never hear mentioned is the steps that he intends to

  2095
  take to see that poverty does not again play the part that it has played. I wish the Government could have announced a definite policy of raising the standard of nutrition for children. The scales of unemployment assistance for women and children and the Poor Law scales need revision. One must feel sad on reading this Report. I do not know the future of Scotch politics, but I warn the Committee that anything might happen. I should not be surprised to see a militant movement at an early date. I can almost feel its undercurrents and rumblings now. They are very small, but all movements grow in that way. The test that they will apply will not be how much you can do and how much you cannot. The test that they will apply is the only one that is worth while, the standard of life, and that has nothing to do with the number of battles you have won and the kind of ships that we have to sail the seas in. The test of the nation is the homes of the nation. Imagine Scotland, with its infant mortality worse than that of any country in Western Europe except Spain and Portugal, and the appalling death rate. The reforms that my right hon. Friend has recommended are only partially good. They are nothing like big enough. There are two essential things that he has to do now, to start an ambitious building programme even during the war and to institute a minimum standard to ensure that everyone shall have a decent home and a decent income to keep it up.
  Mrs. Tate: We have all listened with sympathy and real feeling to the hon. Member's speech. There is no one who does not appreciate his intimate knowledge of his constituents and his deep interest in their welfare. I hope he will forgive me if I concentrate my remarks in the main not on infant mortality in Scotland, serious as that is, but upon the general level of health of the nation because, ghastly as the infant mortality figures in some places are, I think we are often far too complacent about the general level of health in the country as a whole. Year after year, when we listen to Ministry of Health Debates we are told that there is a great improvement in the health of the people. They live to be older, and we are given figures to show that certain diseases are far less prevalent than they were. I agree that people live for a longer
  2096
  period of life, but I think that is in the main due to prophylactic measures, better sanitation, better hygiene, in parts of the country better housing, and better education with regard to those aspects of health, but I do not subscribe to the view that the health of the nation as a whole is better than in the past, because I think the contrary is the case. People live to be older, but I wonder whether they are really healthier specimens than many of our ancestors were. When you dig up old skeletons you generally find that they have their teeth, and were of comparative fine physique.
  I maintain that the general level of well-being of the people is not particularly high. We lose our teeth at a very early age, a vast proportion of the country is tired and listless, pallid and by no means in a physical condition that you could call even adequate, let alone satisfactory. I think it is quite time we examined the causes, because I believe that, taking the general level of health of the people who survive, there is a deterioration, and we take it far too much as a matter of course that each year we should be afflicted by infectious diseases, both as children and as adults. The hon. Member drew a true and terrible picture—the Report shows how true and terrible it is—of the number of infants who die, but I think the number of infants who live permanently disabled by indifferent health is an equally terrible picture. There is no doubt that the most important period in a child's life for building up its health is from six months to a year. It is a most critical period in a child's life from the feeding point of view.
  The hon. Member said he was struck by the very great importance, as shown in the Boyd Orr Report, of breast-feeding. I do not know that one can lay too great emphasis on it, and I heartily endorse everything he said as to the vital necessity of building up the health of the mother if you are to encourage breast-feeding. I also endorse what he said that it is a common, though not universal, practice for a woman, once she has brought a child into the world, to be prepared to make almost any sacrifice in the interests of the child. We often hear people deploring the amount of tinned food that is eaten and the amount of tinned milk which is drunk. When I have worked, as I have done, amongst people who live in some of the housing conditions of the country I do

  2097
  not marvel that so little fresh milk is drunk or so much tinned food eaten. I marvel that the women have the courage to try to cook or to keep homes going at all. Everyone who knows the circumstances knows that fresh milk is often not drunk because of the lack of any place where it can be stored without going bad.
  To return to breast-feeding. We had a policy of encouraging ante-natal and post-natal clinics, where women were encouraged in and educated as to the importance of nursing their own children, and the advantages of breast-feeding. What have we done since the war? All over the country we have set up war-time nurseries. I am the most whole-hearted advocate of the nursery school for children from two to five, or preferably seven, but I deplore nurseries which take children from the age of nought to five. If nurseries are set up to take children from birth to five years, it is a direct encouragement to bottle feeding, because if a woman can take in her baby when it is a few weeks old and leave it in a war-time nursery, it is impossible for her to breast feed the child. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary does not agree with me and that she consistently encourages, as the policy of the Ministry of Health, nurseries for children from nought to five.
  Mr. Gallacher: Is not the hon. Lady aware that it is possible to have creches associated with industry to which mothers can go at regular intervals to feed their children?
  Mrs. Tate: I am obliged to the hon. Member for reminding me of that. I am well aware of it, and approve such places; but I am sure he will agree that there are also a large number of nursery schools where children have been kept apart from the mother for the entire day from the age of a few weeks, and where it is therefore impossible for the mothers to feed their children. That system is expensive and deplorable. Suppose a child is breast fed and weaned, and then goes on to ordinary feeding, why is it that its health is comparatively indifferent in so many cases? I admit that it is often due to poverty, but poverty is not the only cause of malnutrition. I regard a large percentage of the people as mal-nourished considering the general health level, and I think that that is because we have had a wrong policy in regard to feeding. There is far too little co-operation between the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Food,
  2098
  the Ministry of Agriculture, the Board of Education and the Home Office, all of which are involved.
  Now raw milk is one of the most important foods that can be produced. I know that in another moment I shall be attacked by the hon. Lady the Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill). I see her eagle eye upon me, but I still maintain that pasteurising milk is a wrong, retrograde and deplorable policy. I agree that infection may be carried by milk and that people can suffer from bovine tuberculosis. The cure for that is healthy herds and a clean milk supply, but also a clean water supply, which we are very far from having in this country. Our water is neither adequate nor pure. If the Committee were really cognisant of the amount of water that is already polluted by sewerage, they would be quite appalled. We have got not only impure water, but inadequate water. Therefore, before we begin to tamper with milk, let us produce it in a way it should be produced, as a really clean raw food and do not let us half boil it, thereby killing the vitamin C content and destroy some valuable hormones about which we are very ill-informed. We should first produce good healthy milk and then permit people to have an adequate supply of the right kind of food.
  There is a great deal of ignorance about food, and the Ministry of Food, although it has done a magnificent job in the war in the distribution of food, has done very much less than it might have done to ensure the quality of the food, largely because the Ministry is run by vested interests. There is not only misapprehension about the type of food we eat, but there is a lamentable laxness about the way in which the food we do eat is prepared. Anyone can go out, and, if provided with a sufficient number of points, can buy breakfast foods like puffed wheat and puffed rice. But what is the actual nutriment content of half these foods when they reach our breakfast tables? The nutriment lies only in the milk and sugar we take with them, because they have been prepared at such a degree of heat that any nutriment they had has been in the main destroyed and anyway they are only starch. Yet the Minister of Food allocates large food supplies to these manufacturers of breakfast foods which are in a large number of cases practically worthless.
  Mr. Mathers: Moral: take porridge.
  Mrs. Tate: Very few people in this country know how to prepare porridge properly, and in a large number of the houses, certainly in Scotland, it would be more difficult to prepare porridge than to take prepared food on the allowance of coal to-day. [Interruption]. Does the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary dispute that? Does she say that it is very easy to cook porridge properly in all of our houses? If she thinks that, she knows nothing about it.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbruģh): As the hon. Member has asked me about porridge, I will tell her that I can cook it on a fairly small fire. I would sooner have porridge than a good many other foods.
  Mrs. Tate: I am very glad to hear that the hon. Lady can make porridge. So can I, but in a great many of the houses in the country it is exceedingly difficult to cook porridge or anything else owing to the housing conditions and pressure of time. To return to the allocation of such food supplies as are available, it is a lamentable thing that so much of the sugar is allocated to the makers of synthetic soft drinks. What is the actual food value of a half the synthetic soft drinks that are on the market to-day? If there is no food value in them, why have they been given such a large allocation of sugar?
  Mr. Mathers: Is there not a much greater food value in the soft drinks that remain, adulterated as they are, than there is in beer, in which there is also sugar?
  Mrs. Tate: No, I do not think so. I do not for one moment think that in some of these synthetic soft drinks there is any food value at all. Whether people approve of beer or whether they do not, I believe that it is a fairly nourishing drink. It would be extremely difficult to put on weight with some of the synthetic orange beverages, but nobody denies that you put on weight by drinking beer. I dare not drink it for that reason.
  Mr. Mathers: The hon. Lady will admit that in making such a statement she is not supported by reliable medical evidence?
  Mrs. Tate: I would love to know when medical evidence is reliable. It varies
  2100
  from day to day, from medical practitioner to medical practitioner, and from age to age. A medical truth of one day is a medical lie of another, and the less we talk about reliable medical evidence the better. Of all the changeablé professions where reliability is concerned, give me the medical profession. That brings me to another point. Why, if the medical profession have such an intense interest in our health, is it that such large supplies of the few drugs which are available are given to the enormous vested interests which produce quack medicines? To-day on every hand we see advertisements for pills which everybody knows are largely made of soap, which the housewife is very short of, or some other worthless or even deleterious substance. The amount of material that is going to the large vested interests in patent medicines, which are often half poison, is one of the scandals of our country.
  Sir Edmund Findlay: It is nonsense to say that patent medicine manufacturers are making great profits. Most of the so-called patent medicines have their formulae on the bottles. In any case, soap is a valuable substance.
  Mrs. Tate: I am sorry that the hon. Member has so completely delivered himself into my hands. He says it is nonsense to say that patent medicine manufacturers are making great profits. Well, if that is so, I am deeply sympathetic and extend my sympathy to the poor Beecham Trust and other patent medicine manufacturers. He says that each patent medicine has its formula on the bottle. Does he in his innocence believe that the formula really means anything to the layman? The majority of people do not read the formula, and they would not understand it if they did. They have, therefore, very little knowledge of the value of the contents. I imagine only a very poor brain could not produce formula that would pass. Does anyone go about testing medicines to see what the contents actually are? Are all the formulae on the bottles the same as they were before the war?
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Glenvil Hall): The hon. Lady must address the Chair.
  Mrs. Tate: I feel strongly about patent medicines, and I apologise if I was led astray.
  Mr. Gallacher: Is the hon. Lady aware that the vested interests are allowed to poison people because the Conservatives are in power?
  Mrs. Tate: I shudder to think of the poisons the country would suffer from if the hon. Gentleman's party were in power.
  Sir E. Findlay: On a point of Order. May I ask whether it would not be possible for a Member of the Government to state whether the formulae on medicine bottles are the correct formulae and whether the manufacturers are not carrying out their proper legal responsibilities?
  The Temporary Chairman: Someone will doubtless be replying for the Government to this Debate, but it is not for me to say what line that reply should take when the time comes.
  Mrs. Tate: I hope that if the Government do reply on this point they will say how often the formulae are tested and who does it in wartime, because it would need a large staff. I do not know why the hon. Member has this passionate interest in patent medicines. He looks very well, so I can only imagine that he takes extremely few of them.
  To return to the co-operation between the Ministries of Food, Health, Education and Agriculture, and the Home Office, I think it is a very great pity that, owing to the difficulties which the farmer has in making both ends meet, and owing to a mistaken and parsimonious Government agricultural policy, the emphasis is all too frequently on how much milk you can make a cow produce and how many eggs you can make a hen lay. It is not a subject on which we have sufficient knowledge, but it is quite time that some investigation were made into the quality of milk in relation to different types of feeding, and into quality of eggs resulting also from different types of feeding. There was an extraordinarily interesting article, which I would commend to any hon. Member, which appeared in a magazine called "The Guild Gardener," for February, 1944. The article is entitled "At Last we Learn to Farm," and it describes experiments that were carried out on the feeding of cattle and the amazing change in their resistance to disease. Those experiments are worthy of more notice than they have had.
  2102
  It is high time that some official investigation were made along the lines I suggest. For example, there is what is known as the battery form of keeping poultry. I find it difficult to believe that there is not more nourishment in an egg laid by a hen on free range than in an egg laid by a hen kept in a cage very little larger than that in which you would keep a canary, and in which the hen is, in very many cases, fed on 80 per cent. house scraps, 10 per cent. whale oil and 10 per cent. sawdust. That is being done very successfully, commercially, in many parts of the country, to-day, but I wonder whether it is so successful in building up the health of the people who eat the eggs.
  There is another matter which should receive far more enlightened attention. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) said that it was the common practice for a woman, once she had brought a child into the world, to be prepared to make great sacrifices; but there is a proportion of women in this country who are feckless and incapable of looking after their children adequately. That small proportion sometimes comes before our police courts; and what is the punishment meted out to them for their neglect? The children are sent to an approved school, or to more suitable care, while the mother is sent to serve a short term of imprisonment. What good is that? I believe there is nothing more pitiable, as a corrective measure, than sending anyone to prison for a very short term. Certainly, it is no way to educate a mother in the care of her young. I believe that it would be far better for those women if they were sent to homes where they could be given careful and intelligent instruction in housewifery and the care of children.
  Where a woman neglects her children, there is often a deficiency in character, but far more often there is a deficiency in education, training and opportunity. When we are considering the nutrition of the nation, I beg the Committee not to believe that it is only a matter of income, or even only a matter of food. I believe that one step to enable us to build up the health of the people of this country as it should be built up, is to have compulsory school feeding. Where we have it, the children should be compelled to remain in the school and have the school meal, not given a small sum of money

  2103
  and permitted to go to the nearest town and spend the money in a snack bar, which it is perfectly natural that children should do if allowed, but exceedingly unsuitable that they should be permitted to do. I beg also that some measure may be brought in to ensure that our children have a more adequate allowance of sleep. That is more important to-day than ever before, because, with the introduction of double summer time, the hours until which children are allowed to run about are growing very late. Mothers are busy, and fathers are away, and there is no one to see that a child goes to sleep at a proper time and has an adequate number of hours in bed.
  Dr. Russell Thomas: I would like to say first that I am inclined to agree with the hon. Lady who has just spoken when she says that doctors are prone to change their views, and that what was a truth for one generation is an untruth for another, but I would ask the Committee to believe that in some degree that is inevitable. It must be so, with the changes that constantly go on in scientific development. But I entirely agree that any one generation of doctors seems too dogmatic about these matters, and is often inclined to speak as though it had found a philosophy and a treatment for all time. I was a little surprised at what was said by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) but as he is not now in his place, I shall not say anything very much about him except that he said he had recently discovered that human milk was better for children than bottle milk. Surely it is obvious that human milk must be the best. What is natural is clearly what is right. Because I emitted a grunt at his discovery of what seemed so obvious he told me that I was one who always seemed to know everything but I do not believe that is so, because for nearly the whole of my later life I have constantly asked myself the question which Pontius Pilate so tersely propounded, and I am still seeking a satisfactory answer to-day.
  Perhaps I might turn the Committee's attention back to one particular subject, which has not yet been discussed at any length, but was mentioned by the Minister, and that is infant mortality. It is a very important matter indeed. I do not want to weary the Committee with many
  2104
  figures, but I must refer to a few figures for the sake of my argument. First, I should like to say that the Boyd Orr report is a good report, and although it does not cover the ground completely and absolutely, it produces a large number of comparative figures which are intensely interesting and from which a great number of deductions can be made. I want to discuss how far it is possible to reduce infant mortality until it gets to the level below which it cannot go. What is the hard core? How far can we, in the next 10, 20, 30 or 40 years get down to that hard core?
  I would just remind hon. Members of the mortality figures for England, Wales and Scotland, although I think they are well known. During the five-year period 1934–38, they were 77 per thousand in Scotland and 57 in England and Wales. In the period 1936–40 they were 76 per 1,000 for Scotland and 55 for England and Wales. A partly overlapping period, but showing a very small drop indeed. However, the figures were very much better for England and Wales than for Scotland. That is a very high rate and was excelled in Europe only by countries like Spain, Portugal and Hungary. Most of the countries in Europe were a great deal better, Holland in particular, with a figure of 39. But the best figures of all were in New Zealand with 32.7 per 1,000, and I want to take that country as a standard in this respect. If the Committee would turn to page 20 of the Report and look at the excellent tables prepared they would see, by table 12, that there has been a great reduction of mortality during the first year of infant life, from 1906 to the present day. It has been reduced in England from 117 to 56 and in Scotland from 112 to 77. A most curious thing is that in in 1906 the infantile mortality rate was less in Scotland than it was in England.
  Let us now turn our attention to the considerable number of deaths due to infective causes. Table 12 includes the whole of the infectious or infective diseases, divided into three categories. There has been a considerable death rate from these infections. The categories are: first, ordinary infectious diseases like whooping-cough and measles; secondly, respiratory diseases, which have a considerable killing capacity in this country, and thirdly, gastro-intestinal

  2105
  diseases, which also are somewhat devastating. In regard to the respiratory diseases, the Committee will know that bronchitis and broncho-pneumonia account for a large number of deaths indeed in children under one year. I would like to point out that bronchitis and broncho-pneumonia are frequently associated with the other infectious diseases. In a later column, hon. Members will see that there is a considerable death rate also from convulsions, but these are probably related in many cases to some of those infective complaints.
  There is no doubt that from 1906 to the present day, the reduction in infant mortality from these diseases is due to the fact that there are fewer slums and far less overcrowding, improved hygiene, better food, better public health administration, pre-natal care, and so on; but there is still considerable scope to reduce it further. Slum clearance surely must proceed, but one point I want to make about the prefabricated houses which are going to be put up for 10 years is that we must be very careful that those temporary houses are not rapidly turned into slums, with an adverse effect on the figures of infant mortality about which I am speaking. We shall, in future, in order to control this death rate from infectious diseases, or general infective diseases, as I would rather call them, have to see that a considerable amount of education is given to mothers in the care of their infant children. I think that is most important. We shall, as previous speakers have already pointed out, also have to see that mothers during the time of pregnancy and after the birth of the child are maintained upon a high level of nutrition. I think that if we can proceed with these matters in regard to housing, if we can proceed in these general public health measures, there is not the slightest doubt that we can reduce the infant mortality due to these infective diseases to a very low level. I note that therapeutic methods are coming to the front to-day such as the vaccine given for whooping cough, which is so highly successful. I hope to see further progress in the next few years in regard to that aspect of the question. There is not the slightest doubt that this cause of infantile deaths can be reduced enormously.
  If hon. Members will turn to table 14 on page 21 they will see that infant mor- 2106
  tality is divided into five separate classifications according to the social status of the father, which is based, I believe, on income. If one adds up the columns vertically one will see that in column 5 infant mortality due to infective complaints is 35.6. The second column deals with the second class, which is a good social class—I am not dealing with column 1, as I think it would be a great task to attain that level for many years to come—but there is no reason why, eventually, class 5 should not become class 2, class 4 become class 2 and class 3 become class 2. The result would be that we would reduce the death rate in infants under one year due to infective complaints to 12 per thousand. I think that is the figure given in the second column. At 12 per 1,000 we have a hard core beyond which it would be very difficult to reduce the figure still further.
  Let us remember that infective diseases can be reduced—it might take seven years or it might take 20, 30, 40 or 50 years, I do not know; it depends how social movements go ahead—but I think they might be reduced to 12 per 1,000. I shall now turn to rather less promising figures of the table to which I have referred on page 20, that is figures relating to congenital malformation. I do not think we have much chance of reducing that. On the contrary, it is to me rather alarming that we find that in Scotland in the period 1906–09 there were 4.9 deaths per 1,000 in the first year from congenital malformation and in 1937–39 this had risen to 6.2. in England and Wales the corresponding figures were 4.9 rising to 6.1. This is very disturbing. I hope that hon. Members will dwell upon this particular point. What is meant by congenital malformation? It is not malformation of the limbs but of the internal organs such as the brain, the heart and the stomach, which frequently cause death in the first year. Then we have that condition often associated with mental deficiency. We do not know how many children are born mentally deficient and whether that is increasing or not. They do not die, but I am afraid it is. I fear we have very little opportunity of reducing the infant mortality rate in that direction. We must leave the figure of 6.1 as a hard core, as it were, of deaths due to congenital malformation. I hope it is not going up any further. If we look at the New Zealand figures given, we shall see that deaths from

  2107
  congenital malformation in children under one year have definitely increased too in the last few years. I think they have reached a figure of 5.9.
  Another cause of infant deaths mentioned in the Report is congenital debility. Deaths from that cause in England and Wales from 1906 to 1910 were 15 per 1000. They have been reduced—and I think it is remarkable and very much to our credit—to 2.1 in the period 1937–40. The figures for Scotland are 12.6 per 1,000 the period 1906–10—again less than in England at that time—but unfortunately in Scotland the figure has not gone downwards in anything like the same way as it has done in England, and 1937–40is represented by a figure of 7.6 instead of 2.1. Now turn to the table representing the death rate in the different social classes of the community and it will be found that it should be possible to reach the standard of class two in regard to congenital debility. It should be possible to reduce that in Scotland to the English level of 2.1 per 1000. Beyond that I do not think it would be possible for us to go. There we have a hard core of infantile mortality, at a figure of 2.2, shall we say. There is no doubt again that proper food for the mother with the resulting high quality natural food for the child will help in this direction.
  I come to another factor in regard to infant mortality in the first year, that is mortality due to injuries at birth. From 1906 to 1940 there was an increase due to injuries at birth. In Scotland the increase was from 1.3 per 1,000 to 3 and in England from 1 per 1,000 to 2.5 per 1,000. I do not think we can get rid of a hard core there of less than unless we take certain measures, and I do not wish to say anything which is too far reaching or too high. But the injuries at births are due to two general causes, to prolonged birth—I do not want to go into details on that—or, perhaps, to instrumental interference. I think a word of warning should go out regarding the position we are facing at the present time. The ordinary confinement is now, normally, attended by the district nurse. The consequence is that the doctor does not go to the ordinary confinement—he is only called to the difficult ones—and must lose some of his skill and experience in this respect. If he loses the experience which he will get
  2108
  from ordinary simple confinements then indeed there may possibly be a lack of skill developing in the practitioners of the country. I do not wish to put it too high, as I said—I am not clear. I put it tentatively and nervously, but I think that is a point we should consider. There is, too, a tendency, I think, by many in hospitals towards instrumental interference although obstetric teaching is against that if it is possible to avoid it. Things are so ready for action in a hospital that instrumental interference at birth does occur which might account for some part of the figure. Without pursuing that matter further, I put the hard core of infantile mortality due to inevitable accidents at birth at about 2.
  I come to the last heading, that is premature births, which account, as Members will see if they look at the table, for a very large death rate during the first year of life.
  Sir E. Findlay: Surely premature births are not dealt with in this report. It is on infant mortality.
  The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): I understood that we were dealing with the whole question.
  Sir E. Findlay: That is the difficulty we are up against. Premature births and abortions, so called, do not come within this Report.
  Mr. Buchanan: In spite of the fact that premature births may not come over the border line, surely the Report all along is dealing with the matter.
  The Deputy-Chairman: Yes, but after all we are not discussing the Report; we are discussing the whole question. Therefore, it is quite immaterial whether it is in the Report.
  Dr. Thomas: Premature birth is one of the main causes of infantile mortality in the first year. It is a matter dealt with by a fairly considerable number of figures in the columns in the Report. The most striking thing there, is the very high figures for premature births. There has been very little improvement from 1906 to 1940. The number of deaths from premature birth in 1906 in Scotland was 18 and in England and Wales 16.9. In

  2109
  England the improvement was not very marked, being less than one point—from 16.9 to 16.4 and in Scotland it has gone up to 19.9.
  This is an extremely difficult subject. On page 26 of the Report it is pointed out that of 73 cases of premature births in which death had occurred 15 had occurred in the case of twins; and we know that when more than one child is born the other sometimes has not the grip on life that the other has; 13 were associated with toxaemia and so on—in 34 out of the 73 cases in the Report the cause could not even be associated with any particular disease. There is also the whole physiological mechanism of childbirth which itself might go wrong such as premature rupture of the membrane. We cannot control that. It just happens. Turning to Table four again in regard to the social classes it will be found that deaths from premature birth is less in class two than in class five. It is about 19 per 1,000 in class five but in class two in the social scale it is 14.4. I suggest 14.4 is the hard core beyond which we cannot go in saving life due to premature births—at least until our knowledge has increased.
  I have given certain fundamental figures which, perhaps, we cannot get below but we can go a long way until we reach those fundamental figures. I will try as simply as possible to summarise these figures under separate headings. What we would find is, I have suggested, that the hard core from definite infective diseases, the whole category of infective diseases, could be reduced by great social improvements in this country—improved housing accommodation and so on, and that possibly over a period of years—it may be reduced to 12 per 1,000. The basic figure for congenital malformations I have given as 6.1 per 1,000; for congenital debility as 2; for injury at birth 2; for premature birth 14.4. Adding these figures up we get down to the more satisfactory figure of 36.5 per thousand which should be the hard core of deaths in the first year of life in England and Wales. This we shall find compares very favourably with the figure far New Zealand. The New Zealand result is 32.7, the best result in the whole world. A striking thing occurs. If we look at the previous results, we shall find—
  Mr. Georģe Griffiths: The hon. Member said that New Zealand had the best results in the world; is that so?
  Dr. Thomas: Yes, there is at this moment no other country where the figure is so low.
  Mr. Griffiths: I suppose the reason is that the Labour Party have been in office there for 10 years.
  The Deputy-Chairman: We cannot go into research of that sort.
  Dr. Thomas: It must be remembered that New Zealand is a new country, with a small population of under two millions and an excellent climate. Here we have 45,000,000 people, crowded into a country of similar size. In New Zealand large quantities of highly nutritious food are also readily available. I think then it is due to a combination of circumstances. I want to make my argument not on a political basis, but on sound, logical lines. The difference between my ultimate figure of 36.5 and the New Zealand figure of 32.7 is accounted for by the greater amount of respiratory disease which would obtain in this country, probably for climatic reasons. Apart from infective diseases of 12 per 1,000, my figure for other causes is very similar to the New Zealand figure that is 24.5 per 1,000 against 23.7. I do not say that my figures are absolutely correct, but they represent an attempt to make a comparison with New Zealand. I think we can get down to that point, but it may take many years, as much requires to be done. I have tried to make a difficult argument as dear as possible, and I hope that any hon. Member who is interested will look up those figures. I will not go into any philosophic dissertation, in the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for North Islington (Dr. Haden Guest), who once rebuked my philosophic bent, and speculate whether if public health, medicine, surgery, social services, and all the rest of it had not reached so high a standard as they have that many of us in consequence would not have reached maturity and whether that would have been better or worse for the world; but I ask hon. Members to turn that point over in their minds, and perhaps they will be able to come back to this House later and tell us at some future date whether they deserve their place in life or not. I shall consider it for myself.
  Dr. Edith Summerskill: I am sure the Committee are grateful to the hon. Member for drawing attention to these very important figures, but I am sorry that in his final remarks he has not drawn the obvious conclusion, that the infant mortality rate can be traced to poverty.
  Dr. Thomas: I did make it dear that it was a social matter, which is the main point.
  Dr. Summerskill: I have followed every table to which he has drawn attention, and I think that, apart from the figures of congenital malformation, he will find them all very difficult to explain away. The others can all be traced to poverty, bad housing, under-nourishment, and other such circumstances. I would like to mention malnutrition. In this House last week there was a considerable amount of heat engendered when we discussed soldiers' pay and family allowances. Many Members, rightly, felt strongly that the allowances in particular should be increased. Why? Because the rates of pay to our men in the Services, when interpretated in terms of human misery, cannot be defended. Here, a week after, we are concerning ourselves with certain aspects of the human misery which inevitably follows low family allowances. At the moment I think the figures are these. The Service man is paid 9s. 6d. a week for his first child, 8s. 6d. for his second child, and 7s. 6d. for his third child. It is quite impossible, even in an institution, where clothes and food are bought quantitively, to maintain a child on those scales. Therefore, surely I am not exaggerating when I say that the children of the lowest-paid men in our Services are all suffering from malnutrition; in other words, it is the common lot of the children of the men who are to-day giving their lives in order that we may sit here and discuss matters concerning the State, to be undernourished. You do not have to be a doctor to know these things, you do not have to know what is a balanced diet, you do not have to know what are the objective symptoms of malnutrition; you simply have to know how much a shilling buys in the shops to-day.
  Mrs. Cazalet Keir: My hon. Friend, I suppose, is taking into account school meals and so on?
  Dr. Stuninerskill: Certainly, but my hon. Friend will agree that we are not giving school meals to all children in this country. I am concerning myself particularly with those who are not having these extra allowances. The average mother who goes out shopping to-day, when she is thinking how to keep a child on 75. 6d. a week, concerns herself with cheap food; and cheap food means potatoes and bread, which are the foods that give warmth and energy. The soldier's wife must exclude the proteins, the protective foods, the body-building foods, because those are the expensive foods. They are the foods which the child needs. I find it difficult to understand why the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House and the others who are deciding Government policy, when they are thinking of the nourishment of the children of the country, do not also remember that, while a soldier fights on his stomach, he also fights on the stomachs of his children. During the next few months, when things will be very difficult, when men will be wondering when they are going to return—
  The Deputy-Chairman: I have listened with very great care, and we really must not in this Debate—which is very wide, going into the whole question of health—deal with the question of Service pay and allowances. It would be unfair to previous speakers to start upon that subject.
  Dr. Summerskill: This Debate is on nutrition, and nutrition is a very wide subject. We cannot discuss nutrition properly unless we discuss what foods are to be bought.
  The Deputy-Chairman: Yes, but it is quite outside the scope of this Estimate to discuss Service pay and the Prime Minister's inquiries into it.
  Mr. G. Griffiths: The soldier's wife and children are part and parcel of the nation. and we are discussing the nutrition of the entire nation. Surely the hon. Member is in Order in pointing out that these children are under-nourished?
  The Deputy-Chairman: The whole question of nutrition can be discussed, but we cannot bring in the question of raising Service pay, which we are getting very near to doing. Nutrition, yes; I allowed the hon. Lady to go on quite widely on the question of nutrition.
  Dr. Summerskill: I am willing to leave out Service pay if you will allow me to discuss money. The experts discovered last year that 30 per cent. of the population of this country were under-nourished. This must be related to poverty. If the Treasury say that they are unable to provide further allowances—I am talking not only about allowances to our Service men, but children's allowances—in order to improve the nutrition of the country, if they say that this country is not rich enough to feed its population, I suggest that they should postpone the expenditure on the new medical services which are outlined in the White Paper, and expend the money on children's allowances, in order to improve the nutrition of the country. In my opinion, most ill-health can be traced to underfeeding and bad housing rather than to the want of a bottle of medicine. The Government's policy is a short-sighted one, in view of the fact that after the war we shall need a healthy, virile body of young workers to offset the middle-aged and elderly population. We are becoming a nation of old people, yet we are short-sighted enough to tolerate this waste of young life and to underfeed the younger generation.
  We were told by the Secretary of State for Scotland how things have improved in the last few years. We are not denying that. We must remember that 100 years ago the expectation of life in Lancashire was 30 years. In India to-day it is 26 years. The expectation of life in New Zealand to-day is 67 years. This, in itself, indicates the importance of nutrition. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland told us that things have been improved, but that is not enough. Our men to-day are fighting for freedom from want: they are not fighting for the bad old days of child starvation. My final word on nutrition, before I come to infant mortality, is this. It can be proved conclusively that a low standard of health in certain parts of the country can be traced to poverty. I get a little tired when I hear that different Ministries are about to set up other Committees to discuss this question when we all know what is the reason.
  On the question of infant mortality, again, it has already been said, and I think the Committee agree, that the high death rate, particularly in Scotland, can be traced to poverty, malnutrition of the mother and to bad housing. I do not
  2114
  think that the malnutrition of the mother has been emphasised enough. We knew at the beginning of the war that the expectant mother was underfed. I remember sending to the Ministry of Health certain documents which were sent to me from an obstetrician in charge of a large hospital just outside London proving conclusively that the expectant mothers in this country should be given increased rations. What was the result? Nothing was done in this country until about a year ago. When I read this Report, and when I read so many of the things I already knew, that the expectant mother too often stinted herself in order that her husband and children could be fed, I was reminded of that case last year, which perhaps the Committee will remember, when a woman appealed against the decision of a judge that she should hand her housekeeping savings to her husband. In the Appeal Court a learned judge said, when a woman barrister protested that the woman should be allowed to keep the savings she had made out of the housekeeping because she was entitled to them: "Do you think that a woman in a home should have a legal right to a share of the family economy? If you gave the housewives of Britain that right they would feed their husbands on corned beef rather than roast beef." That was said in the Appeal Court in this country.
  When we read this Report we realise how little our learned judges know about women. I read on page 47 that it is a common observation in poor families that where food is short the mothers deprive themselves for the other members of the family. Whenever it has been found that a diet is inadequate for the family as a whole, it will usually be true to say that the mother will suffer most. This is the answer to the gentleman who said that women would starve their families if they were given a legal right to share in the family income. I think it important that the Committee should give attention to the condition of the expectant mother. We have made very few surveys of the condition of the expectant mother, of her physical condition, but one was made of family incomes in which families were divided into five groups. On page 48 of the Report of this survey it says:
  "Only the two highest groups approached the necessary standard for protein and iron, and only the highest for calcium. The supply of vitamins A, B and C was inadequate ex-

  2115
  cept in the highest group. The position became progressively worse towards the lowest income group."
  Just think of that. We are now discussing expectant mothers. Of the five income groups, the three lowest income groups were deficient in some of the most important diet constituents. I was not surprised when the Secretary of State for Scotland reminded us of what we all know, that tuberculosis is increasing among our young women. Of course it is. If we allow this kind of thing to exist these women cannot possibly resist tuberculosis. Their health is undermined and they are easily attacked.
  The question of bottle-fed babies has been raised. I reminded the Secretary of State, when he told the Committee that 25 per cent. of the infants who died, died from some infection, of the very important point contained in that paragraph. Practically all these children are bottle-fed. What happens? Their resistance is undermined and the different categories of infection which the right hon. Gentleman read out to the Committee easily attack fire bottle-fed infants. Here we come again to poverty and under-nourishment, the same old vicious circle—bottle-feeding, death of the child. I feel that all the hon. Members opposite who attack pasteurised milk have been influenced by the producer-retailers rather than by the farmers of the country.
  It is quite obvious to us why the child is bottle-fed and yet the Ministry, I think, has had to set up a separate ad hoc committee on bottle-feeding when it is quite obvious that if these women were properly fed bottle-feeding would be reduced. Furthermore, what is paradoxical is that last week we set up a Royal Commission on the birth-rate. Here we have the most appalling wastage of infant life, and instead of saving these lives we are wondering how we can encourage women to produce more babies. I find it very difficult to understand why this wastage is not stopped. According to these figures, by reducing Scotland's still-born rate to that of Holland we could save 1,570 infants a year, and with a possibility of saving more live-born we could save a total of 5,210 lives unnecessarily lost each year in Scotland alone. Should not we try to preserve these infants instead of devoting our energies to persuading women to have more babies?
  2116
  In case the Committee is not familiar with it, I want to give one aspect of the life of the expectant mother. I want to tell them what is our treatment of the poor expectant mother in Britain in wartime. I am very anxious for the Secretary of State for Scotland and the hon. Lady to listen to these figures, because I feel that this is an indictment of our whole system. Hon. Members will forgive me if cite the expectant mother, the wife of the Serviceman. This expectant mother, in receipt of these ridiculous allowances, finds she is pregnant. She finds she cannot carry on financially and must do something about it. She goes into industry. She stands for long hours in industry in order to make a little extra money to see her through the confinement. Think of her life standing in a factory, coping with the blackout, queueing for food, struggling on to a bus, getting home and doing the housework. When she is about seven months' pregnant she feels exhausted; she is physically incapable even of struggling at the bus stop, and she goes to her doctor. The doctor looks at her and says, "Well, now it is time for you to draw the National Health Insurance benefit until your confinement." The doctor gives the expectant mother a certificate and on the certificate he writes that she is suffering from advanced pregnancy. She is in the seventh, eighth, or ninth month of her pregnancy, after carrying on as long as she can. Shortly afterwards the doctor receives a note from the approved society to this effect:
  "Dear Sir or Madam, The above-named member has submitted a first certificate, the diagnosis being 'advanced pregnancy.' I would respectfully point out that sickness benefit is not normally payable in respect of pregnancy and, in connection with this matter, I am enclosing a circular issued by the Minister of Health."
  And this is the circular which I find it difficult to believe that any man could ever have drafted or any printer ever printed. It is one of the most inhuman documents that has ever been issued by any Government Department. In very black letters, so that no doctor can overlook it, it says that pregnancy does not necessarily give rise to incapacity for work and pregnancy without incapacity for work is not sufficient to entitle a woman to sickness or disablement benefit. I am talking about advanced pregnancy,

  2117
  the seventh, eighth or ninth month. Later, in big black type, it says:
  "No woman is entitled either previous to her confinement or during the puerperal period to receive sickness or disablement benefit as a matter of right for six weeks as appears sometimes to have been supposed, or for any other length of time. These benefits can only be paid, as stated above, if there is incapacity to work."
  I hope the Committee realise what this devilish document means. This, in my opinion, is the, death warrant for thousands of infants in this country. This woman has to go on until she can stand or work no longer. It says here, in effect, that we must get it out of our heads that any pregnant woman is entitled by right to have six weeks' rest. She has to go on. Incapacity for work means that there must be some pathological condition associated with her pregnancy before a doctor can issue a certificate. In case hon. Members think that I am speaking theoretically about this, I want them to know that the last two documents to which I referred were received from approved societies in January and February of this year, and both of the women to whom they refer were examined by me. They came to me exhausted. They were eight months' pregnant. They had had a long day in the factory, struggled on to the bus at night, got home to do the housework, queued for food, were separated from their husbands and had to undergo the strain of air raids at night. The men who sent me these communications were too ashamed to let me think that they were responsible and they had to enclose this communication from the Ministry of Labour.
  Here we are discussing the infant mortality rate. Here we are wondering why women are so exhausted that they cannot feed their babies. Here we are wondering why 30 per cent. of the babies in the country are bottle-fed. These women are worn out. I have seen them; I have treated them. We read in this Report that our women need more food and more rest, and yet the Ministry of Health issued this document, the death warrant for babies. I feel very indignant for this reason: These women are inarticulate; they are unorganised. They can do nothing in their helplessness but go to their doctors for help and advice, and the doctors' hands are tied. How can the
  2118
  doctors help them? They can give them certificates. They see them exhausted and worn out. You force them, as you forced me, to put a lie on certificates. I have said that I was sick to death of receiving these documents and I have put down "advanced pregnancy," "varicose veins," or "oedema of the legs" in order that these poor women should have a chance to rest. Other doctors in my position have met together, but we are hopeless in face of this difficulty which ties our hands and makes these women suffer in this way. We meet here to-day and what hypocrisy and humbug when people on the Front Bench opposite and in the Department of Health know what is wrong. Why ask people to come here and waste the time of the Committee and of the country when this should be put right immediately? I ask the Minister of Health, who is new to his office, to come here, as I believe he does, with an open mind. His wife and I have been through what these women have to go through. Do you think that we have had to suffer like this? We know what pregnancy means, the exhaustion and so on, and yet we allow these helpless women to suffer in this way. I ask the Minister of Health to address himself to this matter and to give these women a chance, at least two months' rest. The Soviet Union do it and every civilised country in the world does it, but Britain still allows her women to work in the factories until their confinement.
  Mr. Linstead: It is proper that from this side of the Committee there should come, a statement, following what the hon. Lady the Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill) has said and the very moving speech that we heard from the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), that we recognise as much as any other section of the Committee that the conditions that have been disclosed in the Orr Report of 1935 and in the recent White Paper on Infant Mortality in Scotland, are both a reproach and a challenge. It is something for which the whole of this Committee must accept responsibility, and not any one section.
  Mr. Gallacher: Do not try to put the blame on to somebody else when you are responsible.
  Mr. Linstead: I was somewhat sorry that the hon. Lady should have allowed

  2119
  herself to be carried away by special pleading. [HON. MEMBERS "No."] Hon. Members must allow me to develop this. One remark, for example, which she made was to the effect that every child of every serving soldier on the lowest rate of pay was, undernourished, and it is not right that a statement as broad as that should be allowed to go unchallenged. She also referred to the fact that the wives of serving soldiers who were in an advanced state of pregnancy spent their days standing up in factories. That, again, is a universal accusation which is not true. I could take the hon. Lady to an office in London where there are three such women who are given a sedentary job because of their condition, and it is not right that we should be led to believe that all these women spend their days on their feet.
  Mr. A. Edwards: What are these among so many?
  Mr. Linstead: I have taken particular cases within my knowledge and I am only saying that it is not right that it should go out to the country that the pregnant wives of soldiers are being treated in the way that the hon. Lady suggests.
  Dr. Summerskill: Really, that is a misinterpretation. How can the wife of every soldier be standing in a factory? I am quoting from my own experience that women do go to factories and nobody can justify that sort of thing.
  Mr. Linstead: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for saying that. She is now saying no more than I hope she meant, but it is certainly not what she said when she was speaking. The point I am making is that she is prejudicing her own case, which is one with which we on this side have as much sympathy as anyone else, when she finds it necessary to introduce emotional appeals when we should be dealing with facts. I want to emphasise what it has been found possible to do constructively in regard to improving the nutrition of the people of the country, admitting that it is a challenge and a reproach that nutrition should be as bad as it is, let us recognise that a very great deal has been done. The Boyd Orr Report of 1935 came out in time to enable the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Health to take some very practical steps, which ought to be recognised, in order to maintain the health
  2120
  of the community during the war. That Report pointed out that the deficiencies in the nutrition of the country were in calcium and in three of the vitamins. The Minister of Food got to work on those facts. He has added calcium to our bread, in spite of divergent views on the subject in this House.
  Sir E. Findlay: Are they assimilable?
  Mr. Linstead: I do not think that I can be drawn into a physiological discussion in this Debate. One can only say that the Minister of Food has acted on the findings of that Report both by the addition of calcium to the loaf and by the addition of vitamin B.
  Mr. Wootton-Davies: Will my hon. Friend tell the Committee how many people have subscribed to that Report?
  Mr. Linstead: That Report is a report from the Director of the Rowett Institute and is accepted generally as being a reasonably objective picture of the nutritional state of the country in 1935. I will not develop that point further, beyond saying that the Ministries concerned have taken advantage of the disclosed facts and that the nutritional state of this country is probably far better to-day than the nutritional state of most other countries in Europe. We shall be faced, after the war is over, not only with our own national nutritional problem but also with a very grave international nutritional problem. There was a very cogent article in "Nature" in 1942 by Geoffrey Bourne, in which he urged that certain preparatory steps should be taken to prepare for the international famine when the war is over. He called for an accumulation of stocks of wheat, of dried skimmed milk, dehydrated butter, dehydrated meat and fish and concentrates of A and D vitamins for children and pregnant mothers. I hope that when the Minister replies to the Debate he may be able to tell the Committee what has been done by way of accumulating stocks of those preparations which we shall undoubtedly need for the occupied territories. I hope that when the relief measures get going in these territories an attempt will be made to send one or two small research units of bio-chemists to study the actual nutritional reactions of the people to the food that is given. We learnt in Vienna after the last war a very great deal from the feeding of school

  2121
  children there and it would be wise if we were able to have the same sort of scientific oversight when we begin our rehabilitant work on the Continent after this war.
  If this country is to continue rationing for a long period after the war, as it very well may have to do, it will be important that the ordinary citizens should be educated as to the need for that rationing. I hope that arrangements can be made for that to be done. The people here will put up with rationing if they know that the reason for it is to feed people in the occupied countries. They will be restive if that reason is not made abundantly clear to them.
  If one looks forward to the nutritional state of this country when the war is over, the first thing that strikes one is that it ought not to be left to haphazard chance, as has been the case in the past. I would call first of all for the continuation of the Ministry of Food, preferably amalgamated with, and I think given priority over, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. It should be the duty of that Ministry to prepare the food policy for the country and, upon that policy, to build up our agricultural policy, because the two go hand in hand. If the farmers can be told clearly exactly what we need for nutritional purposes then they can plan their farming.
  Dr. Haden Guest: Does my hon. Friend mean that the Ministry of Food should continue to have powers about purchase?
  Mr. Linstead: The primary responsibility of the Ministry of Food will obviously be to see that there is sufficient of the essential nutrients available for the people here. I myself see no reason why there should not be a prosperous agriculture in this country, together with the absorption, as imports, of what Canada, Australia and the Argentine can send us. There should be room for both those in the light of the bad nutritional conditions of about half our population. The two things might very well go together.
  We shall also have to bear very much in mind after the war the need for research, both in agriculture and in nutrition. There still seems to be far too much misunderstanding about the relative values of artificial and natural manure, for example. Evidence seems to be accumulating that if you get a soil
  2122
  that is rich in humus you get crops which are far better nutritionally than crops which are forced out of poor soil by artificial manures. However, that still has to be worked out. Then there is much research to be done in the methods of keeping and transporting food. We have had the experience of frozen vegetables during this war, and that has opened up a completely new field of preservation. I had the privilege a short time ago of examining vegetables and milk which had been preserved by subliming water out as solid ice—it is lifted straight out of vegetables as ice—and the quality of that milk and those vegetables is excellent when you replace that ice at any later stage with water. That, again, has revolutionised what can be done in the way of transporting and keeping food, but again further research is needed. Most of all after the war we shall need to educate the ordinary citizen, to translate the terms of the laboratory into the terms of the kitchen. There is still far too much demand for fish and chips and white bread and margarine and jam.
  Mr. Muff: We want white bread but we also want butter.
  Mr. Linstead: There is a French motto which says every man has his own taste. I think, however, the nutritional experts would agree that a diet of white bread and margarine and fish and chips is not the means of building, shall we say, a healthy Front Bench. [An HON. MEMBER "They are not normal people."] There is a revealing paragraph in "Our Towns," the review of the evacuation of our towns, which points out the demands made by the children in the country for town food. The report says that they clamoured for fish and chips, pickles, ice-cream, biscuits and sweets, and were too often used to drinking strong tea or beer; that they were quite unaccustomed to eating green vegetables, and that some of them said they had never seen their mothers cook at home. That, I think, is a fair picture of the outlook of the children in some of our big towns.
  Mr. Sloan: Some other people have never seen their mothers cook.
  Mr. Linstead: That does seem to show a need for education among the ordinary

  2123
  people, particularly the ordinary housewife, in what food she should give and how she should prepare it.
  Mr. R. J. Taylor: How many hon. Members on that side have seen their mothers cook?
  Mr. Linstead: If the hon. Member will come home to supper with me, I will give him a lesson in cooking which may surprise him.
  Mr. Taylor: It is the hon. Member's mother we are talking about.
  Mr. Linstead: There is one other point which is really part of the educative process. We have found that the various methods of communal feeding developed during the war have helped very greatly to bring home to ordinary people what they should eat, and how it should be prepared. One hopes they will be continued when the war is over, but I would say this with regard to the British Restaurants—I see no reason why British Restaurants should be continued solely as local authority organisations. Surely it should be possible for local authorities who want to continue these British Restaurants to do so by contracting with local caterers? If those caterers can be given the facilities, by way of reduced rent and so on, that are available for the local authorities, I am sure they can do the job as well as the local authorities, and can do it possibly with more variety and by giving a better personal service. However, one way or another, we shall see, I think, the continuation and development of community feeding when this war is over.
  In conclusion, freedom from want of food, which is really what we are discussing to-day, is no mean goal for the first piece of reconstruction machinery that has been set up. I am thinking of the machinery created by the Hot Springs Conference, which seems to me to be the herald of a better state of affairs internationally. There you have a certain number of nations getting together with a specific job to do, and creating machinery to do that job in a spirit of co-operation. International relationships after the war can very well be built up on that sort of basis—tackling a practical piece of work and getting on with it, rather than creating machinery first and then trying to find work for it to do. Coming back
  2124
  to the picture painted by the Orr Report and the White Paper, I would say that it is not a matter of party politics; it is not for one side of the Committee or the other to try to gain party advantage from this matter; it is a national reproach, and a national challenge which all men of good-will have got to take up.
  Mr. Alexander Walkden: We have had some very interesting speeches to-day following the statement by the Secretary of State for Scotland. Some of us are a little disappointed that he did not deal with the two themes in a rather more extensive way, and that he rather restricted himself in his survey of evidence to Scotland. I can understand why he did so, for the case of Scotland is a terribly bad one and lies deep in his heart. It was probably for that reason he concentrated mainly on the Scottish section. I hope, however, that the hon. Lady, or the Minister himself, whoever winds up this Debate, will be prepared to deal with English and Welsh questions, those which affect the country as a whole. I was, of course, delighted that the right hon. Gentleman approached and handled the matter with the right attitude of mind. That is characteristic of him. I think it actuates everybody who has been speaking here to-day. A right attitude of mind is of first importance in all things.
  The two themes selected for to-day are nutrition and infant mortality. I would like to get clear in my mind for what purpose we are concerned about nutrition. I suppose the national purpose is nutrition for fitness, about which we have heard a lot for some years past. But I also want nutrition for happiness, and I agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) who said that people were not as full of life as they should be. I am fond of reading, but I like to read faces as well as newspapers. Whenever I am in a public vehicle, or walking about a public thoroughfare, I look at all the faces. They are most interesting. What strikes me most to-day is the very marked contrast between the careworn faces of the people who work indoors in factories, in offices and in mines and those who are in the Forces. Our young fighting men and women look superb. Their faces show that they are properly treated, properly fed, have fairly good conditions and, as far as possible, are reasonably

  2125
  happy. Surely we can try to attain that standard in civil life. We must try to ascertain why there is that marked difference. Enough attention has not been paid to these matters in years gone by and as a result we are suffering to-day.
  When I was in the railway service I used to assist a man who was in charge of a huge goods depot. At that depot there was a large stable, full of magnificent horses, which the directors always looked at on the rare occasions when they came down to see whether any new buildings were required, such as warehouses, expenditure on which, I might add, they would not sanction unless it would bring in a 10 per cent. return. The horses we had were always worth looking at. They were like brewers' horses or those belonging to a good corporation. But sometimes a horse did not look very well and I remember that the late Lord Banbury always wanted to know why. He would cross-examine the horse-keeper and say, "What the horse needs is more beans and more oats and more rest in the meadow." But those directors never came to look at the workers in the sheds, or in the offices, where there were the pale-faced clerks. Those bad offices were the cause of much consumption and this matter was not dealt with until years later, when we got busy through our trade union.
  The great magnate or the great employer still does not know very much about the thousands of people who are in his service. What does he know about his employees' children? I have not much evidence that large-scale employers know very much about their workpeople. There are one or two firms, who advertise it a lot, who do concern themselves with their workpeople, and they are, in the main, the Quaker firms. They and others have welfare officers who are concerned with the health and welfare of the employees. But these officers cannot do any more than arrange for a little more ventilation or cleanliness of the premises. They cannot pay the workers a shilling a week more, or reduce their hours, or do the things which have been proved in this Debate to be the things that are vital to the health and well-being of the work-people of this country. I suggest that the interest of powerful people is not sufficient in the welfare of the nation as a whole. Until the Factory Acts passed through this
  2126
  House and until trade unions became powerful there was very little change in the way in which employers treated their workpeople. It was mainly trade union action which caused them to be concerned and take measures which helped to bring about the progressive improvement of which the Secretary of State spoke to-day.
  There was a certain amount of public effort and State assistance before the war, notably through the "Keep Fit" movement, towards which the Government voted a sum of money. Some good people devoted themselves to helping our young people to keep fit, but not much was done to enable the mass of the population to get fit. Many people were in a sub-normal standard in health and strength, which is what my party and I are concerned about. The tragic irony of the position is that only a war causes some people to concern themselves about the condition of the generality of the people. When we recruited men for the South African war it was found that many were below the required standards. The 100 years following the industrial revolution had so lowered the physique of the country that the standards had to be reduced. The minimum height for a soldier had to be reduced from 5ft. 6in. to 5ft. 3in. and then to 5ft., above which we have not been able to get since. That shows the dreadful results of the change which took place from the time when people lived mainly in the country, on good home-produced food, to the time when they worked on large-scale mass production for the benefit of somebody else. In the last war it was stated that we were still a C3 nation. The researches of Sir John Orr show that 200 years ago, when butter was 2d. per lb. and eggs were 2d. per dozen, many people got good food and their physique was up to standard. This standard has been falling ever since, due to artificial and harmful urban conditions.
  Sir E. Findlay: When butter was 2d. per lb. and eggs were 2d. per dozen did people get them? The hon. Member was not there.
  Mr. Walkden: I reckon they did. At any rate, it was easier to get them than it has been ever since. Between 1918 and 1939 much research work was carried out by scientists. I was glad to hear the tributes which have been paid to scien-

  2127
  tists, because we are greatly indebted to them for the revelations they have made as to the reasons for the falling standard of health and strength of the people of the country. Their advice has largely been followed and alongside with it there has come a raising of the standard of health of the nation through the action of the people themselves operating through their trade unions and this House of Commons. But notwithstanding the improvement which has admittedly been made, Sir John Orr shows in one of the simplest pamphlets called "The Nation's Food" that even as recently as in 1935 the average diet of the poorest people was between 10 and 20 per cent. deficient in proteins and the most important vitamins and minerals. Such improvements as took place in the diet were accompanied by a corresponding improvement in the national health and
  "diseases due to inadequate feeding such as rickets, have almost completely disappeared. The same was true of scurvy and sore eyes. Children leaving school were between two and three inches taller than their parents at the same age and the infant mortality and tuberculosis death rates, which are both profoundly affected by the state of nutrition of the people, have fallen by about 50 per cent."
  He goes on:
  "Although this great improvement has taken place there was still a large part of the population whose diet was not up to the standard for health. An inquiry made in 1935 showed that the diet of nearly hall the population was below the standard. One inquiry completed just before the outbreak of the present war shows that in the few intervening years the proportion of the population not enjoying a diet which was adequate to health had fallen from a half to about a third and the diet of this third was not so grossly deficient as it had been in 1935."
  That showed the remarkable progress made between the last war and this. We are all glad that progress has been made but the report given by Sir John Orr shows that where a lower physical standard of the people exists it is entirely due to poverty and malnutrition and that it is curable by effective action taken in the right way.
  We now come to the question of infant mortality, and I hope to make a few suggestions which I trust will be worthy of consideration. The simplest and briefest publication which gives a clear up-to-date idea how things stand in this regard was entitled "Infant Mortality in Scotland", published by the Secretary of
  2128
  State—a most helpful and valuable work. Again all its analyses and tables go to show that infant mortality, just as bad health, is due to bad feeding conditions of life and bad housing. The first table shows how we are behind many of the smaller democracies. New Zealand is the lowest with an infant death rate of only 32 per thousand, Holland has only 39, England and Wales 57 and Scotland 77, a disgracefully high proportion compared with other parts of the world. Scotland is so much worse than England that I am sure the House will be generous in the assistance to which it is entitled.
  On page 18, paragraph 15, there are notable analyses which show the incidence of infant mortality in various cities in England, Scotland and Wales. At Glasgow it is up to 99 as compared with 77 for Scotland as a whole, in Liverpool 78 and in Manchester 75. I am glad to see that Bristol comes down to 46. Bristol and the West of England generally suffer much less from unemployment than they do further north. The further north you go the worse you find industrial hardship. Bristol is in the centre of a large semi-rural area. It has a large hinterland with various industries which enables it to escape a lot of the trouble that is so acute in the north. Unemployment has never been very bad. Sunderland, in a typical north eastern area, is up to 80 and Leeds to 77.
  It is a terrible state of affairs to find that children and mothers suffer so much. The premature death of a child mars the mother's whole life. We should bestir ourselves to do everything we can to reduce these terrible figures. A question was asked a few days ago about the infantile death rate in England, Wales and London for the years 1941, 1942, and 1943. The answer shows that whereas in 1941, the death rate for England as a whole was 59 per cent., it had come down to 49 during the war. In the case of Wales it had come down from 70 to 51, and in London from 58 to 49, which shows that with all its horrors and terrors war gets everyone employed and no one misses a meal and that this results in an improvement in infant mortality.
  What we should aim at is to see that everyone should have good meals, a good healthy life and a good home to live in. We should regard all these revelations as

  2129
  a dreadful disgrace to our country and those who share in its public life. A lot of figures have been given and analysed during this Debate but I always feel that the really necessary thing to do is to indicate what ought to be done to improve the state of affairs that we have been reviewing. The first is that we must not imagine that the splendid scheme which the Minister himself has tabled in the White Paper for a national health service will be enough. It is a splendid thing in itself but it is only a national medical service. We want something to ensure a national health service to provide that everyone can be healthy, fit and happy. Therefore, I suggest that we must have a continuing forward policy, and that should be stimulated always by the Ministry of Health. I was glad that the Minister has been supported to-day by the Minister of Agriculture. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education was on the Bench at one time, and also the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food. All these Departments are concerned with the question of health. Single-handed the Minister of Health cannot do all that is necessary. He must keep the co-operation of all these other Ministries. He should call them into conference whenever he feels it is desirable with the hope of getting something more pushed forward.
  The first thing, which has been brought out in a dramatic way to-day, is to improve the housing of the people. That must stand as first priority in all the efforts we make for the betterment of the country. All housing schemes should provide for every household who desires it to have a rood of land. We really ought to have more gardening ground attached to houses. A rood is only one quarter of an acre. On that land a householder could grow more fruit and eat it directly it is ready, and so avoid having to have fruit from overseas when it has lost a large part of its quality. Perhaps that provision cannot be made everywhere, but allotments can be provided away from houses. Those that have been arranged for during the war have done a lot to help the health of the country, and they should be retained as far as possible wherever they are desired.
  One or two other things should be encouraged. The Minister of Agriculture has quietly developed a large-scale enterprise in the simple matter of domestic
  2130
  poultry keeping. I hope that that will be kept up. On the rood of land which I suggest a man could produce poultry and fruit and vegetables round about his house. I want to see more poultry keeping because our children and the people as a whole need more eggs. My only criticism of the Minister of Food is that he has rather ruled out eggs. He has been good on milk, but he has put out of action many large-scale poultry farmers, with the result that the country has not had enough eggs. If we had not had the imported dried eggs we could not have had any pancakes on Pancake Day. Children are very fond of custard, but it should be the real custard not stuff made from some mysterious powder. It should be made from eggs and milk. That is the stuff to give the kids. It is much better than anything I can think of and they take it "like one o'clock." You cannot have good custard without eggs, and often you cannot get eggs unless you keep a few hens. I hope that the Minister of Agriculture will encourage the continuance of domestic poultry keeping.
  I would like to commend the milk policy which the Minister of Health has carried out. I remember with great pain that a previous Minister made a cut in what had been arranged to be provided for expectant mothers and children. It was reduced in the cruel economy period of 1931. There was great concern to keep up the interest on public money to 5 per cent. instead, of letting it come down to 3½, and all sorts of cruel economies were practised. In 1934, following the urgent recommendations of the party with which I am associated, the Minister of Health instituted a new milk policy. Since then progress has been made, until the provision of milk to expectant and nursing mothers and children is much more abundant than it has ever been. I hope that that will be kept up and further improved.
  In whatever way may be thought best, I hope that the British Restaurants will be continued. I do not think it is necessary to call in private caterers to run them; they have been run very well under the local authorities and they are greatly appreciated by the people. I hope that factory canteens and feeding the miners at the mines will be continued. Our broad general aim should be to see that every child at school and every man and woman at work should have at least one good

  2131
  square meal a day. The children want more than milk and they should have a good meal every day. That ought to be the standing dish, as it were, throughout the nation every day. If we want health, strength and happiness, we want something to promote digestion. We therefore want more playing fields. The working people want to play more instead of only watching football matches. They want to play more to keep themselves physically fit and to make their lives happy. There should also be more facilities for physical culture.
  I now come to something more. The Government of the day should always promote and encourage a policy of high wages. Low wages mean under-consumption, unemployment, inefficiency through inadequate nourishment, falling birthrate, a rise in death rates and everything going worse under the curse of poverty. We ought to have a war on poverty. Then the problem of nutrition, the loss of babies and the rest will diminish in a remarkable way. Along with all these things we should legislate—I think it can best be done by legislation rather than by industrial action—for reduced hours of labour. The five-day week with eight hours a day should be the national standard. It can be done by co-operation. Saturday and Sunday should be free for relaxation, gardening and all the things that make people stronger, healthier and happier. There should be better holidays. The holidays-with-pay movement is increasing and should be encouraged—
  Mr. Bartle Bull: Could we not close up altogether?
  Mr. Walkden: Finally, I would urge that we must develop our own agriculture. Miracles have been worked in agriculture in this country during the war period. With mechanisation, the application of fertilisers and better organisation by practical men under the Minister of Agriculture, himself a farmer, the produce has pretty well doubled during the war. I want to see that increased, and not merely in heavy things like grain and potatoes; we want to grow more meat, eggs, milk, fruit and vegetables so that people can benefit from the consumption of them, and also because it will mean more people being employed on the land. There are deplorably few people rooted in the soil to-day. That is one of the cardinal things
  2132
  that is the matter with our civilisation. Out of about 20,000,000 employed persons in normal times, only about 500,000 were employed on the land. I know there were also about 400,000 farmers working too, but the main point is that there were only about 1,000,000 rooted in the soil. We need a far higher proportion. We cannot expect to have that proportion unless we develop agriculture and make it better worth while for people to be employed in it. Agriculture is a most fascinating occupation. The farmer needs to be a scientist at the present day. He needs to understand many things about which his forebears never dreamt. Together with the marvellous processes of nature these things make farming, in my bumble opinion, one of the most fascinating of occupations. This aspect should be brought out in our educational system and it should be part of the policy of every Government to strengthen that development which has taken place during the war period. With the adoption of these measures we should have a very much better and happier country.
  Major Markham: I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I do not follow the hon. Member on the lines of his interesting speech, largely because I agree with so much of it. I would much rather go back to the speech of the Secretary of State for Scotland and base my arguments upon what he said. He made a broad, statesmanlike survey of the whole position. I thought it was an excellent survey. It gave new attention to many of the factors that are the cause of the high infantile mortality in Scotland. I felt that he put nutrition in its right place in relation to many other factors, and that he gave a needed emphasis to questions such as housing. I was very glad to hear the tribute that he paid to Sir John Boyd Orr and his colleagues. I differ from him as to the value of the Report that they produced, but I agree with him that those gentlemen should be thanked for the services they have given in producing this Report. Whether we agree with it or disagree does not alter the fact that they spent considerable time in producing a Report which has stimulated world-wide interest in the infantile mortality rate of Scotland.
  I disagree with many of the conclusions of the Report and I disagree with some

  2133
  part of what the Secretary of State for Scotland has said. For one thing, I find it very hard to reconcile the facts of the case as we see them, and the facts in the Boyd Orr Report, which is almost entirely, based upon pre-war facts. The whole of the Report's conclusions are based upon those facts, but we see them contradicted at almost every turn by alterations in circumstances due to the war. Let us take one or two of the major points, and first of all the question of nutrition. The Boyd Orr Report flogs the nutrition horse as if it were the only champion in the race. I would remind the Committee that, only two months ago, Lord Woolton, who to my mind is as eminent an authority as Sir John Boyd Orr on the question of nutrition, spoke to the Parliamentary Science Committee upstairs. In the course of his speech—and I want to quote him exactly—he said:
  "We have improved the Vitamin 'A' and 'C' content of our food; and there is now no vitamin or iron deficiency owing to National Bread. In addition, calcium has been added; consequently the pre-war deficiencies in food have disappeared. Moreover, special provision has been made for the supply of fruit juices and cod liver oil to vulnerable classes, and this has materially protected the health of mothers and infants."
  The conclusion that we gathered from his speech was that the whole of our national diet had been so re-organised that it was now completely free of vitamin deficiency, and that, in addition to vitamins, other elements such as calcium and iron had been added to our daily diet.
  Immediately following that speech, the Boyd Orr Report was published, based on pre-war facts and figures, and banging the good old nutrition drum for all it is worth. [An HON. MEMBER: "There will not be a war all the time."] No, but it makes one wonder whether the authors of the Report are or were aware of what Lord Woolton has done. No reference is made in their Report to the vast changes in the national diet beyond a footnote or two. I would prefer to take the view that, as far as science at the moment can advise us, the diet of this country is as good as the Government can make it, but not yet as good as the cooks are able to make it. It is not entirely a question of Government action, so much as of a programme of education among the mothers and wives of this country. That point has already been
  2134
  brought out by previous speakers. It is a very great deficiency in the Boyd Orr Report that they make no more than just a passing reference to the very many changes that have been brought into the national diet by Lord Woolton and his colleagues.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Before the hon. and gallant Member leaves that point, I want to be quite clear about it. Is he saying on the Floor of this Committee, that English women are better mothers than the Scots mothers? Is that what he is saying?
  Major Markham: No, I am not saying that at all. My remarks are addressed to the mothers and the wives of this country and I would develop them in detail if the Committee wishes. I think they apply with equal force to the North of England, Northern Ireland, to certain parts of Wales and to certain parts of the East End of London. I hope that I can leave the matter there for the moment.
  Mr. Buchanan: How does the hon. and gallant Member explain that Greenock has an infant mortality rate of 102, while Falkirk has only 71, with more or less the same type of population? Taking it more close to my constituency, how is it that Cathcart has less than 20, while Gorbals has over 100? Would the hen and gallant Member say that the difference is in the cooking?
  Major Markham: No. I do not want the hon. Member to misinterpret Erne in this matter.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Scottish women can knock spots off any of the English mothers, mentally and physically.
  Major Markham: May I deal with another point on this question of nutrition? I wish the Committee could have read the recent speech by Professor Sir Jack Drummond, scientific adviser to the Ministry of Food. I think he is right in saying that more humbug is talked about nutrition nowadays than about almost any other subject under the sun. He makes the point that the patent medicine firms are making an enormous profit out of a ramp in vitamins—
  Mr. Kirkwood: They are all Englishmen.
  Major Markham: —of almost any letter from A to Z. Professor Sir Jack Drummond went on to say:
  "I am greatly concerned at the growing habit of swallowing a so-called vitamin pill three times a day by people who believe it gives them pep. It does not. You cannot add pep to a nourished person in that way. Vitamin pills have, however, their proper place, which is in the treatment of deficiency conditions. But go per cent. of vitamin pills go into the stomachs of the properly nourished, to whom they cannot make the slightest difference. It would be appalling if we acquired the pill habit. America spends £37,500,000 on the commercial exploitation of vitamin pills, of which nearly £34,000,000 are utterly wasted. We have tested on factory workers and schoolchildren here in this country if there are beneficial results to be gained. No detectable benefits followed."
  I have a very great admiration for Professor Sir Jack Drummond and I would like to see the attitude of this Committee in regard to nutrition have a little more common sense added to it.
  Let us be quite sure on that point, that this problem of infant mortality may, to a very tiny degree, be related to vitamin this or that but in its essence, in the main, it is due to other causes which I hope the Committee will permit me to make some reference to. The Secretary of State for Scotland in his review, came to the conclusion in the end that the main cause for the high infant mortality rate was poverty. Let us analyse that. Poverty means lack of spending power within the family, and since 1940 there has not been poverty in the accepted sense of the word in England, Scotland or Wales. Therefore, anyone who can get up in this Committee and speak of the disgracefully high rate of infant mortality of 65 in Scotland, as the Secretary of State did to-day, ought to come here in sackcloth and ashes, for an infant death rate like that—twice as high as that of most other civilised countries in the world. Anyone who has had anything to do with industrial areas knows there is not a shortage of money in households to-day. High death rates are not now a question of poverty.
  Mr. Kirkwood: That is only since the war.
  Major Markham: For four years there has been entire abolition or at any rate a great diminution of the poverty factor as a cause in infant mortality.
  Dr. Haden Guest: Poverty also includes the provision of housing accommodation,
  2136
  and housing accommodation in Scotland has not been changed in the war, and is abominably bad.
  Major Markham: That is a very good point and if the hon. Member will permit me I will deal with that in turn. As I say, on this question of poverty it is a fact, I think an indisputable fact, that since the war poverty in the normally accepted form of words is non-existent in the British Isles. Yet in spite of that infant mortality remains at a disgracefully high rate in Scotland, in Northern England, in Northern Ireland and in some parts of Wales. What this Committee would have welcomed in the Boyd Orr report would have been an up to date analysis of the causes of infantile mortality, and any body of men, scientists, doctors, call them what you will, asked by the Government to go into the problem should not have brought down the shutters on 3rd September, 1939, and said, "We will not consider a single fact after that date." It was a crime against humanity, a crime against the mothers of the 5,000 children who die every year in Scotland, a crime against the mothers of the 30,000 children who die every year in England. For a scientific body of that kind to come to such a conclusion was really shocking and beyond all credence. That is why I criticise the Boyd Orr report as I do. It is deplorable that they should have brought down the shutters at that point in time.
  If you make an analysis of this question you are left with certain causes which one realises continue and have continued for many years, and war has not changed them. As the hon. Member mentioned, housing is one of the causes; there is no arguing about it. I think the whole body of medical opinion will be with me when I say that all infections are greatly increased the worse housing gets. There is no doubt that the housing problem in Scotland has deteriorated during the war years. It has also deteriorated in England in the war years, particularly in the North. It has deteriorated in the London area, but although the housing problem has got worse in the London area and other places like Birmingham, infant mortality has had one of its almost spectacular drops in England inspite of overcrowding. There is overcrowding and overcrowding, and the worst conditions in England are infinitely better than the worst conditions in Scot-

  2137
  land. I am convinced that if one could bring the level of housing in Scotland, and in Northern England, and Northern Ireland, and certain parts of Wales up to that of Hertfordshire, Wiltshire and Dorset-shire you would strike one of the deadliest blows at the causes of infant mortality. Yet we find, listening to an earlier Debate to-day, that the various Ministries concerned, and this of course includes the Ministry of Health, are to take no action to remedy this housing scandal until after the conclusion of the war.
  I honestly think that the first way to tackle infant mortality on a large scale is to tackle the question of housing. It should be done, and I would not accept, if I were the Ministry of Health, excuses from other Ministries about shortage of labour or material. Speaking from the point of view of the Army, I know we should be far better off if some men were put on to that work rather than doing some of the jobs they are doing in the Army. That applies to other Services and to many other Ministries and to many industries. There is nothing more important under the sun than the question of providing decent houses now, particularly for Scotland, the North of England, Northern Ireland and parts of Wales.
  When we have dealt with the housing question we are still not at the end of infant mortality. There is, as I have mentioned before, the additional problem of pure air. That was not mentioned in the able survey by the Secretary of State, nor was the allied question of the influence of atmospheric conditions on the people. It was deliberately ignored. No reference was made to climate or its control indoors, which is one of the permanent facts with regard to infant mortality. In this country or any other country with a comparable climate there is the swing in the death rate from summer to winter. The winter rate is almost from 50 to 100 per cent. higher than the summer rate. Yet these other things, housing, education of mothers, health services, and so on remain at the same level over the year, but this rise occurs of 50 to 100 per cent. every winter. That rise is largely accounted for by respiratory diseases. What is the answer to that? New Zealand has found it. So have Chicago, New York, Utah and Iceland. They found the answer in adequate attention to the indoor conditions of temperature and humidity. It is only in
  2138
  Scotland, the North of England, Northern Ireland and parts of Wales that you find these atmospheric conditions which influence our life every minute are regarded as being unimportant. They are not regarded worthy of mention in the speech of the Secretary of State for Scotland. They are, as it were, beneath contempt by the authors of the Boyd Orr report, something of so little value that they are entirely outweighed by Vitamin plus X or something else.
  The facts are that infant mortality goes up very considerably in the winter months. Take a day-by-day, or week-by-week analysis of the weather and you will find that as the weather gets worse and fog, smoke and cold increase, deaths go up, The worse the spell of weather the sharper the death rate. From the time when the Greeks deified Prometheus the greatest boon man has against the elements is that of fire. We have gradually built up defences against the outside influences until to-day we can say that enlightened men and women in this country can, at an economic rate, get complete shelter from the adverse influences of the atmosphere. If that is true of the ordinary man or woman how much more true is it that a new-born baby should be protected against cold and damp. Why should it be subjected to conditions which cause its death?
  Mr. Montaģue: The hon. and gallant Member disregards the fact that the incidence of infant mortality presses very much more heavily among the poorer than among the more well to do where the atmosphere is the same.
  Major Markham: I am quite willing to give the hon. Member that point about general climatic conditions, but it ought not to apply to indoor conditions. If you analyse it it comes down to the fact that you have to consider their environment. Adequate heating for the average family costs about 6s. or 7s. per week; and three to four times that amount is spent in beer and spirits; so that it is not so much a question of poverty as of wise spending. I agree that in the past there were people who could not afford protection against the elements, because the family income was not sufficient, but that has not been true of the war years.
  The most important element of this problem is the energy which the Ministries have at their disposal. I ask whether

  2139
  the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Health have behind them sufficient drive and energy to produce the required changes. Let me first deal with Scotland. The Secretary of State, as he has confessed, is very much at the mercy of the Scientific Advisory Committee. That committee should be reconstituted. There are too many old medical men on it, with settled medical convictions; there is no room on it for any fresh ideas. The administrative machine behind the committee and behind the Secretary of State is the most rigid in the British Empire. The Secretary of State, obviously, has to rely on these officers and this staff. I would ask the Committee to consider the record of that Advisory Committee and the staffs since 1929. Whatever problem has been tackled has been tackled without energy. Very important reports have just been pigeon-holed, for lack of drive on the part of the men behind the Secretary of State, such as the fine Report on Scottish Health Services issued in 1936. The basic law relating to public health in Scotland still dates from 1897. That for England dates from 1936. It would have been the easiest thing in the world to bring Scottish legislation into line with that of England. Scotland is working ancient legislation with ancient men and an ancient machine.
  Sir E. Findlay: We are not working with ancient men. Our people in St. Andrews are not ancient. They may be old, but they are not ancient.
  Major Markham: They are far too rigid. There are many things I would like to suggest to bring the Scottish system up to date, but, in the interests of brevity, I will cut my remarks short. I want to make one suggestion to the Secretary of State and the Minister of Health together. It has come very much to my notice that both these great Departments of State are not only considerably overworked, but have not the chance to do the thinking that is necessary for a great progressive policy. It is nobody's job, either at the Scottish Office or at the Ministry of Health, to sit down and read the most important medical journals of the United States, New Zealand, and elsewhere. It is nobody's job to be a liaison officer or intelligence officer for the Minister with the rest of the world. Science is not national, it is international; and a Minis-
  2140
  try of Health should be as knowledgeable as anybody else at the moment. There should be somebody at both these Ministries, a really qualified man, with pushing power as great in his field as Sir William Beveridge has in his own field, whose duty it should be to keep the Ministries up to date with the rest of the world. I apologise for having taken up so much time, but I can say that the Debate has been, apart from my own contribution, of an exceptionally high standard, and I am sure it has done a great deal of good.
  Mr. McNeil: I do not want to pursue the hon. and gallant Member for South Nottingham (Major Markham) to any great length, because I am certain he must consider that he was well answered by the drafter of the Report, Professor Dugald Baird, in the "British Medical Journal" last week, but I really suggest that anyone who comes to this Committee and says that the Boyd Orr Report is a crime can hardly expect to have reasonable treatment. My hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) said what many of us feel and many of us have said, that Boyd Orr did something that needed doing, and that we are under a debt to him for having assembled the principal causes of this deplorable rate and stated them plainly and vigorously. But there was a second part of his work. He was asked to suggest lines of dealing with causes. It is quite true that the hon. and gallant Member suggests that something can be done about temperature, but he did not tell us any short-term method of dealing with fog and with humidity. I cannot see that Boyd Orr would have been doing this Committee any service if he had dealt with causes which were not principal ones, and to which he could suggest no remedy. Moreover, I cannot understand why my hon. and gallant Friend has come back time and again to hammer at the fact that the figures are pre-1939. Presumably, this Committee was trying to deal with normal conditions, and I hope it is not going to be argued that the conditions since 1939 are normal.
  The hon. and gallant Member said, in opening, something with which I greatly agree. He deplored that a great deal of stuff and nonsense is being put across, mainly by commercial firms, about alleged vitamins. He said that he could not believe that by adding a vitamin here or there

  2141
  you could undo the effects of years. Similarly, we cannot expect that the increased purchasing power and the food policy of the Ministry of Food can offset the effects upon mothers that are still being demonstrated in these figures. My hon. and gallant Friend has not shown, in two attempts in this House and various attempts in the Press, that poverty is not a fundamental cause of this high figure. Indeed, I think that, by inference, he admitted that it was, since he argued that the drop in the last few years—with which none of us is satisfied—is due to the fact that there is purchasing power in the community. If he went on to examine how that purchasing power might be continued, he would be doing more to arrest this rate than by this vague and, to me, slightly irrelevant talk about weather conditions and their effect. We know that they are there. Professor Dugald Baird talked about the rate in Iceland, and in the Report we have the rate in Orkney and Shetland. If weather were an important factor we might expect to find a rate in those two areas comparable to the rate in Scotland, but, of course, we do not. The hon. and gallant Member who sits for Orkney and Shetland (Major NevenSpence) has fairly strong opinions upon it, and he thinks that the basic explanation is a plentiful supply of good food, and we would naturally accept that. Boyd Orr and his colleagues have done very great service to this Committee because, with a fair amount of scientific evidence, they have shown us that we can produce the 70s. birth. The evidence is there to show that our country, compared with England, is deficient in hospitals, beds, clinics, nurses, obstetricians, work and food. We were shown plainly that we were only prepared to spend on the average 70s. on the birth of a child. And England, which is far from having a satisfactory service, manages to get 104s. Let no one in this Committee think that because he does not sit for a Scottish division he is absolved from responsibility. Several speakers have referred to the close relations between the unemployment grant and the infant mortality rate and no one can escape from that. The unemployment grant in Scotland is not the concern solely of the Scottish Member; it is the result of the policy of the whole House of Commons. If we are to try to set out a balance-sheet on the cost of
  2142
  births, it will be incomplete if we put down only 70s. We have to put on the other side—I do not know how you would put it—the 3,400 infants that the Committee calculate could annually be saved by reasonable methods.
  The main question before the Committee, in the light of this Report, is, What steps can we take immediately to alleviate this position? Like every other speaker, I am glad to pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his speech to-day and for his work, and I compliment him on being the initiator of this Report. But I feel a little distressed that his preface to the Report dealt only with post-war measures. The right hon. Gentleman, in commending the Report, said that remedies and alleviations must be found for our infant mortality position in the immediate post-war years. But I am sure he did not mean it.
  Major Markham: I am certain that my right hon. Friend did mean it. He is a careful thinker.
  Mr. McNeil: That is a quality that I wish was more common in this House. He was talking about post-war years. He was saying how we might continue the Ministry of Food policy which has had such beneficial results in the last few years. My right hon. Friend puzzled me very much. I took him to say, when discussing the figures for Aberdeen, Dundee and Edinburgh with regard to the provision made for confinements, that the percentage born in hospitals was round about 75 in the three towns. In the report we are shown that the average figure for the country is 33 per cent.
  Mr. Johnston: The figures I gave were, that in Glasgow 55 per cent. of the births are in hospitals and nursing homes, in Edinburgh between 60 and 70 per cent., in Dundee 77 per cent. and in Aberdeen 75 per cent.
  Mr. McNeil: Obviously you cannot have a mean figure of 33 for the country if Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Dundee vary between 55 and 70. We talk about 1,250,000 plus another million, which is 2,250,000 all above 55, leaving 1,500,000 below that figure, so that we get a figure of 33 per cent. for the whole of the country. Will the Secretary of State consider what methods he could use to make more beds available? The benefits are obvious. We might by these

  2143
  methods manage to restrain the area of infection and achieve a better convalescence for the mother. We certainly could tide the infant over the worst period. We could have better obstetricians and trained nurses although I agree that you cannot just pull these people out of a hat. I am told—and I have seen some figures on the subject—that there are some obstetricians in the Army who are not employed in obstetrical work of any kind, and I shall be delighted to let my right hon. Friend see some names.
  Will he consider whether the 1907 Public Health Act could not be amended in respect of notification? The notification forms are of a very simple type and, indeed, give only the sparest information. Glasgow, for example, only asks for the size of the house. Obviously, there would be very great benefit from amending the Act so that the form gave a complete picture such as this Committee would like to have. They cannot give us a complete picture. I end as I began by reminding the Committee that the whole story is here and that health relating to these infants can be bought. There are so many places where you could develop it. The Committee pointed to the great difference in obstetrical care between Classes 1 and 5. People may for the price of £50 or £100 per confinement cut their death rate by rather more than 10 per cent. If this Committee is in earnest it will be prepared to find considerably more than 70s. for the average birth.
  Mrs. Beatrice Wriģht: There are certain Debates in Parliament which remind me of a game I used, as a child, to play with my grandmother which was called Mont Blanc, in which you travelled the length and breadth of England, you crossed the Channel, you travelled through the entire country of France and ascended Mont Blanc, and you won if you reached the top first. The reason why I am reminded of it is that we have covered a very wide range of topics on this problem, and also because I always used to play that game just before I was sent to bed after having had an enormous tea as a special treat, and was therefore somewhat dazed throughout the entire performance. I have sat here throughout to-day's Debate and am even now in a similar state to that of my childhood days, only minus the tea.
  2144
  I want to refer to a remark made by the hon. Lady the Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill) who mentioned poverty as being one of the primary causes of infant mortality and malnutrition. I thought she made a very good point, which I realise that I cannot repeat as she herself was called to Order, in reminding the Committee that unless and until the child of the man in the Services has better provision in the form of allowances, mothers will sacrifice much of their needed food and nutrition for them. Those who are investigating the problem at the moment would do well to visit the homes where there are three or four children, a father serving overseas, and the mother having to go out to work in order to eke out what we generously give in the form of pay to the serving man.
  I would also like to agree with what the hon. and gallant Member for South Nottingham (Major Markham) said, that there is very little poverty in the country to-day. That is true, but we must not let the bad old days come back again. Recently I made a trip through a mining area in Yorkshire to see the ante-natal and post-natal clinics, where I had a long talk one afternoon with a woman medical officer of health who had served that area ably and well for many years. I asked her what group instruction she gave to pregnant women before and after their babies were born, and after having explained what they did, she said: "You know, instruction is all very well, and the vitamins we give are all very well, but there is one thing I want you to understand. Mothers coming in here before the war did not have enough to eat, and their children were born under-sized and many of them died. The mothers lost their lives in the process as well. It is all right now, because there is money enough in the homes to buy decent food." I do not bring up this point to be over-critical of whatever the Government may have in mind for the postwar years, but as a reminder that we must never again allow the women and children of this country to suffer the real pangs of hunger which were suffered in the bad days of unemployment.
  I want to deal more particularly with another aspect of the same problem. I deplore the lack of recognised benefits for pregnant women in industry. I have

  2145
  spoken in the House on that point before, but I want particularly to raise the question of the pregnant housewife in a home where there are three or four older children and who can get no outside help. Although the hon. Lady the Member for West Fulham drew a sad and debilitated picture of the wretched woman working in industry when she was seven or eight months pregnant, I want the Committee to turn their mind to the position of a woman in the home seven or eight months pregnant who has three children to be cooked for, probably a husband to be looked after, and who has to go out to work in order to eke out an income. I wonder whether, in replying, the Minister would consider looking into the possibility of extending the ante-natal hostels which are now available for women to go into a month or earlier before their babies are born, where they can have a good rest and good food and good care, and the short-stay homes in which the older children can be housed and cared for during this time. In my own constituency, in the town of Looe, there has been a fine maternity home of this kind, installed originally for evacuees and now taking some local cases. The women go there some time before their babies are due. They are well fed and well looked after, they have their babies peacefully and quietly, and they go out healthy, strong women with healthy, strong babies. The Minister, I am sure, would be interested, and he would be very welcome if he cared to visit this home and see it for himself. I admit that it was started through the enterprise of his own Department, and I am only asking that this enterprise be extended.
  I would draw the attention of the Committee to what I consider to be one of the basic aspects of the problem of both nutrition and infant mortality. I have studied this problem in some detail and have come sadly to the conclusion that, as a race, we are desperately uneducated for parenthood. We seem to feel that this is a craft which needs very little preparation, and yet we have untold opportunities for giving instruction to parents. I would like the Committee to look with me for a moment at the opportunities which now exist for teaching mothers to be better parents, to look after
  2146
  their children better and to use what is available in the most efficient manner.
  This education must start in the schools. The children of this country must never be allowed to grow up uneducated in hygiene and allied subjects. The girls must not leave school without knowing how to be efficient housewives, how to cook and give a nutritious diet eventually to their children. I would even say the boys could do with a little of this instruction. It is a matter of amazement to me that in a series of brains trusts held in my constituency recently I was asked on each occasion whether or not I advocated that men should do housework in future. I thought the attention which was being given to this showed up the fact that before it had been considered too ignominious a task for the male sex. However, I found that many of the men had become very interested in helping in the house, and were extremely proud of their efficiency. I really feel that this lack of understanding of the dual responsibility of parenthood is a deficiency in our schools, and is a matter not emphasised sufficiently in our educational programme.
  Furthermore, while we are discussing infant mortality we find that a great many children in this country grow up with disabilities which, if they had been discovered in their school life, would never have become permanent disabilities, and they would therefore be in a position to produce far healthier children. For that reason I hope that the Ministry of Health and the Board of Education will together see that our children in the schools are medically examined twice a year as a minimum, from the time they start going to school until the time they leave and go to young people's colleges, and even there as well. But probably the finest opportunities that the Health services offer for instruction to mothers is to be found in the ante- and post-natal clinics. I sometimes wonder whether sufficient advantage is taken of this great opportunity, where you have women gathered together who are, by force of circumstance, interested in the best possible way of looking after their children when they are born. I wonder whether or not the Ministry of Health is sufficiently ambitious in its programme for group instruction in these clinics. Women's organisations afford another opportunity.

  2147
  The hon. Lady the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) mentioned war nurseries rather discouragingly. None of us wish to see the tiny baby taken away from its mother. A purely war-time extremity has had to be met, but in many instances these war nurseries have given good care to these children during war-time and have already been a means of bringing great interest into the home and has educated parents on how to bring up their children successfully. As the President of the Board himself said in connection with nursery schools, they can reinforce rather than replace the home.
  Last, but not least, I feel that parents can be most ably helped by the midwives and health visitors, with whom they come personally into touch. To these two members of our health services I think the country owes a great debt. We have not enough of them, and I think we may need in the future a different curriculum for training them M some respects, but, at any rate, we are deeply grateful to them. But I feel that above all else, if you are to have good nutrition in the home and reduce infantile mortality, the whole status of mothercraft, parentcraft, housewifery and homemaking must be raised to the level which makes it what it is—the most honourable task for anyone in the country. We need every possible help in future legislation to re-inforce the home. It takes time and patience to be a good mother, and women need more help in their homes in order to give them that patience and time. My hon. Friend the Member for Frome mentioned a point which is near my heart, and one which is relevant to this subject, namely, the supply of water, which should be extended and made more hygienic. Many Members have spoken of housing, which has a definite bearing on this problem, but the point which arises out of all these speeches is that this is not the work of any one Government Department. It is, like so many other of our plans for the post-war period, the work of many Government Departments, and I would beg once again for far greater co-operative effort as between one Department and another and courage, foresight and determination to get over the real prejudice which exists against co-operation between Departments so that a plan might be evolved which will give decent employ-
  2148
  ment, wages and food to our people and will give to women, especially, that sense of responsibility they must have, an understanding of the services available to them and an appreciation of the high calling of motherhood.
  Sir R. W. Smith: There is no doubt that the Report we have been discussing to-day has shown a very serious position, not only because it means a loss to the nation of valuable lives but because, if children are not looked after properly, they will grow up to be unhealthy subjects. If only we can bring down the infant mortality figures the situation will be enormously improved. Much has been said about housing and poverty. The country must deal with these questions, whether we do anything about infant mortality or not. I would like to agree with the hon. Member who said that you may have people receiving a perfectly good wage, not on the poverty level, who may employ their money in such a way that they are not getting the best value for it. I believe it was Lord Woolton who said that what we are suffering from in this country was lack of good cooking. There may be many people above the poverty line who are not being properly fed, because women do not know how to cook properly. That is the first thing we must remember.
  I want to draw attention to the table on page 29 of this Report, to which the Minister referred. My right hon. Friend said that Falkirk had the smallest percentage of unemployed and that its infant mortality rate was only 29 per 1,000. If this table is correct—and I suppose it is—what is meant when it says that in Dumfries the percentage of uninsured population employed is quite low, only 11.3 per 1,000, that the percentage of overcrowded people is only 14.2 per 1,000 and yet the infant mortality rate is 51, against Falkirk's 29? The figures for Perth show that the percentage of overcrowded is 12.7 per 1,000, of unemployed is 11.1 per 1,000 and of infant mortality 39 per 1,000. The same kind of thing applies to Inverness. An hon. Member opposite said that we must thank Sir John Orr for having assembled these facts. That being so, I would like to ask the hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) and other Members to study pages 4, 5, 6 and 7 of this Report, which I think it would be worth while to reprint in the form of a leaflet.
  Mr. Kirkwood: The hon. Member is disputing our statement that the cause of infant mortality is poverty. Why is it, then, that infant mortality is among the poor? Comparatively speaking, there is none among the hon. Member's class.
  Sir R. W. Smith: There is. My point is that we have to deal with poverty and housing; we must put that right and if we do that it will help infant mortality. But we must go further, and it will take us some time. It will, for instance, be some time before the Socialist idea of supplying all our people with proper wages and food from the State is ever put through. The summary of evidence of this Report says that infant mortality is partly due to faulty feeding and poor housing. The Minister took the same line in his foreword, but there is something more necessary than that. What is the machinery at our disposal now? We have maternity hospitals, maternity beds, health visitors, clinics and various other means of trying to improve the position. Page 5 of the Report says:
  "Scotland has lagged behind in the provision of maternity and child welfare services."
  What does the Minister intend to do? Does he intend to increase the provision of child welfare services? He mentioned this matter at the end of his speech, but that was all. The Report goes on to say:
  "Clinic premises are often poor, ill-equipped and overcrowded. Nutritional supervision is inadequate. Liaison between the hospitals, the family doctors and the child welfare service is poor."
  Is not that an indictment of the present situation? To-day we have been dealing mostly with towns and not with rural areas but this matters to the rural areas quite as much as to the towns, and that is where health visitors can be of enormous use. Further, it says:
  "Powers to supply extra food and domestic help are not sufficiently used by local authorities."
  An hon. Member referred to New Zealand. Glasgow, which is one of the black spots in Scotland, has a Socialist town council. Under a Socialist régime we have a very serious position.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  The Deputy-Chairman: I have already intervened. I think the hon. Member had better not pursue that line of argument.
  Mr. Mathers: Surely the hon. Member must agree that the present
  2150
  Town Council of Glasgow has succeeded to non-Socialist housing.
  Sir R. W. Smith: I am not allowed to go further, but I am quite willing to reply if you, Mr. Williams, will allow me. I rather agree with the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mrs. Wright) in her remarks about mothers in the country going into nursing homes for three months before the child arrives, but it is hardly what happens in my part of the world. Very few mothers could leave their husbands and families and sit in nursing homes for three months. There was at one time a class of nurse who, when she was attending a case, prepared the dinner and cleaned up the house as well as looking after her patient, and the system worked well. That has been swept entirely away under the midwives regulations, and nurses are not allowed to do any work. They cannot even wash up a cup and saucer except for their patients. When they are looking at this question in connection with rural areas I hope the Government will consider this point. Here is another point from the Report:
  "The maternity bed accommodation in Scotland is inadequate."
  We are going to have a National Health Service. What is going to happen about more maternity beds?
  "The rules laid down by the General Medical Council and the Central Midwives Board for the training of doctors, midwives and maternity nurses in obstetrics and the care of infants are satisfactory but they are not complied with and the training is therefore inadequate."
  The Ministry has not told us anything about that.
  "Insufficient attention is paid to the teaching of children's diseases and the principles of child health, and to the teaching of the principles of nutrition or their clinical application. Trained experts are required in all the maternity and child welfare services for supervision, consultation and advice in both of these subjects. For such training there are not enough teachers and suitable teaching units do not exist."
  Again:
  "Education should be provided in schools in the general principles of health and preparation for parenthood."
  I would draw attention to the word "parenthood." Many people read this Report as only applying to the mother and not to the father. It seems to me that the father could be of enormous assistance if he realised his responsibility. There is

  2151
  one thing that we do not come across which is very important, and that is the spacing of the family. It will make a lot of difference to the health of the children if there are, say, three children, whether they arrive within the space of three years after marriage or six. That is where a proper education would be of value. On page 68 the Report says:
  "There is in Britain practically no instruction in medical schools in the principles of child health. In countries with low infant mortality rates such instruction has been part of the routine for from 50 to nearly 100 years."
  There is no suggestion that we are going to adopt it. These are the points which I specially wanted to call attention to and for which a tremendous lot can be done. I would press very strongly the question of the education of mothers, and I hope that the Minister will see his way to give us some outline of what he proposes to do with regard to the other recommendations about housing and unemployment.
  Mr. Thomas Fraser: The hon. Member for Central Aberdeen (Sir R. Smith) mentioned the inadequacy of maternity hospital accommodation in Scotland. I hope the Minister will be able to give us some figures to indicate what accommodation we have in Scotland as compared with England. In going through the Report which has been so widely quoted to-day, I find that some big towns in England have infant mortality rates that approximate to that in Scotland. Many of the industrial areas in England have rates that approximate to the worst in Scotland. I wonder whether those towns have better maternity hospital accommodation than we have in Scotland, although I do not doubt that an improvement in this service would result in some improvement in the figures, of which we can hardly be proud. I regret that two or three hon. Members in the Debate have indicated that we have no longer any substantial degree of poverty in this country, inferring that poverty has nothing to do with this high rate.
  Another point mentioned by a number of hon. Members is that so much is dependent on the better training of mothers in child nutriment and the need for better cooking. Here we ought to have more information and some comparisons. Earlier in the Debate the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) drew attention to the fact that in the Cathcart area
  2152
  of Glasgow, which is the better class and well-to-do part of the town, the infant mortality rate is down to about 20, whereas in his part of Glasgow it is up in the region of 100. It is probable that most of the child nursing and cooking that is done in Cathcart is done by the women and girls from the working-class area where they have a high rate of infant mortality. That ought to be borne in mind. The Secretary of State for Scotland indicated his belief that the malnutrition was, to a considerable degree, the result of ignorance of how to cook a meal. I submit that that is incorrect and just nonsense. We all know that poverty has a great deal to do with it. I have said that many of the industrial areas in England had a rate approximating to the Scottish rate of infant mortality. I think that as we examine the purchasing power of the people in these areas we will discover that there is less continuity of employment and that wages rise and fall more than they do in areas where there is a smaller rate.
  It is regrettable that the areas where, in the main, the rate is highest are the areas that produce the wealth of the country which gives to the country its greatness. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) mentioned the rate in his part of the world. What is the work of the people there? In the main, they are engaged in building the best ships in the world and they are making a great contribution towards the greatness of this country. Yet in that part there is a higher rate than in other less productive areas which are less creditable to this country. We find in the Report of the Boyd Orr Committee that Newcastle and Gateshead have a rate of 83 per 1,000, Sunderland 80, Nottingham 78, Liverpool and Birkenhead 78, Dundee 77, Aberdeen 76, Manchester and Stoke-on-Trent 75. These areas have all made a great contribution to the total well-being of this country, and they deserve better from us than they have hitherto. It may be that we can do something for them in the way of providing better services and better training and of educating them in the schools to do this, that and the other thing. It may be that we can provide added vitamins to their food and so give them a better expectation of survival. But there ought not to be the disparity between area and area. As the hon. Member for Gorbals indicated, the differ-

  2153
  ences between Falkirk and Greenock are repeated throughout the country, and the examples he quoted put to ridicule the suggestion that our climatic and atmospheric conditions have so much to do with the high rate.
  The worst area in Britain is the West Central Scotland area, the hub of industry, that part of Scotland which has produced the wealth of Scotland. In that part of the country, however, we have less continuity of employment than in other parts and we have had far too much unemployment in the past. From the early 1930's until almost the beginning of the present war we had something like 20 per cent. of our insured population unemployed. If we are to go back to that sort of thing after the war, in spite of attempting to build more houses and of any other efforts we may make to deal with this matter by providing new clinical and medicinal services, I am afraid we shall not seriously disturb the very high and deplorable figure which we now have.
  The Report which we have before us has indicated that, associated with infant mortality, are always found unemployment and overcrowding. All of us have always been aware of that. I am not discrediting the Boyd Orr Committee for placing it on record in the Report, but we have unfortunately done very little about it. I suggest that the problem is economic and that the change necessary is far-reaching. I do not think for one moment that these figures can be reduced to a level of which we could be proud, if only the Ministry of Health and the Department of Health for Scotland concern themselves about it. Let us consider how far we have travelled in the years gone by in dealing with this matter in Scotland as compared with other countries.
  Some 60 years ago, the figure in Scotland was 118 and the figure for Holland was 181, very much worse than ours. In the period 1936–40, the figure for Scotland was 76, while that for Holland was 37. In that period, Scotland had improved by only 40 per cent., while Holland had actually improved 80 per cent., on the figure of 60 years ago. We cannot be satisfied with tinkering with this matter, and I must again argue that we are only tinkering with it if we do not get back to the chief causal factor and attempt to deal with it. If we only go ahead and provide
  2154
  new services of one kind and another, and allow poverty and the resulting malnutrition to exist in the home, so long will we have these high figures. I hope that we shall get some evidence of anxiety and earnestness on the part of the Government to deal with our deplorable housing problem. The Government could assist in that regard, but if we are to go back after the war to the old system of unemployment, spasmodic employment, booms and slumps, I am very much afraid that we shall have a continuation of this deplorably high figure.
  Surely this Report should be an answer to those hon. Members who, in their week-end speeches, have so much to say about State intervention, bureaucracy, and the need for removing all controls and getting back to the old days at the earliest possible moment. The Report should bring to their notice the results of the good old days, and the cost in infant life of the system to which those people are so keen to get back. It should show them the sort of economy that they think is so very good for the country, and which is nevertheless a disgrace, because it has certainly resulted in the elimination of many thousands of our people who would have been able to make a contribution to our effort to-day.
  Mr. Wootton-Davies: Coming in to bat on a very worn wicket, I want to say one or two things about nutrition—or rather malnutrition, for that is the real subject of the Debate. This can be divided into two parts, underfeeding and over-feeding. Not everybody will agree with that classification, but I have had some connection with the work at a hospital in Liverpool where a tremendous amount has been done to reduce blood pressure. Those authorities found that some people can be fed too much, and that no two men or women require the same amount of food. Too much food is as bad as too little.
  Mr. G. Griffiths: Who gets too much?
  Mr. Wootton-Davies: As I say, no two men or women require the same amount of food and it can be proved that human life cannot be supported except upon a definite amount of food and especially protein, but it must be good protein. We may have vegetarians, but, by and large, we must have animal protein.

  2155
  Now I want to come to the point which has been mentioned so often, which is that malnutrition is caused through poverty. I agree, poverty, but not, at this present time, poverty of money; it is through poverty of wisdom, ignorance in buying and ignorance in cooking. Go round the country and look at the tins in every dustbin. That is where your malnutrition is caused, and explains the vitamin pills. We have to get back to vital, live food to build a healthy nation. That is where the poverty is—the poverty of ignorance of correct feeding.
  There is another thing to inquire into. Even the advocates of vitamin pills would agree that if we can get fresh, vital and—as I was taught in my youth—nascent food, living vital food, we shall have no need of those nostrums. We must ask ourselves whether eating food out of tins and synthetic foods of all kinds is not having a bad effect on this nation. I would point out to the Committee that, in the last 100 years, although the death rate has dropped some 2.4 to 2.5 per 1,000, that fall is entirely due to the saving on infant mortality. The span of life of middle aged people is not getting longer. The span of life of older people is not getting longer, and we must inquire if we are eating the right sort of things. I have asked a question of the Ministry of Food: Is this margarine the stuff to live on, are these synthetic cooking fats the stuff to live on? Where are we going? What are we buying? The food we have in tins, the margarine and the cooking fats are designed to keep, and keep and keep. Digestion is a simple matter. It is putrefaction. I know as a chemist that I cannot split any fat, any neutral fat, easily. I have to add something to it. I know as a chemist that every food in this world is chemically acid. But where are we going? We are making all these foods neutral. We are making them all to keep.
  There is a reason for the influx of advertisements in the newspapers for digestive cures. People do not sell these things without a reason, and by and large if we are to keep a healthy nation we must get back to proper, vital, fresh food. I have had some experience of this thing. My sheep last year developed a complaint called "Sway Back." The Ministry concerned were most helpful and found that
  2156
  it was a question of mineral deficiencies. We are refining and over-refining our food You are taking a great risk with the nation's health in the long run. What happens to-day has a future effect and I beg that the Ministry of Food will bear what I have said in mind and that someone will impress on the people the necessity for buying real live and vital food.
  The Deputy-Chairman: Miss Horsbruģh.
  Mr. Sloan rose—
  The Deputy-Chairman: I have called the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary.
  Mr. Sloan: I was standing here long ago.
  The Deputy-Chairman: It is not a matter of who is standing. It is a matter of who catches my eye. I called the hon. Lady.
  Mr. Sloan: On a point of Order. How was it possible she could catch your eye, Mr. Williams, as she was sitting when I was standing? You looked at me and then looked across. She was still sitting on the bench.
  The Deputy-Chairman: I do not pretend for one moment that my eyesight is perfect, but I stick to my point. The hon. Member I called was the hon. Lady.
  Mr. Sloan: I am quite well aware that you called the hon. Lady, and I am quite well aware that I was standing here for 10 seconds before you called her. How could she catch your eye?
  The Deputy-Chairman: There can be no dispute in this matter. Whoever I have called I have to stick to and I have called the hon. Lady.
  Sir E. Findlay: Will it not be possible for anyone else to speak after the hon. Lady has finished?
  The Deputy-Chairman: That depends on how long the hon. Lady speaks.
  Mr. Sloan: The Parliamentary Secretary will be able to reply to those who have spoken, but she will not be able to reply to me, because she will already have spoken.
  The Deputy-Chairman: The length of the hon. Lady's speech must rest with her.
  Mr. G. Griffiths: This Debate will end at the ordinary hour for the interruption of Business, will it not?
  The Deputy-Chairman: It is bound to end then.
  Mr. Griffiths: I have been here all day and have not been able to get in, because the Scotsmen have been at it all the time.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbruģh): I have listened to this Debate, except for a very few moments, since it started. A great many points have been put, and I will do my best to reply, but hon. Members will agree that we have, in this most interesting Debate, gone over the work of many Ministries, and made every effort to suggest how our people can be made healthy, wealthy, and wise. I cannot see how it will be possible for me, in the time at my disposal, to reply to every question that has been put, but I will do my best. Any other points will be noted, and definite questions will be answered by letter. The important subject of infant mortality, which was the main theme today, is one of supreme interest to all the people of this country. The fact that we have made improvements in years gone by and have made progress from the very high level of infant mortality of the bad old times is no excuse for not accelerating the pace of that improvement. I am sure that I shall have every hon. Member with me when I say it is our wish to accelerate that pace, and we ask for the support of hon. Members and of the public.
  A great many suggestions have been made during the Debate, and I think they all are useful, but it is not possible to say that one single suggestion would be a complete cure for this ill. Housing is very important. We all agree with the plea put forward by one hon. Member after another, that the housing conditions in England and Wales and, above all, in Scotland, as I know full well, are appalling. We cannot have healthy people so long as they are housed as they are at present. [An HON. MEMBER: "Whose fault is it?"] In this Debate I think it would be better to look forward, to see what can be done now, rather than to spend time looking back, to attach blame to people who were in the House or who were in the Government. The situation,
  2158
  we agree, is appalling. We also agree that it has got worse during the war. We realise that there is not the labour and material for starting a building programme while the war is being fought. All we can do is to see that preparations and plans are made so that there will not be the delay that there was after the last war. But housing is not the only thing that has been mentioned.
  I was surprised that the hon. Member for West Fulham (Dr. Edith Summerskill) talked not only of bad housing, but of bad maternity and child welfare services. I think that some credit should be given to those who have worked hard in these war years, under difficult circumstances, the health visitors, the nurses, and others, on this work. Some of the hospitals have been under air bombardment and people had to be moved during the raids. All that work has been done; and these numberless people have devoted themselves, their time, and energy in looking after the mothers and children of this country. It is hardly fair to say that the services are bad; we want to see them made better, but we can be proud of the work that has been done. The Senior Medical Officer of our Child Welfare Branch was lately in the United States of America and visited Chicago where the experiment is being tried. She said how impressed they were by the fact that in the fourth year of war the figures of infantile mortality in England came down to 49 and in Scotland to 65. We have at least done that. Hon. Members will remember that in the first two years of the war the rate went up. We owe something to these people who have worked in that service with extreme devotion, and, in some cases, heroism, in looking after the children of this country.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland gave some figures about the services in Scotland. In England we have 3,000 clinics, over 3,000 health visitors, and in addition, in country districts, 2,000 district nurses. It is rather remarkable that in the last year 96.5 of the mothers who gave birth to children were visited in their homes with in a week. That is something about which we can feel some satisfaction in spite of the difficulties of war-time and the shortage of personnel. We have increased the beds in maternity homes and hospitals by 3,000 and we have in England and Wales maternity accommodation

  2159
  in institutions for at least 50 per cent. of the mothers in the country. Hon. Members will have been interested to hear the Secretary of State for Scotland say that there was a larger number of babies born in institutions in Scotland than in England, but I would ask hon. Members, in reading that report and studying the subject, to note that we cannot deal with this problem entirely by arranging for people to have their confinements in institutions.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland gave some very alarming figures on the subject of infection in hospitals. There is no doubt at all, as everybody who has looked into this problem will agree, that to have a maternity home or hospital in any way overcrowded, where there is not sufficient isolation or not sufficient staff to make isolation as good as it might be, is much more dangerous than to have children born at home. A great deal has yet to be looked into. We hear of the figures in other countries. We have, as the hon. Member for Southampton (Dr. Russell Thomas) said, to attack the hard core of infant mortality both in England and Wales and in Scotland. Some people perhaps do not realise, with regard to the New Zealand figure, that this figure does not include the Maoris; their rate is 96 per 1,000, and that should be included in the figure given for New Zealand. A great deal has been done in America, and many people have been interested in what has been done in Chicago. Sometimes they talk of the infant problem as an organising problem.
  Dr. Haden Guest: Do the American figures include the Negro people?
  Miss Horsbruģh: I have not the complete figures of the United States at the moment. We have the figures for certain States, and the Chicago experiment has shown a great fall in infant mortality. That fall is greatly due—and I think that Members who will have read about it will agree—to their treatment of the premature baby. A certain amount has been done in this country. Lately I was visiting a hospital in the Midlands where they had made a speciality of dealing with the premature baby. I saw the baskets, warmed and prepared, in which the babies were brought in I saw the cots, and all the other arrangements. They have done a
  2160
  fine job of work there, and this is being tried out in various parts of the country.
  Recently the Advisory Committee on the Welfare of Women and Children set up by my right hon. and learned Friend's predecessor at the Ministry, brought out the report of their Medical and Professional sub-committee which studied particularly this subject of premature infants. I have here the draft circular which is going out to local authorities on provisions which can be made in war-time to make premature births as normal as possible and the death rate as low as possible. I have been asked at times, "It is all very well, but have these premature babies saved in our hospitals grown up to be strong and healthy people?" We have records to a certain extent, but they are not yet very full. However, I was interested, when in that particular hospital in the Midlands, to be told that only the week before a young man in khaki called upon the matron to see the hospital, and when he was asked why he was particularly interested in the hospital, he said, "I am interested because I was one of your premature babies." They are doing wonderful work, but what we want to do is to see how we can prevent prematurity, and there is no doubt the gynaecologists and obstetricians have got to get together and find out more for us about this particular difficulty. For when you look at the figures, it is quite clear that where we have to attack is the mortality during the neo-natal period, the one month after birth.
  The Secretary of State pointed out particular areas in Scotland that have this high rate of infant mortality. Hon. Members have since pointed out that there are cities in the North of England that are just as bad, and some of them worse, and I believe it is in these particular black spots that we have to make an energetic drive. In one particular place where the neo-natal mortality is high, we are arranging at the present moment for there to be inquiry into the nutritional standard. We have made these inquiries in many parts of the country and examination has been made of many hundreds of expectant mothers, and as yet, we have found that the nutritional standard at this moment is not bad. The hon. Member for West Fulham rather gave the impression that there was a high percentage of the population of this country

  2161
  undernourished and suffering from malnutrition, both children and adults. I do not think that is the case. Certainly, we have made these inquiries, and experts have looked into the matter, but when hon. Members speak of nutrition in connection with this particular problem I think we all agree that we have a great deal more to do.
  Mr. Gallaeher: What about the circular?
  Miss Horsbruģh: And we have a great deal more to find out about nutrition, not only during the war, but to carry on into the time of peace.
  Mr. Gallacher: What about the circular you mentioned?
  Miss Horsbruģh: It is rather disappointing that when arrangements are made for fruit juice and cod-liver oil and vitamin tablets for expectant mothers, nursing mothers, and babies, they do not take them up as much as we had hoped. The Secretary of State said that the amount taken in Scotland was even less than in England but the figures in England, although they are better, are not what we should have liked them to be. Only 50 per cent. of the mothers and babies in England to whom the fruit juice is available take it.
  Mr. G. Griffiths: Free?
  Miss Horsbruģh: Either free or at a small charge. At the beginning it was free and that did not go well, and some people thought it better to have a small charge made. Only 25 per cent. take the cod-liver oil, and only 39 per cent. take the vitamin tablets. Perhaps what hon. Members have said in this Debate on nutrition to-day will arouse more interest in the public on the vital need for taking what has been made possible for them to have, even in these difficult days, and the enormous importance of this particular scheme. Hon. Members have talked about nutrition, and I am sure they will agree that when we come to the days after the war we want to carry on the special schemes in order that mothers and children may get the best chance we can give them. But it will mean much persuasion and education, in which we look to hon. Members to help us. The hon. Member for Heywood and Radcliffe (Mr. Wootton-Davies) said that malnutrition was either
  2162
  due to eating too much or too little. But it may be due to wrong feeding and I feel that we have a great deal more to learn about the right feeding of people in different circumstances. We must persuade them that if the food is available they must co-operate with us.
  Mr. G. Griffiths: The hon. Member has too much and I have too little.
  Miss Horshruģh: I wonder whether, as a result of this Debate we shall get more co-operation from mothers after they have had their babies? When a woman has a baby a health visitor visits her and only very rarely is she rebuffed. She asks the mother to bring the baby regularly to the clinic, so that they can be looked after, but we find that the mother and baby do not come. I was at a maternity home not long ago where the matron said that a few of the many mothers who went from the home and were asked to come back ever did so. This Debate will have done a great deal of good if we can make it clear to the people of this country that there is this service which can help them. But we cannot do it without their co-operation.
  The nutritional aspect has been referred to by several speakers and I will try, so far as I can, to answer their questions. My hon. Friend the Member for Frame (Mrs. Tate) spoke of porridge, patent medicines, breast feeding, war nurseries, and said that fresh milk was very much batter than tinned milk. As she knows, at the moment fresh milk is being made available to mothers. Tinned milk is on points.
  Mrs. Tate: The point I made about fresh milk is that I like it unpasteurised.
  Miss Horsbruģh: My hon. Friend mentioned both fresh and tinned milk, but I know that if we begin to talk about heat treated milk a great deal of heat will be engendered, and I do not want to pursue that line. As I have said, at the present moment mothers are getting fresh milk. My hon. Friend also said that she thought there should not be any child under two in war-time nurseries. The position is this: No woman with a young child is directed to work but if she does go to work, and we do not arrange for her baby to be looked after, we fear that it may not be looked after properly. There was a feeling in the country two years

  2163
  ago that if we did not make provision for young children they would not be properly looked after. As regards breast feeding, perhaps it would interest my hon. Friend to read a report of a sub-committee of our Advisory Committee, which was published recently, in which they said that certainly breast feeding gave the child what they called a flying start.
  I also agree with what she said on the subject of sleep. The hon. Member for Southampton said we might be able to get down the infant mortality figures a good deal but there would still be hard cores. That is quite possible, but I feel that, however much we can do during and after the war, when we get the extra personnel, we want to start out with the feeling that we are going to attack the problem, investigating the blackest spots, getting down to it and seeing what the reasons are. I quite agree about poverty and housing but beyond that there must be further knowledge and further information by those who can give it, and further research. It is not simply a matter of poverty. I would urge hon. Members to look at it from a broader point of view. It is a pressing problem and we are keeping in touch with those who have dealt with it in other countries. The picture given by the hon. Member for West Fulham of undernourishment was probably rather a gloomy one. As I have already said, I think there should be some praise for the health services of the country and the way they have kept going during the difficult days of war.
  Dr. Summerskill: Will the hon. Lady consider withdrawing the circular that I read?
  Miss Horsbruģh: No. It makes it quite plain that pregnancy by itself is not a reason for a person getting National Health benefits and leaving work. The hon. Lady knows that there may be some work with which a mother can quite well go on. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] She told us of a case of someone who was tired out and said that it would be impossible to give her a certificate. That is not the case. If a doctor thinks that a person should not work, or is unsuited to work, he can give her a certificate; that is being done up and down the country.
  Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Lady has been given this information, but I actually practise and I give the certificates. The cases that I quoted were of exhausted women. No one inquired what work they were doing. The circular says clearly that women are not entitled to six weeks simply on the ground of pregnancy and there has to be some pathological condition as well. The hon. Lady cannot tell me these things. I know, because it is my work.
  Miss Horsbruģh: I have seen many certificates. If the hon. Lady knows someone who is exhausted and ought not to be working, there is no reason why the certificate should not be given. If hon. Members will consult medical opinion, it depends a great deal on what the work is. [Interruption.] I still say it depends a great deal on what the work is.
  Dr. Summerskill: They were exhausted women.
  Miss Horsbruģh: If the hon. Lady reads the circular, she will see that she could give a certificate to an exhausted woman.
  Dr. Summerskill: I have read it dozens of times.
  Miss Horsbruģh: I have it here.
  Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Lady has not had the patients.
  Miss Horsbruģh: The certificates can be given, and I sometimes wonder whether the housewife working in her own home has not as tiring and difficult a job as those who work outside the home. We are anxious to provide more domiciliary help. We have a scheme for home helps, but it is difficult to get sufficient people to take on these jobs. If any hon. Member or anyone else hears of someone who would take on that job, we shall be only too anxious to get her. We have to realise that working is not simply going out to work for somebody else, but that there is heavy work in the house which makes it extremely difficult for women if they cannot get help. I remember speaking on this point at a meeting, and I had a letter a few days afterwards from a woman who told me that she was willing to leave her home as her sons were abroad, and work as a home help. If there were more like her who would help in these difficult times, we should be able to do

  2165
  more for the mothers than we are able to do. We are entirely in favour of the home-help scheme, but the number who come forward as home helps is very limited.
  The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead) did not stop at nutrition in this country, but took us in his speech to the Continent and talked of the difficulties that will have to be overcome in those countries that are freed from the enemy. I ask him not to expect an answer on that point now, but I agree with him on the necessity for more research and education. He said that the terms of the laboratory should be translated into terms of the kitchen and that there should be an international scheme of food and that food supplies should be built up. Both the Board of Education and the Ministry of Food have done a good job during the war trying to get to the people more information as to the right food and the best way of preparing it. More and more the Board of Education is dealing with these subjects, and we hope that those who leave school in these days will have more knowledge of diet and of the necessity of preparing food in the most nutritious way.
  Our own Advisory Committee has not only dealt with the subject of the premature baby and with rickets, but a report will shortly be published in connection with rickets by the British Paediatric Association. The investigation on the subject of rickets is reassuring, for it was one of the diseases we thought might be on the increase in war-time. I was glad to hear part of the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Bodmin (Mrs. Wright), for we also have a sub-committee sitting on parent-craft. We have much to learn of what can be done. There are any number of people who do not know yet the services they can obtain and how necessary it is to obtain them. I welcome this Debate because it has given publicity
  2166
  to these things. I hope that hon. Members will realise these black spots will be tackled, even if they have to be tackled one by one.
  Mr. Buchanan: When?
  Miss Horsbruģh: I have told the hon. Member that in one particular area people are being sent to look into nutritional state because the neo-natal cases are on the increase. We cannot deal with housing until the war is over for it is a long term programme. I believe that at the end of that time we shall have a record in this country of which we shall be proud.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported upon the next Sitting Day; Committee to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

  WAYS AND MEANS
  Considered in Committee.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]
  Resolved:
  "That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, the sum of £3,495,714 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
  Resolved:
  "That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, the sum of £220,102,290 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
  Resolutions to be reported upon the next Sitting Day; Committee to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

  ADJOURNMENT
  Resolved:
  "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain McEwen.]

  HOUSES AND BUILDINGS (REPAIRS)
  HOUSES AND BUILDINGS (REPAIRS)
  ROYAL NAVY (W.R.N.S. COMMISSIONS)
  ROYAL NAVY (W.R.N.S. COMMISSIONS)
  POOR PERSONS RULES (INCOME LIMIT)
  POOR PERSONS RULES (INCOME LIMIT)
  WHISKY (INVALIDS AND AGED PERSONS)
  WHISKY (INVALIDS AND AGED PERSONS)
  MILK RATIONALISING (COAST TOWNS)
  MILK RATIONALISING (COAST TOWNS)
AGRICULTURE
  Holidays With Pay
  Holidays With Pay
  Plouģhs
  Plouģhs
POST OFFICE
  Parcels (Thefts and Losses)
  Parcels (Thefts and Losses)
  Members of Parliament (Postal Facilities)
  Members of Parliament (Postal Facilities)
  L.N.E. RAILWAY STAFF GRADES
  L.N.E. RAILWAY STAFF GRADES
  PALESTINE (JEWISH TERRORISTS)
  PALESTINE (JEWISH TERRORISTS)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Incomes (Taxation)
  Incomes (Taxation)
  Fiduciary Note Issue (Increase)
  Fiduciary Note Issue (Increase)
  NATIONAL FIRE SERVICE (AWARDS)
  NATIONAL FIRE SERVICE (AWARDS)
  SCOTLAND (POST-WAR DEVELOPMENT PLANS)
  SCOTLAND (POST-WAR DEVELOPMENT PLANS)
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Preamble
The House met, the Lord DENMAN on the Woolsack.

MINORITY PROBLEMS.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD THE EARL OF MANSFIELD had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government, whether when consulting the other Allied Governments about the post-war delimitations of the boundaries of the truncated German Empire, as well as of other countries whose frontiers are likely to require adjustment, they are bearing in mind the vital necessity of avoiding, wherever possible, the leaving of considerable minorities within the political boundaries of States the majority of whose population has a different racial, religious or cultural outlook; and whether to achieve this, they will consider the advisability of proposing that members of such minorities as are likely to be a future menace to the peace of Europe shall be compulsorily transferred to the land of their racial origin; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, at the outset I think it is desirable that I should make it clear that nothing in my remarks to-day is in any way concerned with the Jewish problem. That question, important and indeed almost insoluble as it may seem, is one which cannot well be taken at the same time as the other problems to which I wish to direct your Lordships' attention to-day. While dealing generally with certain minority problems, some of which have already arisen and others of which will arise after the war, it is my intention to deal principally with the problems that will arise consequent upon the alterations of the frontiers of Germany as Germany was at the beginning of this war.
Speaking generally, it is doubtful if at the present time there is any more fruitful cause of war than the presence within one State of nationals belonging to another State when the State to which the minority racially belongs has reason to believe, or makes the pretence, that that minority is being ill-treated. We know what great advantages at home and abroad Nazi Ger-
1098
many derived from the alleged ill-treatment of the German minority in Poland immediately previous to the outbreak of war and the equally alleged ill-treatment at an earlier date of the Sudeten Germans by the Government of Czechoslovakia. The first thing which I think is quite obvious is that it is undesirable that ever again should large bodies of Germans be permitted to exist as an entity within the boundaries of another State. We do not know, of course, yet what is to be the future of the Third Reich. For my part—perhaps it is rather a King Charles head of mine, but still I will take the risk of that—I have always held, and still hold, that if anything resembling permanent peace is to be achieved in Europe, Germany as it exists to-day must cease to exist as a united empire and should be divided more or less into component parts, not, unfortunately, into the thirty-three States which comprised Germany before the last war, because however politically desirable that might be it would be economically impossible, but into, say, anything from five to eight States, so that we should never again have the danger of a united Germany being a menace to the peace of Europe.
There is no doubt that Germany will be in the first place shorn of the territories which she illegitimately acquired before and during this war, and secondly, probably, of a considerable amount of other territory for various reasons. I suggest that among our peace aims should be the transference—the compulsory transference—of all German citizens from these territories back into the Reich or, as I should prefer, into those various States which should succeed the Reich. It may be argued that to do so would be to create economic chaos in Germany—I use the word "Germany" to cover the territory of Germany whether it be in the future one State or several States—but it has to be borne in mind that the German cry of Lebensraum was purely for political reasons and had no basis in economic fact, as Germany had ample room within her own boundaries for the useful employment of all her citizens had successive German Governments been willing to study the arts of peace instead of those of war.
The first great problem is one which has to be touched on somewhat delicately, but which a sense of justice insists should

1099
be dealt with—that is, the question of the western boundaries of Poland. It has been suggested, apparently more or less officially, that Poland shall be recompensed for any changes that may occur on her eastern boundaries by receiving certain German territories to the west and to the north-west of her former boundary. Should this come to pass it is essential in the interests of Poland that the German population presently resident therein should be removed, for the worst enemy of Poland could wish her no more deplorable fate than that she should be faced with not even her former problem of a moderately substantial German minority but a really substantial German minority. Such a solution would be bound to lead to trouble, and probably to war, within a fairly short space of time. Therefore no matter how hard such a solution would seem to be for the German population concerned, that solution will have to be faced.
The mere suggestion of it has already caused a storm in various circles of self-styled advanced thought. One paper of the Left hysterically cried "How could the trade unionists of this country face their brothers at Königsberg after the war if Königsberg were to be transferred either to Polish or Russian suzerainty?" Why anybody in this country should be particularly anxious at the present time to look at their so-called brothers in Königsberg other than along the barrel of a rifle or the lenses of a bomb-sight, is beyond my comprehension, but apparently such people do exist. The same suggestion has caused consternation in the mind of the honourable and gallant Member for Orms-kirk [Commander King-Hall] in another place, and he is now bombarding all persons holding any kind of public position with his views on the subject. It appears to me that the last people who are deserving of any consideration in this matter are the Germans. Whilst we do not wish to inflict cruelty, or indeed unnecessary hardship, upon the people of Germany, they should be considered last; our Allies should be considered a long way before them.
I come now to a point which can be touched upon only lightly. Any territory which it will be advisable to give to Poland can hardly be regarded as a satisfactory recompense for what it is sug-
1100
gested that the Poles should give up in the east. The U.S.S.R. has made an offer of peace-terms to Finland which seems both generous and statesmanlike. Is it really unreasonable to suggest that at least the same generosity should be shown to a country which, so far from being at war with Russia, is her Ally? Is it unreasonable to ask that the whole question of Poland's eastern boundary should be, so to speak, put into cold storage until the end of the war, when, in a cooler and more reasoned atmosphere, the question can be discussed, and not on the basis of a plebiscite taken under conditions which can hardy be regarded as satisfactory?
So far as other minorities are concerned, throughout Europe the problem is one of very great difficulty. Some of the troubles which arose after the last war were due to the ill-considered partition of Hungary. Had the various victor nations not persistently refused even to consider the rectification of Hungary's boundaries, it is most unlikely that Hungary to-day would be ranged on the side of Germany, a country for which she has no natural affection. The Treaty of Trianon, however, created very substantial Hungarian minorities in the territories of Hungary's neighbours, and their presence remained a pestilent sore on the body politic of Europe. If some arrangement could be made whereby, partly by rectification of frontiers and partly by transfer of population, these Hungarians could again come under the jurisdiction of their own country, a great deal would have been accomplished towards the avoidance of future trouble in Central Europe. Hungary, after all, has had an existence of a thousand years, and a people with the national consciousness of the Hungarians cannot wisely be ignored as a national entity.
There are some minorities, of course, with whom it is very difficult to deal, and in particular those who are not, strictly speaking, minorities inasmuch as they are not a small section of a larger population contained within a neighbouring State but are themselves a more or less homogenous race, though too small in numbers to be able to run a country under modern economic conditions. For example, there are the Slovaks, and still more the Ruthenes. The only satisfactory solution for them is, of course, some form

1101
of federation with neighbouring races. Of such a federation Czechoslovakia was an outstanding example, although there the position was not as satisfactory as it should have been, largely owing to the presence of one of the Hungarian minorities to whom I have just referred. A Czechoslovakia reconstituted without this minority and without the Sudeten Germans would have an infinitely better chance of remaining free in a free Europe. There are minor races—minor in numbers, not in importance—which are comprised within Yugoslavia, the name of which used to be the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. Their future is not our concern, and we can only offer our gallant Ally, King Peter, our respectful sympathy in the very difficult problems which he has had and will have to face.
Perhaps the most difficult of all minority questions is that between Rumania and Hungary. There my information is that the various groups are so split up, and in many cases so far from their own natural territory that no frontier rectification could by itself in any way solve the problem, and it would be necessary for an exchange of population to be undertaken on a fairly large scale if frontier peace is to be achieved. Unfortunately, the Hungarians and Rumanians cordially detest each other, so that it would be very advantageous if such an exchange could be effected.
The objection may be made to what I am saying that the ideal solution would be not for the lion to lie down with the lamb but for all the leopards to learn to lie down peacefully, one beside the other, in some form of European State under a federal system. However ideal that may be in theory, I believe that it is too remote in practice to be worth considering as an immediate solution. Federation may or may not come in the future, but I do not think that it can be considered practical politics for the whole of Central Europe at the present time. If it were possible to have a renewal in some form of that Danubian Federation which was formerly known as Austria-Hungary, it would be all to the good, but that is, apparently, a solution which is unlikely to be achieved, and therefore something else, at any rate for the moment, must take its place. I submit that one solution—a partial one, it may be, but not the less important for that—is this transference of population which I have already sug-
1102
gested. As I have said, the idea that a certain number of those racially akin to oneself are undergoing ill-treatment or injustice at the hands of a foreign Government causes the most bitter feelings in any country—easily the most bitter than can be aroused, and far more bitter than those occasioned by the mere loss of territory.
It is obvious that any solution which tends to make war less probable is one which is worthy of attention for two reasons. The first is that modern war, instead of becoming less savage in its methods, is becoming far more savage; the second is that in considerably less than a generation we have had two world wars. The first shook our civilization, the second has largely destroyed it. Can it therefore be doubted that if a third comes to pass within the lifetime even of our youngest children, civilization as we know it will cease to exist for a prolonged period and that we shall have again a repetition of the dark ages? In these circumstances I think it will be worth the while of the United Nations in conclave to consider the suggestions that I have put forward even if they are not already doing so. It may well be that these suggestions may be found to be impracticable, although I do not myself think that they will. To-day I am not asking the noble Viscount who is to reply for any specific answer, because if a specific answer could be given I should be disappointed. That may seem a paradox but it is not. If any definite answer were given at the present time it would mean that the whole problem was being prejudiced and that would be a fatal error, because no man can say what conditions will be at the end of the war, no one knowing when the war will end. All that I do ask is that, if these problems are not being considered from the angle suggested at the present time, they may be so considered, in the hope that some steps may be taken which will render the recurrence of war less likely, at least for a good long time to come. To-day the world is so interlocked that it is unlikely that any minor war in Europe could spring up which would not turn into a major war, and a major European war is all too likely to develop into another world war, with all the consequences which I have just mentioned. I beg to move for Papers.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, when my noble friends saw this Motion

1103
on the Paper they considered it ill chosen and ill timed, and decided that we had better ignore it. But on thinking it over it seemed that that attitude might be misunderstood, and I would like, if I may, to attempt to make some observations on the Motion and the speech we have heard from the noble Earl. And I must say, having listened carefully to his eloquent speech, I think that the Motion is more mischievous than ever. The noble Earl apparently is quite oblivious of the tremendous practical problem of salvage and life saving which will face the United Nations, indeed all the nations of Europe, when the last shot has been fired. I have had the privilege of discussing this matter with very important European personalities concerned in U.N.R.R.A. and other organizations dealing with the problem which will face us, and with some of the important Americans; also with my right honourable friend Mr. Greenwood, who had to consider the question at the time when he was Minister Without Portfolio, and with my noble friend Lord Addison, who knows it very well, and others; and indeed it is not easy to exaggerate the difficulties of the problem that will face the United Nations in the chaos and disorganization of the famine, starvation and disease which will have to be cleared up. If, on top of this, you are going artificially to create more difficulties by taking people whose ancestors hundreds of years ago lived in another country, uprooting them and their families, liquidating their property, and selling their cattle, and sending them back to what was their country of origin, you are only making more trouble, and in practice you will not be able to look at it.
I am advised that the first great problem in Europe, when we are able to tackle the whole scheme of reconstruction, will be transport. The European transport system already is badly disorganized, with ports bombed and railways damaged, and it will be much more so in the course of the military operations that will take place before the fighting is over. That is the greatest priority of all. It will not be a question of whether a man belongs to this or that racial group in such-and-such an enclave of Europe, but whether he is starving and how he can be kept alive. The second priority will be medical relief, and then
1104
you will have to try and get industry and husbandry going again. You may have to send corn and to help in renewing the cattle stock, provide raw material, and so on. The ordinary machinery of life will have to be restored. In addition to that, we are planning on the presumption that the war with Japan will not yet be over, so that we shall have a shipping shortage to add to all these other difficulties. I do not think the noble Earl or those who think with him have considered these questions at all, when they talk glibly of shipping the whole of these three million Germans from East Prussia and sending them to Württemberg and so on. The noble Earl talks about the "compulsory transfer of minorities to the land of their racial origin. "We shall be lucky if we can prevent many hundreds of thousands of innocent people dying of starvation.
Further, frontiers as we at present know them are for some years going to be meaningless terms. The whole idea of laying out new frontiers in this chaotic and anarchic Europe and allowing people to set up new customs barriers is grotesque. You have to treat Europe as a unit and make use of any means to help rescue it from starvation. At this moment we have an awful example before our eyes in liberated Italy. I wish the noble Earl would go to Italy and see the things that my friends write about and tell me about when they come back. The breakdown of the public morale in liberated Italy is terrible. Not only are there hunger and general disorganization, but the Italians, who are always regarded as a civilized people, are now even neglecting their own personal hygiene. Such is the deterioration brought about by the march of events; and that is in liberated Italy. What the conditions are in German-occupied Italy I do not know, but probably they are a great deal worse. In Italy we have only one comparatively limited area of two or three provinces to attempt to relieve.
With regard to the general proposition of the transfer of populations, this is in practice a most difficult thing to bring about. Of course the leading case is the exchange of populations between the two wars, between the Greeks and the Turks. That was carried out under most favourable circumstances. It was a voluntary exchange. Both Governments were helped by the other nations concerned, by the League of Nations. They were given

1105
financial help and the transfer was carried out in an orderly way. But it led to terrible hardship and suffering. You cannot uproot families who live for centuries in a certain part of Macedonia and ship them off to Asia Minor, or vice versa, without causing distress and suffering of all kinds. Another example of a population temporarily transferred was the population of the Saar. At the time the conditions appeared quite favourable and it was felt that at the end of the period, when the plebiscite was held, the inhabitants of the Saar would opt for France In practice, despite every good intention of the French, they voted almost solidly to go back to Germany. When we are talking about these different minorities and their ill treatment, according to Lord Mansfield's ideas—although I do not for a moment suggest this solution—it ought to apply to one of the sore spots of Europe with which we are familiar—Northern Ireland. What would he or his friends say if it were suggested as a solution of the difficulties in Ireland, that the whole of the Protestants in the Six Counties should be shipped back to the countries of their racial origin, back to Scotland and England? What would be said if that were the suggested solution? That is just as logical as what the noble Earl has argued with regard to East Prussia, Pomerania, Silesia, or the Balkan countries. One has only to state the case to show how impracticable it would be.
Thirdly, this Motion and the speech which we heard will—unintentionally, no doubt—be grist to Dr. Goebbels's mill. For the last two years or so there has been in Germany an exceedingly clever, subtle, unceasing, and extremely powerful propaganda, and I am sorry to say a successful propaganda, to instil into the German mind the idea that the Atlantic Charter is not to apply to the Germans and that the German race is to be exterminated. That is going on all the time, day and night, all round the clock, by every means, by an extremely efficient propaganda machine in Germany, asserting that the Allies intend to destroy Germany, to break her up, to dismember her, to enslave the German people, and so on. This idea of the noble Earl, (and also, I am sorry to say, of the Vansittart campaign), lends itself to misrepresentation by the Goebbels propaganda machine.
1106
The aims of the Government and certainly of my Party have been declared quite openly and clearly, and we have never departed from them. We are fighting for what? To destroy the Nazi Party and system. That is the object of this war. We are not fighting the Germans as such, we are fighting to destroy the Nazi Party and system. Surely a prime military objective is to encourage the German people—we hope as soon as possible—to help us to do that. If we render them so desperate, and play into the hands of the Goebbels propaganda machine so frequently, that they fight to the last ditch and the last man, what will be the result? First, it will increase our own casualties. Secondly, it will prolong the fighting and so add to the miseries of occupied Europe. The situation in that respect may be past salvation if it goes on much longer. That is one of the reasons why I have prayed and argued for a short war; I see no merits in a long war. Thirdly, it will delay our great onslaught on the equally dangerous and malignant Japanese. A more sensible policy and a different emphasis in no way weakens our determination to punish war criminals—there is no difference between Parties on that—and to disarm, and keep disarmed, Germany. That is more important than playing with the mosaic of cultural and racial minorities in Europe—to disarm Germany and keep her disarmed, and see that she does not regain her military strength.
In August, 1940, the Prime Minister promised to the people of Europe in these words "the certainty that the shattering of Nazi power will bring to them all immediate food, freedom and peace." If we had carried on on those lines with our political warfare I believe it would have been far better. It may be said that the problem of racial minorities and racial conflicts will remain. That will be the argument—that you can disarm Germany but you will still have the problem of the Sudeten Germans, the Volksdeutsch in the Balkans, and so. These problems need not remain. The noble Earl mentioned Yugoslavia. That is the great example in Europe of a real mosaic of different, religious, cultural, and racial groups. There are thirteen separate racial groups in Yugoslavia, I believe, with perhaps seven major ones. It was hoped when Yugoslavia was created that these would be merged and would live happily together

1107
as the Swiss have done under their federal system. That hope failed for various reasons, one of which was Serb over-centralization. But the Yugoslavian racial problem is settling itself now in front of our eyes. This is partly due to German atrocities, which have united the people of these different racial, economic, and cultural stocks, and partly owing to the very wise, statesmanlike policy of the National Liberation Committee and Marshal Tito.
I agree with the noble Earl in hoping that King Peter will presently play the part he ought to play and put himself at the head of the people who are doing the fighting. In the National Liberation Committee in Yugoslavia there are diverse elements—Moslem Turks, very tough and what I may call a reactionary, religious and racial minority in the Balkans; Macedonians, the most troublesome people in the past; and even the German Volksdeutsch have joined the banners of the Partisan Army and are fighting against the Germans now with great success. There are other diverse elements as well; in the part of the country that is being liberated, as well as Serbs and Croats, the two principal races, there are influential representatives of all the principal minorities. There you have federalism working as it was intended to work when Yugoslavia was first established after the last war. It has been brought about by the pressure of events, including German atrocities, which have a very unifying effect. The truth is that as this war progresses we can see in front of our eyes many of the old racial cleavages yielding to the far greater issue of Fascism against Anti-Fascism. As I listened to the noble Earl's speech I was not quite certain in which camp he had his foot. It is on this issue that the war is really being fought.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I do not intend to follow the noble Earl who put forward this Motion on questions such as the future boundaries of Germany and Poland. These are much better for the time being left in abeyance to be settled later; but I do feel that the noble Lord who has just sat down took a rather short-term view of the problem of minorities. I want to deal with that problem, the problem of minorities, and only that. The Motion speaks of "racial, religious, or
1108
cultural minorities." Frankly I do not quite know what a cultural minority is. Perhaps I and many of your Lordships belong to a cultural minority. We probably prefer classical music to "swing". We are in a minority if we do. Again, we are in a majority sometimes because we may prefer Jane Austen's works to those of James Joyce. The truth is that most of us—and it is true of people in all countries—sometimes belong to a cultural minority and sometimes to a cultural majority. I do not think that cultural tendencies can really be a danger to the peace of Europe. Therefore I would like to put cultural minorities on one side.
Then I come to religious minorities. There again I do not believe religious minorities, as such, are a menace to European tranquillity, and I am fortified in that by my friend Sir Geoffrey Knox, in a book which I am sure the noble Lord has read. It is called The last Peace and the Next. There he says that in the case of religious minorities he has known of no case where the privileges granted by treaty to such minorities were abused. I do not think "privileges" is the right word. It ought to be guarantees. Those guarantees are of fairly ancient origin. They started, I think, at the Congress of Berlin in 1878. That Congress laid down that in Rumania, in Serbia, in Turkey, and also in Bulgaria, there should be religious toleration. That principle was extended by treaties signed in 1919 with Poland and Czechoslovakia and various other countries and we were one of the signatories. By them religious minorities were given complete freedom to exercise their religion. It was further laid down that they should, in comparison with the majority, have full enjoyment of their religious and educational facilities—that is to say, there were to be no disabilities. I do not intend to enter into that aspect of minority treaties to-day because I rather expect I shall be forced, at a later stage, to call your Lordships' special attention to various points in those treaties. What I want to emphasize now is that I do not think religious minorities, as such, can be a danger to future peace.
If thus we eliminate cultural and religious minorities we are left with racial minorities, and it is those minorities which I think that the noble Earl had mainly in mind when he made his speech. Quite frankly I think he has got a fairly good

1109
case about them. The situation in Central Europe and in South-Eastern Europe is extremely confused and complicated. I do not pretend to try to deal with it as a whole. I am going to limit my remarks to German minorities. Let us consider for one moment what was the origin of these minorities. Most of them—I do not say all—were German colonists pushed forward really as an advance guard of the German Drang nach Osten and to promote German Kultur. Curiously enough, you will find that the greater number of them are not linked up territorially with Germany. They were what one might call, perhaps, political hedgehogs. It is curious that very little individual emigration took place in the sense which we would understand to-day. It was mass emigration and not individual emigration.
I know that at the end of the last war this problem of Germans separated by considerable distances from their Motherland caused very great difficulty to those who had to draw up the boundaries of the various European States. I am only going to speak of one instance which I know best, that of Upper Silesia. Your Lordships are probably aware that a plebiscite was taken in Upper Silesia and it was found that, although there was a German majority in that province, there were a very large number of Poles who inhabited it. The problem of Upper Silesia was referred to the Supreme Council. They failed to settle it because the French and British Governments took entirely divergent views. They agreed on one thing: that the problem was so difficult that it had better be referred to the League of Nations. It did go to the League, and the Council of the League came to the conclusion that in view of the very large number of Poles it would only be equitable that the province should be divided proportionately according to the number of Poles and the number of Germans living in it.
They then told the experts to draw up a boundary line. The experts set to work. What did they find? They found that a large mass of Poles lived in the territories adjoining Germany and a very large mass of Germans lived in the territories to the east. They did not know what to do, so they asked for instructions, and a Committee which the Council set up to help them decided that the
1110
matter should be pursued on the following lines. The partition which had been arranged should continue, and as many Germans should be included in the German sphere and as many Poles in the Polish sphere as possible. But even then there was a large mass of Germans left under what was to be Polish territory and a considerable number of Poles left in the German sphere. So they decided that the boundary should be such that the nationals of the two countries would be forced, for economic reasons, to live in peace and amity. The boundary was therefore drawn, not in conformity with the natural features of the territory, but on a line which ran through towns, through villages, through houses and actually through coal mines. What was the object of doing that? The object was to try by economic means to force the Germans and Poles to work together and thus to drown their natural animosities.
If your Lordships will permit me, I am going to digress for one moment to tell you a little story about certain negotiations that took place. When we were dealing with this country we came to a small strip about which the experts said there were no valid reasons why it should go to Germany or why it should go to Poland. To whom ought it to go? I put the question to Lord Balfour, who was then the British representative on the Council. He thought for a moment, and then he said: "Well, as conditions are equal, ought we not to favour our friends rather than our enemies?" I thought that rhetorical question by Lord Balfour asserted a very important principle which we ought to bear in mind in the future, one which it seems to me we have sometimes, perhaps too often, forgotten in the past.
To revert to my main argument, the tragedy was that in spite of these economic measures which the Council took they failed to reconcile Germans in the Polish sphere to their destiny and to make them loyal citizens. The usual sequence happened which happened not only in Upper Silesia but also, I am afraid, in the case of nearly all the German minorities. When Germany was weak, the minorities lay low and professed loyalty. When Germany got stronger, the complaints of the minorities got stronger and louder. When Hitler had

1111
come into power the minorities gradually threw off the mask, and ultimately they became the fervent supporters and adherents of a Greater Germany with which they wished to be united. It is true that there were certain loyal exceptions who did their best to prevent this happening, but by terroristic means and other methods they were unfortunately rendered completely impotent. With a record like that before us I do feel that when peace is being made no Government ought to be compelled to accept the continuance in their country of racial minorities who are likely to develop subversive tendencies. We must think of the future peace and prosperity of Europe. I therefore hope that the Governments of the countries concerned will be allowed to decide for themselves whether they desire total transference to their racial land of these minorities, or partial transference, or whether, as I think will sometimes be the case, they are content that the minorities should continue within their own boundaries.
I quite realize that these proposals will be the subject of violent criticism. Some of it has already been mentioned by the noble Lord who has just spoken. The reason for that is that it will add to the total sum of human misery which is already very great. I admit that at the outset of any such arrangement there will be considerable unhappiness, but I think we have to take a longer view than that. In any case, there has got to be a most enormous resettlement of all the populations of Europe, and I would ask whether it is really likely that a German minority is going to live happily in that strong and reconstructed Poland, that independent Poland, which we all hope to see created. I do not think, however, that a Government is likely to wish for the complete transfer of a minority if by doing so it is likely to destroy its own economic life. I quite agree with the noble Lord that a great difficulty is going to be transport. That is a problem with which we shall be faced, but I sincerely hope there will be some method of overcoming it. I hope, too, that when the Governments take their decision they will bear in mind that according to the Moscow Declaration an international authority for the preservation of peace is going to be established. This authority when established is certainly likely to exercise a pacifying in-
1112
fluence. Perhaps therefore the Governments, when that authority is established, may be able—I hope they will be able—to avoid extreme measures which otherwise they might feel it necessary to take in order to arrive at their own security in future.
I have only spoken of German minorities. There are many others scattered about Europe, and certainly their future is going to provide a great test of the ability of those who are called upon to make peace. The reason I have not dealt with them is that I do not believe they are going to be a menace to the future of Europe or likely to cause war. I am afraid the German minorities, left as they are, may be that. It is for that reason that I trust His Majesty's Government may be able to give some reassurance to the noble Earl who put forward this Motion.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I find myself in a considerable measure of agreement with the speech that has just been made, though there are one or two points on which I should not quite follow what my noble friend has said. With regard to the Motion on the Paper and the speech with which it was introduced, perhaps I may be forgiven for saying that I was a little startled by the speech because I had read the Motion as merely dealing with minorities whereas the speech was quite as much devoted to the question of territorial rearrangements in Europe. That is a much more complicated and much more difficult matter. I hope personally that we shall be very careful indeed in what we say on that subject, for I confess myself in this matter a disciple of the Prime Minister when he said that all territorial questions would be much better left over as far as possible until the war is ended.
As to the specific question of minorities, I understand the mover of this Motion to desire to reconstitute Europe as far as possible (he recognized of course the difficulty of the operation) into a number of States completely unified as far as possible racially, in matters of religion and culturally—I share my noble friend Lord Perth's difficulty in knowing exactly what is meant by "culturally"—with as little difference of opinion on any of these matters as possible. I think if you look round the world it is quite evident that mere

1113
difference on religious matters, for instance, does not necessarily involve any break in national unity, still less any desire to destroy or upset international stability. We have in this country a great number of religious minorities. I do not think they have for many years—I will not say never—been a source of any kind of difficulty or anxiety to those charged with the duty of preserving peace at home and abroad. It is the same with the racial minorities. We have received and assimilated, to our great advantage, a large number of racial minorities. The classical example is that of the Huguenots, who came over after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes. I do not think that they ever caused any serious difficulty here apart from a certain amount of economic difficulty when they first arrived; and they have become some of the most loyal and most efficient subjects of His Majesty, and have been nothing but an advantage to us. As for the cultural minorities, I am not sure enough that I know exactly what the noble Earl intended by that term to say anything about it.
I venture very respectfully to submit that the test is really that laid down in the Atlantic Charter. The question is whether the minorities, religious and racial, and the majorities are content to live together under the sovereignty under which they exist. It is their agreement and their attitude of mind which matter. In some cases their attitude of mind is embittered by differences of religion or differences of race, but not in all. There are some States made up of people with the widest differences. The most striking case is that of the Republic of Switzerland, where there are three races and more than three religions in a small country whose people live together in the greatest harmony and never have the slightest difficulty with one another, at any rate nowadays, whatever may have been the case in the past. I think, therefore, that we must not exaggerate this difficulty of minorities. No doubt Hitler used the wholly false allegations which he and his friends made about the treatment of the German minorities in the Sudeten province of Czechoslovakia to justify his aggressive policy, but it really had not anything to do with it. That policy depended on quite other considerations, and on the broad theory that the Germans, as a superior race, were entitled
1114
to dominate Europe. That was the fundamental conception which he had, and he used these and other excuses for the action which he took. I do not believe that there is the slightest ground for saying that the treatment of the German minority in the Sudeten province had any appreciable force in producing the action of the Germans which led to this war. The truth is that the difficulties have always been difficulties of politics and difficulties due to the desire of some German minorities—not all—to be more loyal to a State outside their boundaries than to the State in which they live.
Having said that, I do not wish to deny that, in cases where there are minorities with these desires, a considerable degree of unrest is caused in the locality, and is apt to spread to the rest of Europe, and indeed, as we see now, unhappily, to the rest of the world. I quite agree, therefore, that to get rid not of the minorities but of the discontent which some minorities feel is a very important object which statesmanship should pursue. It has pursued it. This is by no means a new question, as your Lordships are very well aware. Something has been said about the Treaty of Berlin of 1878, and reference has been made to the provision that, wherever a country obtained a considerable accession to its territorial limits, that should be on condition that it treated the minorities with absolute fairness and impartiality, and in fact as well as it treated other parts of its population. That provision, which is expressed in quite general terms in the Treaty of 1878, was the foundation of the Treaties agreed to in 1919, which affected several countries, and also of the subsequent international policy which tried to extend the principle of favourable minority treatment to other countries as opportunity served.
I know that there are a great many people who think that these so-called Minority Treaties were ineffective and did no good, but I am not myself of that opinion. I think that they did a great deal of good, but they did not do everything. A certain amount of discontent was still left; as time went on, the different countries became less and less willing to put the Minority Treaties into force; and we were faced with the difficulty of what to do with countries which would not carry out their treaty obligations. Even so, I think that on balance

1115
good and not harm was done. I quite recognize the difficulty of the position, but I hope that something of the same kind will find its way into any final settlement at which we arrive after this war. There will have to be certain differences. The Treaties of 1919 really created different classes of States, some of which were bound by treaty to behave impartially and justly towards their minorities while others had no such obligations. That caused, as my noble friend Lord Perth will remember, very grave discontent, on the ground that there was not fair treatment for the different States. That will have to be put right in some way if we are to preserve the treaty rights of minorities.
All that, however, will seem to my noble friend Lord Mansfield a very minor remedy, and will not at all satisfy him. His mind moves in a very much larger orbit than is contained in the provisions which I have tried to describe. He wants, as I have said, a complete reconstruction racially of Europe and a complete unification of the racial, religious and cultural conditions of every State and of the population of every State. I am afraid that I regard that as a quite impracticable proposal, and I think that it would cause immense suffering. I think that my noble friend underrates the suffering which is caused by the uprooting of populations and their transfer elsewhere. Something has been said of what was done in the case of Turkey and Greece, where something like a million people were removed from Asia Minor and settled in Greece. It was done at immense expense, and with great ability and great devotion by the Greeks. They spent large sums of money and were helped by other nations to find the money in order to settle the people of their own blood in their own country. But some observers at any rate, quite impartial British observers, reported that the suffering involved, even in that case, where the thing was done as well as it could be done, was tremendous.
THE EARL OF PERTH: It was a great success.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: So it was, but with great suffering also. They did succeed in re-establishing the Greeks, but I rather doubt whether the success was equal at the other end and whether
1116
the Turks did not really lose a great deal more than they gained. That is almost the only case, so far as I know, where the forcible transfer of great populations has been accomplished with real success, and even there, as I say, it caused great suffering. I do hot deny that there must be cases, after this war, in which it would be impossible to leave populations under the same sovereignty as that which they lived under before the war. Something has been said about the Sudeten province. I cannot doubt that the restored Government of Czechoslovakia will desire to get rid of some at any rate of the German population in the Sudeten province, who showed themselves thoroughly disloyal to the Government of the Republic, and were one of the causes—one of the excuses at any rate—of the great misfortunes that have happened to that country. They will have to be removed, I have no doubt. There are many other cases of the same kind, unhappily, that have occurred in Europe. The people who have been guilty of such conduct, I entirely agree, must be removed, and this must cause a great deal of difficulty. The practical difficulties will be very great, but I feel sure that the Governments concerned will insist on transfers of that kind. All I venture to plead—and that is where I do not agree with this Motion at all—is that that must be left to the Governments concerned. Czechoslovakia will have to settle what she will do with the people within her borders, and I think it would be a most disastrous thing if anything like pressure were employed, or advice were given to her, as to what she should do with the populations which will come under her rule. I feel very certain that any attempt of that kind will do nothing but harm, and will cause far greater suffering than it will relieve and much danger to the peace of Europe.
I do hope that whatever we do we are going to avoid all sympathy with, and all actions depending on, the doctrines which have been put forward in Germany recently, these racial doctrines. They are really pernicious, there is really nothing to say for them, and even if there was an element of truth in them, they have caused infinitely more suffering than they have cured. I hope that whatever we do we shall say that the great thing really is to promote the happiness and peacefulness of the world. If you can persuade all the people now in the

1117
territories of a given country to live really peaceably and loyally as citizens of that country, that is the best thing that can happen. The example of Switzerland and the example of this country show how it can be done. If it can be done you not only get a perfectly peaceful solution of your difficulty, but you get a great increase in. the power and vigour of the country that absorbs this new blood and these new interests. It is an illusion to suppose that there is really anything advantageous in having the whole population of a country made according to rule, all disciplined by a Government at the top, all thinking exactly what the Government at the top directs. All that is quite foreign to human nature, and most pernicious. What you really want is variety, energy, initiative, All those things are promoted by differences, of race, and even differences of religion, provided always that the peoples affected by these differences have the fundamental desire to live together and work together for the common advantage of all.
I feel that in this matter, as in so many others, we have a tremendous series of choices before us. We shall have to take the lead. Let us say so quite boldly. I am searching for a word which will not seem too arrogant to use, but we shall have to take the lead in matters of plain fair play and justice, and on the example we give very much will depend in the future of the peoples of Europe, and indeed of the world. Therefore I plead very earnestly with the Government that, whatever view they may take on this and that detail of the minority question, they will recollect that the essential thing is not to follow some theory about racialism, or anything of that kind, but to do that which will be just and fair to all the peoples concerned, and which will cause an improvement, and not a lowering, of the standards of morality and justice in the world. That is the principle which I hope they will go upon; and I believe, with my noble friend Lord Perth, that in order to get the true impartiality of atmosphere in dealing with these questions, you must resort to some form of international authority.
I quite agreed with the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, in one point if not perhaps in all, and that was when he said that the matter must not be hurried.
1118
that it was a very difficult matter and we must not rush it. I entirely agree with that. Premature decisions as to boundaries, or even as to the principles of minority treatment, may easily do a. great deal of harm. In this case I am satisfied we must show great caution. We must not attempt premature efforts which will ultimately do harm and not good. That is why I should personally prefer to see your international authority to deal with this and very many other matters set up as soon as possible. And then I should say to the international authority: "The principles are those which were laid down in the Atlantic Charter and the Moscow Declaration. It is your business to carry out those principles after full inquiry and full consideration, and to do so in such a way as will promote peace in the world."
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has raised an extraordinarily important question, and everyone must agree with him in the object he places before us in connexion with his proposal—namely, the ensuring of permanent peace and the necessity of reaping the utmost fruit of total victory. But it seems to me that he talks somewhat airily of the plan that he suggests for effecting this object. He talks as if the movement of populations was a thing you can undertake without excessive difficulty. In order to judge of his plan it is fortunate we have experience to go upon. Hitler has set a frightful example of the movement of populations by force, but it is for us to consider what precedent there is of orderly transportation.
A word or two more than has been said may be relevant on the precedents. There is chiefly the Greco-Turkish migration. There is also the Greco-Bulgarian migration following upon the Treaty of Neuilly, which indicated that a voluntary system of exchange between the two Governments was desirable. That Treaty established an exchange system with international representatives. The League took part, and it operated from 1922 to 1930. The two Governments were in agreement, and therefore conditions were greatly aided, but such was the objection of the persons concerned—mainly peasants—to leaving their homes that coercion was required on a very large scale. Both peasants and townsmen had to be forcibly evicted. The Government

1119
carrying out the eviction was naturally, in the nature of things, an alien Government to the persons evicted. To ensure fairness in such an action a most elaborate machinery is required for the valuation of the goods that the person is leaving behind and of the property he is unable to take with him. Consideration for the victim is naturally not easy to exercise especially on the part of a Government which is already hampered by extreme impoverishment. The result in this case was that eviction was often as painful as evictions of which we heard nearer home.
When the people arrived in their new quarters they were generally in for a miserable time. Houses often were not ready, land was not equipped, marshes had been imperfectly reclaimed in order to provide land for them. The League machinery was busy for years with malaria and the resulting mortality. Transportation at the best proved to be inhumane in the extreme. We are concerned with that particular aspect because, after all, we are condemning the enemy very largely on the grounds of the inhumanity that he represents. Sir John Hope Simpson, who was the British leader of this business, used remarkable words. Although of course he was concerned to show that the thing was a success on the whole, he said that it involved an appalling amount of misery and hardship. That was a very striking declaration, coming from him.
Allusion has been made to the still larger exchange of population between the Greeks and the Turks. That was effected under the most favourable conditions possible. It gained from the great prestige of Dr. Nansen who fathered the whole thing. The Governments were agreed, the population was extremely suitable, very hardy, very frugal, and the cost was almost incredibly low for the actual settlement on new agricultural holdings. When I think of what it costs in this country, it is hardly believable that this movement, including new housing and stocking in due time—for it took time—was as low as £80 per family settled. The result, as has been said, was politically very satisfactory. A homogeneous population resulted. In 1920, before the operation began, Greece was as to 80 per cent, composed of Greeks, and in 1928 it had become 93 per
1120
cent. Greek. Turks in Greece had been in 1920 13.9 per cent, of the population, and in 1928 they had fallen to 1.6 per cent. It was indeed a gigantic work. There had been 1,250,000 Greeks in Turkey and they practically all moved. They had lived until 1923 on American charity, and then the League came in because of the possibility of American aid ceasing. The League was active. It facilitated loans which led to the actual subscription of all but £10,000,000 in the case of the Greco-Turkish migration and over £2,000,000 in the case of the Greco-Bulgarian transfer. Some 650,000 more people were settled and 2,000 agricultural colonies formed for them.
Politically, the position has been greatly improved, everyone agrees, but, as my noble friend Lord Cecil of Chelwood said, at a very terrible cost. On that point there is very remarkable evidence to be quoted. Lord Curzon—not, I suppose, the most sentimental or emotional of men—was concerned in the business at the Lausanne Conference in 1923. He used these astonishing words. He said, "It is a thoroughly bad and vicious solution for which the world will pay a heavy penalty for a hundred years to come." If he thought that of the most manageable case of transportation, what would he think of transportation of far more highly developed populations, with not even an exchange of population to palliate the vicious features of the event?
Not to burden your Lordships with more on these Near Eastern precedents, what light do they throw on the plan before us? It seems to me to assume annexation of German territory on a considerable scale. Naturally there will be adjustments on borders, as there were at the end of the last war, but we are apparently assuming something very broad. It raises the much bigger question of the wisdom of annexation itself on a large scale and it raises the bearing of the Atlantic Charter. But that subject, I take it, deserves a separate debate and is not relevant to the particular proposal which Lord Mansfield has made. That in the main no doubt has in view the question of Poland. The population of East Prussia is 2,200,000 and other countries discussed in connexion with this proposal would bring the total population probably between Germany and Poland up to 8,000,000. They talk also of Pomerania,

1121
of Silesia, and of course of Danzig, and if you add the 3,000,000 or more Germans of the Sudetenland the population may come to 11,000,000. That mass, it is assumed, would be thrown into Germany at a time of great disorder. The Greek affair was a big thing but this would be on a scale perhaps ten times larger than that. These people would be pushed in no doubt without undue delay, and if there is to be also at the same time very considerable disorder in Germany, the position of those British officers of Amgot, or it may be of some more permanent force of occupation, who will be in charge, will not be very enviable. We are told that the economic reconstruction of Germany is to be desired, and we are told to foster recovery. Surely an economic upset of that kind in Germany would work in the opposite direction and it would not be an easy job for our officials and others responsible for carrying out the avowed policy.
Then my noble friend Lord Strabolgi said there would be the question of the physical transport of the people at that time. That would surely be of equal urgency for the movement of the populations who have been atrociously transferred by Germany to other countries. It is estimated this may mean 15,000,000.
LORD STRABOLGI: 20,000,000.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: Possibly more than 15,000,000, I do not know. It may be 20,000,000. In any case the question of transport involved in this proposal cannot be ignored. It is very attractive, especially to those of us who know something of Eastern Europe, to think of a more consolidated, homogeneous population and of clean frontiers, but it cannot be denied that the objections to this proposal are very great. As I said, there is no element of exchange to give a sort of justification for it. There are no Poles to speak of in Germany with whom to exchange. Again, would it not be a bad start for Poland to begin, by treading on the principle of nationality and of national autonomy? The case for Poland itself is based on the claims of nationalism and we should all foe sorry to see the Poles begin with any sort of minor imperialistic action. That is to be avoided, if possible. The principle of democracy would come off rather badly under this plan.
1122
Again, supposing the virulence of nationalism across Eastern Europe should die down. It may die down. Indeed it is already giving way to other idealisms, and another ideology may take its place. If that happened then all this gigantic suffering would have been in vain. We must of course work with those great Allies with whom we are fighting the war. But on these points I do see already that in America protests are being voiced in the Press against this very proposal and I doubt whether it would go through without very much difficulty. Would it not be a kind of defeatism to accept the impossibility of bringing about some happier order in Europe, some better relations than have existed between these intermixed nationalities? We surely must not abandon that hope. Again I am sure that British reputation would be in some danger if we, on whom the action itself would not fall, should seem by the advice of others to favour a work of this very objectionable kind. Above all, would transportation be a factor for peace? I was very interested to hear Lord Mansfield say that it would, but it cannot be doubted that the policy would furnish, after a. period of years, perhaps, just the sort of material which would help aggressive leaders to bring about another war.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINIONS AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE) (Lord Cecil): My Lords, I have not always found myself in complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, but I must say I had very considerable sympathy this afternoon with the opening words of the speech he addressed to your Lordships. I could not help feeling a regret, and I think it is a regret shared by many of your Lordships, that the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, should have thought fit at the present juncture to table a Motion on the extremely difficult and delicate subject of the future of minorities. A thirst for information is in itself an excellent thing, but surely it should be allied with discretion, and I cannot feel that the existing conditions of the day properly admit of a free and full discussion in public session of the details of this inevitably delicate subject, especially if we are dealing with the future on which the noble Earl himself, I think a little rashly, intruded.
There is always a danger that a debate of this character in war-time may be on

1123
the whole of more value to our enemies than it is to our friends. I only hope that will not be so to-day. In any case, I think it has led to two remarkable and extremely valuable contributions, out of the fruits of their past experience, from the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and my noble relative Lord Cecil of Chelwood, two of the greatest experts that exist in this country on this, as I have said, particularly difficult and complex subject. I felt that their speeches underlined the complexity of the issues with which the Governments concerned will have to deal when the time for making peace comes. In the circumstances in which we are placed, I am quite certain your Lordships' House will not expect from me, on behalf of the Government, a very detailed declaration of Government policy. That would certainly be quite impossible. The most I can do is to indicate to your Lordships some of the main -considerations which I would suggest must be in the minds of the Governments—and it must be remembered that we are only one of those Governments and therefore cannot make a unilateral declaration on this most thorny aspect of the peace settlement.
The problem of minorities is, of course, only one aspect of the situation which will face the victorious Powers when Germany is finally driven to surrender. They will be faced with a continent in which many millions of people, far outnumbering all the national minorities, have been torn from their homes, in circumstances often of great barbarity, to work in the factories and on the fields of Germany and her satellite accomplices. The repatriation of these exiles will constitute, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said, a gigantic problem of organization, transport, supplies and rehabilitation. Many will have no homes to which to return, and over large regions in Europe economic life will have been so dislocated by the demands of Germany's total warfare that a fresh start will have to be made. And even this leaves out of account the numbers of men in the Allied fighting forces, the prisoners of war, the refugees, and the unhappy inmates of the concentration camps in enemy controlled countries. It must be remembered too that German minorities are not the only, or even the principal ones which have, in the past, threatened the peace of Europe. In passing, I would say that I accept the
1124
limitation placed on the word minority by the noble Earl, Lord Perth. I, like him, do not quite understand what a cultural minority is. I would not go so far as he did when he spoke about religious minorities, because my short experience has been that the religious and racial character of minorities is often so inextricably intermingled that a religious minority is probably also a racial minority. I quite agree with him that there is nothing new about minority problems. I think he said the problem went back to the beginning of the nineteenth century.
THE EARL OF PERTH: 1878.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I would have gone much further back and said it has always existed. It was present, for instance, when the children of Israel passed through the Red Sea, and when by the waters of Babylon they sat down and wept, and in one way or another it has been going on ever since. It is one of the oldest problems in the world. But the problem, as we know it, of the national minority, which I may perhaps, for this purpose, be allowed to define as a group of citizens cherishing aspirations which conflict with those of the majority of the State in which they live—this problem, in its modern form, dates certainly not earlier than the Middle Ages. It has steadily accelerated and increased ever since. As a result of the Napoleonic Wars, Germany began to cast loose from the Holy Roman Empire. Towards the beginning of the nineteenth century the germs of separatism were injected into the body of the Ottoman Empire. And finally, as a consequence of the war of 1914–1918, Austro-Hungary—the residuary legatee of the medieval system—broke up into a number of separate States, each with its fringe or enclave of minorities, the backwash, as it were, of the many successive tides of European history.
Meanwhile the idea of government with the consent of the governed had been making progress; and the joint operation of both conceptions—of government by consent and of the nation-state—was designated as a major international interest by President Wilson's famous word "self-determination." Thus it came about that minority problems received in 1919 much more attention than they had received in any previous political settle-

1125
ments. When the opportunity of drawing new frontiers was presented, care was taken to exclude as far as possible an alien population from the newly delimited areas. It was on account of such decisions that the territorial settlements of Versailles, St. Germain, Neuilly, Trianon and Lausanne were perhaps from this point of view the fairest ever drawn up by nations after a European war. The problem of minorities, however, inevitably remained, in spite of all efforts to solve it, and with the problem remained the dilemma—how to satisfy at once the instincts of the nation-state and the principle of government by consent.
The immediate answer given to that problem (on its permanent solution I shall have something to say later) may be read in the long and complicated story of the Minority Treaties which followed the last war. With them my noble friend Lord Perth and I myself are only too painfully familiar. The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, said that on the whole the Minority Treaties, had been worth while. I think perhaps they were worth while as an experiment; but they certainly were not a success. As all of us who have had any experience on this question know, the protection of a minority, whether by international supervision or municipal law, by unilateral arrangement or by bilateral agreement, is a task of the utmost difficulty and complexity. Your Lordships will not expect me, I am sure, to embark on the very detailed discussion of these matters, but I can assure you that the lessons to be derived from the working of the treaties I have mentioned are being very carefully studied by His Majesty's Government and will certainly be taken into account by those responsible for the final settlement. We certainly must not make the same mistakes that undoubtedly were made last time.
I come now to the Motion of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, which concerns what I may term the opposite extreme in the treatment of minorities to the policy of protection—the elimination, in fact, of the minority as a distinctive part of the State. Precedents are not lacking for the transfer of populations, though in its brutality the most recent example, that of Germany's deportation of peoples in overrun territories, is not one which we should any of us desire to follow. It may be of interest, in this connexion, to recall
1126
the words spoken by Hitler on October 6, 1939. He said:
"The whole East and South-East of Europe is filled with splinters of German nationality which cannot be maintained. … It is therefore one of the tasks of a far-seeing order of European life to carry out resettlements in this area so as to remove at least one of the sources of conflict in Europe."
The meaning attached by Hitler to the word "resettlement" we all now have reason to know. It was nothing less than the conquest by force of arms, and subsequent occupation by German settlers, of the territory of his neighbours, into which the spearheads of his Nazi controlled minorities had already plunged. But for the recognition by the person most qualified to judge, Hitler himself, of the danger to European peace represented by these minorities, we may be to some extent grateful. His words will not be forgotten when the time comes, and still less likely to be forgotten are the actions which followed.
It may possibly be that in certain cases—and I emphasize the words "in certain cases"—no other solution than that of transfer will eventually be found possible by the United Nations, if the peace of Europe is to be secured. If, for instance, on other grounds the frontiers of a State have to be drawn in such a way as to include a minority, hating and hated by its fellow-citizens and liable to persecution by them, and obviously out to promote civil and political disharmony in the State in which it lives, the case for an outright transfer is certainly one for very serious consideration, as the noble Earls, Lord Mansfield and Lord Perth, have said. In my view, however, we should be under no illusions. Such a solution in itself is no panacea for the troubles of Europe. Even in the limited spheres in which it operates, grave difficulties are likely to be encountered. I am very far from saying that they are insuperable, but the fact should be faced that they exist.
First of all, there is the difficulty of securing a stable settlement. Any peace settlement has to balance the claims of the Power in whose favour the frontier is altered against the danger of leaving the Power who loses by the alteration with a grievance which will threaten future peace. I do not think that this danger should be over-emphasized, but it is one which must not be entirely ignored. Then

1127
there are the difficulties which arise from the character of the populations concerned. On the whole, rural populations are in themselves the easiest to move, for the very obvious reason that the problems of agriculture do not, broadly speaking, differ fundamentally from one area to another. On the other hand, rural populations are at the same time far the most conservative and deeply-rooted populations which exist. Highly-skilled workers, professional men, technicians and so on are, on the other hand, the most difficult to spare, if a territory is not to be faced with an immediate problem of dislocation and unemployment; yet it is precisely these classes of people who might be expected to have the least reluctance to leave, and whose expulsion for political reasons might be the most desirable. I quote that merely to show how very complex this problem is.
Politically speaking, the ultimate results of such transfers might well be beneficial, but they would certainly, as Lord Strabolgi has said, involve short-term economic difficulties of a most formidable kind, entailing, in particular, serious though temporary setbacks in production, which would require, in all probability, liberal assistance from outside for their successful solution. All this, moreover, must be set against the background, as I mentioned earlier, of a disorganized and impoverished Europe, whose speedy return to prosperity is of the utmost urgency if worse is not to befall us. Last, but not least, there is the suffering of the people concerned themselves. It is very easy in the consideration of political issues and of abstract economic statistics to forget the human factor involved, and the multitudinous ties of sentiment and association which make up the fabric of human society.
This aspect which has been mentioned in this debate is not, I can assure the House, forgotten by His Majesty's Government. The fact must be faced that transfers of the type which the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has mentioned would be everywhere feared and disliked by all the peoples concerned; we cannot get over that. Compulsion would necessarily have to be applied, and no devices such as provision for option and so on could prevent the occurrence of many cases of extreme hardship. It should, of course, be said, in mitigation of this, that experience has
1128
shown how quickly and effectively a rural population can be resettled, and that if the settlement is carefully organized and adequately financed the discontent need not necessarily in itself be enduring. Furthermore, the humanitarian case must be considered in relation to the causes of war. It can fairly be said, I think, that the suffering caused by a week's war would be more than the suffering caused by the efficient resettlement of these populations whose present situation is liable to endanger future peace. If, therefore, transfer, and transfer alone, seemed likely to ensure peace, I should personally take the view that the humanitarian argument must not be given more than its proper weight in the balance of considerations.
I have tried to place this complicated question in perspective, and to set it against the background of the vast problem, which will tax all the resources and all the good will and co-operative instincts of the United Nations, the problem of restoring peace and prosperity to a Europe devastated as never before in human history. Viewed against this background the problem of minorities, it becomes clear, is only one of the causes of war, and transfer of populations is only one method of dealing with this problem, and a method which is so drastic that it may well seem to your Lordships, as it certainly seems to me, to be one to be used only if all other methods are likely to fail, and if the minority problem in question is likely seriously to endanger peace. The saving of peace is the crucial point. That has been brought home to us by the unscrupulous use which has been made of minorities by Germany in the years between the two wars, and which has gone very far towards poisoning the normal and natural intercourse of nations.
But what of the minorities which cannot be transferred? Even if we did decide to apply in certain areas the drastic remedy of a transfer of population, in other districts minorities must inevitably still remain. What is to be done about them? This is a question which was lightly touched on by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood. Anyone who has had experience of the minority problem in the years before this war will not, I think, harbour any false hopes that it will be easy to find clear-cut solutions

1129
for it. I had a feeling, when Lord Mansfield was speaking, that these questions sounded so terribly easy, but my experience at Geneva was that these problems are some of the hardest with which any statesmen or diplomats can possibly have to deal. As your Lordships know, many policies have in the past been advocated, ranging from full protection for the minority, either by international or national guarantee, to the elimination of the minority by transfer or assimilation, and including a combination of both methods. Alternatively, it has been suggested that nations containing minorities should bind themselves to some charter of individual human rights which should apply to minorities as to other sections of the communities concerned. I think it was the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, who said that it was included in the Treaty of Berlin.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Something of that character.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: It is quite possible that one might find some solution of that kind with rather more bite in it than perhaps the Treaty of Berlin had. At any rate this proposal has met with considerable support here, first of all because it coincides with long-established practice in our own country, and in the United States, and because it breathes the air of freedom and tolerance. It is in some ways, I think—this is a personal view—the most attractive of the various alternatives quoted for the solution of minority problems. But even so, I am bound to say that it would be a profound mistake to assume that it provides in itself a certain remedy. It is in any case not at all easy to formulate a statement of individual human rights, once generalities have been left behind. Moreover, even if this difficulty is surmounted, the charter of rights can always be in effect largely nullified by the ill-will of the majority. Whatever is put down on paper, if they do not want to play the game they can always nullify your efforts.
It is very easy to say our policy is based on the principle of non-discrimination and that the minority should be given by the State equal treatment, in law and in fact, with the majority. But how, in fact, is this to be guaranteed? In countries where the language and culture (I
1130
feel almost nervous about using the word) have not been perpetual battlegrounds, it might be safe to leave the fair and equal treatment of minorities to the good will of their Governments and local officials without any international guarantee. But, in the light of past experience, it would be utterly futile to attempt that over the greater part of Europe. On the other hand, an international guarantee which involves continual interference with the ordinary processes of internal law and administration in the countries concerned would be asking for trouble, and would only be likely to lead to constant friction and the eventual repudiation by Governments of their minority obligations.
Possibly, if I may suggest it, a solution might be found in some broad general declaration by the United Nations reprobating ill-treatment by a State of its minorities—some general statement of a standard to which they would be expected as members of the United Nations to conform, and indicating that if they did not conform to it certain sanctions would have to be applied to them. I only put that forward in a general form and not as a declaration of policy. I am thinking aloud, but it seems to me that it presents a possible method of getting over the difficulty. Of course, if one could impose such an obligation upon States and one were willing, if necessary, to take action to enforce a high standard, no doubt it might foe extremely effective; but certainly it would be impossible for any Government to put such a suggestion forward as a practical proposition until, first of all, we know what is to be the new international organization, and also what rights and obligations the members would be expected to assume. I merely put it forward as a possible line of approach. Other noble Lords will no doubt have other ideas, which they believe more practical.
There is one other point that I would like to deal with before I sit down. We should remember that the minorities themselves must play their part if minority problems are to be solved. They must not keep themselves to themselves; they must try and merge themselves in the general population. We ourselves in these islands, as I think Lord Cecil of Chelwood said in the course of his speech, had to face this problem in the earlier part of our history. As wave after wave of invaders crossed our shores, enclaves of

1131
Romans, Saxons and Danes were created all over our country, and on the top of that came the Norman invasion. At first, no doubt there was considerable friction between these heterogeneous elements. I have no doubt the British hated the Saxons, I have not the slightest doubt either that the Saxons cordially disliked the Normans. But now those things are mere episodes in past history. All these various waves of races have been welded together in one single coherent British race, and the memory of those distant problems is only kept alive by place names in various parts of the country. That, ultimately, we must hope, will be the evolution of countries in Central Europe, and that must be the aim of our endeavours. A policy which by the very act of protecting minorities kept alive these problems, and even extended them to areas where they do not exist at present, would be a very poor thing indeed.
In any case, I do not propose to dogmatize this afternoon. The question raised in the noble Earl's Motion was necessarily complex and delicate, and it is clearly not one on which any single Government can make a unilateral statement of policy. All I have sought to do is to expose broadly some of the considerations which will have to be borne in mind by those whose task it will be to frame the peace settlement. I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, and the House that His Majesty's Government have these considerations very much in mind. The great thing that we have to do, as Lord Cecil of Chelwood said, is to promote the happiness and peacefulness of the world. I can say on behalf of His Majesty's Government that, so far as lies in our power, we are quite prepared to let that principle be our guide.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, the noble Viscount began his reply by addressing to me with his usual exquisite courtesy a mild chastisement for having raised this question at all. I fear, to use a tennis metaphor, I must return the service by applying the rebuff to the noble Viscount, inasmuch as the Motion has been on the Paper for a number of weeks and, had it seemed fit to him to make representations to me to withdraw it, I would of course have given those representations the most earnest consideration.
1132
At the same time, I must frankly disagree as to the inexpediency of raising the question at the present time, because it appears to me vital that it should be considered, at least in its broadest aspects, well before the conclusion of hostilities. Apart from this, however, I am glad to say that the noble Viscount's reply was very satisfactory indeed, and in a few minutes I shall ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw my Motion. But before doing so there are certain remarks which have been made in the course of the debate to which I feel some words are necessary in reply.
I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, many times in your Lordships' House, but I do not think that I have ever heard him make a worse speech than he made this afternoon. To begin with, he hardly dealt at all with the matter in my Motion, but he did engage in what I fear is one of his favourite pastimes, the raising of imaginary brick walls in order to give himself the pleasure of knocking them down. I will offer a very few considerations on some of the remarks. He complained, apparently, that transport would not be available at the end of the war to put mass deportation into effect. Nothing in my remarks, I think, was calculated to make anyone believe that I expected such mass transportation to be achieved quickly or at the immediate conclusion of hostilities. If the transference of the Greeks and Turks took approximately six years, it may well be that the other transferences, if they ever come to pass, may take up to twenty years or even more. It is certainly a matter which must not be hurried. Next, the noble Lord chose one of the worst possible examples when he alluded to Northern Ireland because all my remarks had been explicitly about States where a large minority was subject to alien rule. The Six Counties of Northern Ireland have their own independent Government, and there would therefore be no reason whatever why all their inhabitants should be transferred to this country.
Later on the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, and the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, appeared to be attempting to pour cold water on the idea, but it seemed to me that every argument they brought forward was really in support of my views rather than in support of what they were apparently trying to prove. The

1133
suffering that was involved was perpetu-allly stressed—one might almost say harped on—but surely the fact that the transference of the Greek and Turkish populations resulted not merely in an immediate improvement between countries whose relations hitherto had been strained, but in a cordiality which has persisted ever since, goes to show that the admittedly great suffering was well worth while. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, has said that a week of the kind of war we are having at present involves far more suffering than would be caused by any transference that might take place. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, made what I thought was a most thoughtful and helpful speech. I will, however, say to him that he perhaps a little underestimated the possibilities of political as well as racial strife, while the cultural side of it undoubtedly does come, in some cases, into it a little as well. If, for example, you have a minority which has its own songs, its own costumes, its own folk dances, its own code of behaviour, combined with a racial origin different from the majority, and very likely with a different religion, these are bound, at any rate, not to make the position any easier.
Throughout the debate, upon the Benches opposite, there ran a peculiar current of what one can only term that sympathy with Germany which I have already mentioned.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No, no.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: It seemed to me that the suffering of the dispossessed German minorities was being stressed to an unnaturally large extent. It is perfectly true that they represent the biggest problem. The noble Viscount, answering for the Government, spoke about charters for minorities, but very wisely went on to add that the minorities themselves must also learn how to behave. The experience of the past has shown that no German minority anywhere has ever behaved properly at all, and that it would at once quietly violate the terms of any charter and cause in future the trouble it has caused in the past. You cannot really judge the German nation by the standard of any other country. I protest very forcibly against the idea that you can separate Nazi Germany from the rest of Germany as a whole. It has been made
1134
apparent through the history of centuries that Germany is, as a nation, aggressive, and therefore it seems to me that Germany must pay the penalty. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, talked about the non-application to them of the Atlantic Charter as if it were something new. If my recollection is right, in the last few days we have been officially informed that the Atlantic Charter will not apply to Germany, and therefore there is no reason whatever why we should not contemplate, if not with equanimity, at least without undue consternation, any unavoidable sufferings that may be inflicted on German minorities in the course of their transference.
In conclusion, may I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, that I do not for one moment minimize the great difficulties of putting into operation the suggestions I have brought forward? I fully recognize the difficulties, but I believe that when the Allied Nations came, in concert, to consider the future shape of Europe, all the difficulties and all the sufferings may well be compensated for by the definite diminution of the risks of future war. I thank the noble Viscount for his reply and beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

WAR AIMS: ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL QUESTIONS.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD THE DUKE OF BEDFORD had given Notice that he would call attention to certain disturbing factors, economic and political, likely to prevent the realization of war aims, and to the appropriate remedy. The noble Duke said: My Lords, in a vast and uncertain enterprise like a world war, the final result of which no person can foresee with certainty, a wise statesman will be ready from time to time to ask himself the question, "Where are we getting to?" and if need arises he will be ready to modify both his methods and some even of his primary objectives if this can be done without sacrifice of principle. To do this, is not an indication of weakness. It is a proof of wisdom and adaptability, and freedom from that fatal obstinacy of which most of us, on some occasions, are apt to be guilty.
The Prime Minister, during the course of his political career, has sometimes been

1135
attacked by his enemies for changing his Party loyalties, and I think I am right in saying that he has defended himself by pointing out that it is not he who has changed but rather that circumstances have changed and the policy of the Parties themselves. To-day, by showing a statesmanlike adaptability to changing circumstances and to unforeseen events, he could play on the stage of the world's history an even more prominent part than he has yet played. Indeed, he might even play the most distinguished part of any statesman in history by reason of the unique magnitude of the opportunity. A wise political leader will also, at the present time, take into consideration the possibility—I might even say the probability—of some nation, blessed or cursed with a scientist of unusual skill, so oppressed by the fear of approaching defeat, putting into operation some new device of mechanical warfare which in its destructiveness will exceed what has hitherto been accomplished even in the worst air-raids, with the result that even if counter measures are adopted the havoc will be so terrible that victory will hardly be distinguishable from defeat.
Another point that a prudent man will bear in mind is this. It is a point, indeed, of which we have been reminded by more than one speaker this afternoon. If the liberation of the occupied countries cannot be carried out by military means without inflicting upon the population suffering and starvation worse than anything they have hitherto experienced, if their liberation can be secured by other methods, it is obviously very greatly to their advantage. Moreover, it will make the problem of the reconstruction of postwar Europe infinitely simpler and it will impose a far less serious drain on our own economic resources taxed as they will be by the strains and stresses of war. This is particularly true if the view of those experts is correct that a food shortage is threatening throughout the entire world, due very largely to the abstraction of necessary labour from agricultural districts in America and in the Dominions. I might also add that some of the people qualified to speak with authority fear that another famine may take place in India, and if that catastrophe happens it is obvious that it could be dealt with far more effectively and with far greater credit
1136
to the Government if conditions of war did not still exist.
But I wish to speak not so much of what may happen but of what is happening and of what has happened. I think that any realist who is willing to face facts with an open mind must find out that the nearer we approach to apparent victory the more surely, as long as we adhere to our present methods and objectives, do we approach to inescapable defeat in regard to some of our major and most worth-while war aims. We went into this war to get rid of Fascism but Fascism is now firmly established in our own country, and if the intention is persevered in to keep down the conquered part of the world by military force when this war is ended, it is obvious that many of the most objectionable features of Fascism will have to continue indefinitely. We have in this country to-day military conscription of women as well as of men, industrial conscription, conscription of property by requisition orders and conscription of money by excessive taxation, and under Regulation 18B the Government can imprison without trial anyone to whom they may happen to object. Quite apart from any consideration of military questions in the future, a large number of eager planners are continually telling us that these features of State despotism, or many of them, are to be continued when the war is ended, and even developed. People here and there are growing restive under this excess of State control, but many, the majority perhaps, are becoming docile, showing that British citizens, like the citizens of other countries, will not resist the tyranny of the State but will only resist the tyranny of foreign rulers.
Another very important war aim is that which is contained in those clauses of the Atlantic Charter which deal with economic matters. I think your Lordships may perhaps agree that if the economic clauses of the Atlantic Charter and those which deal with the rights of small nations to freedom are to be consigned to Davy Jones's locker, this war will have been fought in vain, and in due course people will begin to say that another war is necessary to clear up the mess which has been left behind. In the economic clauses of the Atlantic Charter Britain and America say that
"they will endeavour, with due respect for their existing obligations, to further the enjoy-

1137
ment by all States, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity."
Again they say that
"they desire to bring about the fullest collaboration between all nations in the economic field, with the object of securing for all improved labour standards, economic advancement and social security."
Since the Charter was published I am afraid it is evident from the Keynes and Morgenthau plans, from some aspects of the policy and personnel of Amgot, from the unsatisfactory replies made by Chancellors of the Exchequer when questioned by Members of Parliament who understand the need for monetary reform, and also from the paucity and vagueness of Government plans for post-war reconstruction, that in the event of a complete-Allied victory being secured by military means those economic clauses in the Atlantic Charter are likely to prove little better than scraps of paper.
At the risk of boring your Lordships I am afraid I must say a few very plain words on the subject of this issue of monetary and foreign trade reform, because of its extremely important bearing both on the problems of the war and the problems of post-war reconstruction. It is, I am afraid, evident that the majority of your Lordships are either hostile or indifferent to monetary reform. Either you have come to the conclusion that you cannot understand finance and cannot be bothered to try, even though your duty to your country plainly demands that you should, or you have come to the conclusion that those orthodox economists are right who hold that monetary reformers are inflationists and currency cranks; and you reach this conclusion without hearing the reply of the monetary reformers or really getting to the bottom of what both sides are driving at. But whether you take this line or not there are some facts from which you cannot very well escape. One is that an increasing number of people are commenting on the fact that the Government can find endless sums of money for war but apparently could not find enough money, during the long years of opportunity which separated this war from the last, for constructive purposes of peace. Some years after the last war a very fine educational programme was turned down merely because there was no money and later the unemployed suffered grievously from under-
1138
nourishment and poverty, even when there was ample food in the shops to supply their needs.
Not only did your Lordships remain unhelpful in regard to the needs of your Jess fortunate fellow-citizens but you would not even protect your own interests. Many of you were driven from your own homes and family estates by excessive taxation and Death Duties for which there was not the slightest necessity. I remember that some years ago a friend of mine had a dog which was such a fool that he would allow rats to steal pieces of his dinner off his plate while he was actually feeding. In the same way your Lordships have allowed the orthodox economist and financier rats to steal your dinner off your plates. In one of Jack London's books he makes one of his characters say "I would not give two whoops in hell for a dog who would not fight for his own meat." If I ever reach the infernal regions—I expect some of your Lordships wish I had already done so—I am afraid I would not feel tempted to give you two whoops, not so much because you would not fight for your own meat but because you would not fight effectively for the underdog's meat either. Whether or not people in this country understand the significance of these economic straws in the wind to which I have referred, it is quite certain they are very plainly understood by very important people on the Continent. They are understood by Axis leaders and there is no reasonable doubt that they are also understood by Marshal Stalin, who, like his enemies, appears to have a fairly reasonable financial system which never in peace-time allowed any desirable enterprise for which labour and materials were available to be held up for lack of money.
The most significant feature of the question to which I have referred is in all probability the Keynes and Morganthau plans for post-war trade. The Morganthau plan assigns a very important place to gold, and wherever gold is assigned an important place, either in connexion with the creation of money or in connexion with foreign trade, there you can perceive the cloven hoof of the international financier who establishes in peace-time conditions of poverty in the midst of potential abundance. It is also proposed by the Keynes and Morganthau plans to set up a supra-national com-

1139
mittee of financiers who will allocate to the different countries their quota of gold or of some international currency known as bancor or unitas. That supra-national committee will be endowed with powers which a dictator might envy, which will enable it, if any nation wishes to adopt a sensible monetary system and to adjust its money supply to its maximum output of goods and services, to bludgeon that nation back into the orthodox fold by threatening to deprive it of its quota of gold or international currency, thereby ruining its foreign trade.
As I have just said, there is no reasonable doubt that Marshal Stalin realizes the significance of these proposals and he interprets them as meaning that in the all-important economic sphere, where they have such a tremendous contribution to make, his Allies, Britain and America, do not intend to play the game or live up to their war-time principles and high ideals. That being so, he apparently decides that he need not be any more scrupulous himself with regard to the rights of small nations. It will be a tragedy if, after going into this war because we would not allow Germany to have Danzig and a route across the Polish corridor, and after making such a song and a dance about the wicked Hitler with whom we cannot possibly negotiate because he does not keep his promises, we are obliged to break our faith with our Polish Allies, and I do not think the situation will be very much improved if Poland is to be compensated for loss on her eastern frontier by slices of territory inhabited by a German population. That will be simply to repeat the blunders of Versailles. Nor can I say I am much attracted by these proposals for the wholesale deportation of populations in the interests apparently of power politics. But while I regret what appears to be Marshal Stalin's policy, I cannot say I very greatly blame him. He makes no profession of Christian idealism and he knows that Britain and America, who should have given him a lead in regard to conduct on high principles, have not given him that lead so far.
No one appreciates more than I do the desirability of unity between the Allies, but that unity must be based on moral principle. If there is no moral principle behind it, it is no better than the unity of robber chiefs who join together
1140
to secure a military victory, but when that victory has been won, start quarrelling among themselves. If I seem critical of Russian policy I feel I have a better right to be so than most people, because some twenty years ago, when the majority of people in this country—and I think I am right in saying the majority of members of your Lordships' House—were making violent attacks on the Soviet Government for their tyranny, their cruelty and their atheism, I put in a plea for fair play for Russia. I said that, rightly as we should condemn these acts of terrible cruelty, these things often happened when a country had been through a period of great political or economic upheaval, and I said that in the long run it would be far better not to send the Russian Government to Coventry but to try and make the best of it in spite of its faults and to help the Russian people. My advice, of course, was not taken. Now, twenty years later, I see it being taken by the whole country, lock, stock and barrel.
At the same time I am being attacked on all sides because I advocate the adoption of a similar policy towards the Axis countries and Axis Governments for precisely the same reason. I sometimes wonder whether twenty years hence my advice here will also be taken—too late to save thousands of innocent lives. I may say that my policy towards Russia twenty years ago is still my policy to-day, but because I am in favour of making the best of the Soviet Government I do not think it is sensible to ignore defects in its policy any more than it is sensible to ignore the defects in the policy of the Axis Governments, or to be stupidly over-sensitive to those defects, or to ignore the defects in the policy of our own Government. In varying degrees and in different ways the Governments of all the great nations have made grave mistakes. The sooner they cease from the foolish hypocrisy of pretending that it is only the enemy Governments who have made mistakes and realize the need for common repentance the better it will be for everyone.
Surely it is clear now, if in real humility and honesty we face the facts, that none of the Governments of the great warring nations can safely be trusted, in the event of their securing a complete military victory, to remember their war-time pledges and high ideals, when they are faced by

1141
the temptations of that complete victory. Surely all of them need the incentive and wholesome discipline of being bound by a common undertaking freely entered into to respect certain principles and aims. They all need to have at the back of their mind the fear of what former enemies or former allies may say or do if they do not keep their side of the bargain. The main essentials of such common agreement would be, first, an undertaking by every nation to regard scrupulously the right of other nations to freedom from political interference and to enjoyment of the territory occupied by their own nationals.
The second point would be an honest undertaking by the Government of every nation to co-operate with other countries in developing the world's resources to the full under a system which allowed of no financial and foreign trade hindrances, and to distribute the resultant goods according to the needs and numbers of the different peoples without any reference to their form of government. Such a plan would possess the tremendous advantage of issuing to every nation a plain but perfectly fair and inescapable challenge to show by their deeds what their war-time profession of aims was really worth.
Germany has frequently declared that she is fighting to secure the freedom of the peoples of Europe, particularly from Soviet domination and from the domination of international finance. Let her prove the sincerity of her words by restoring to the peoples of Europe political independence wherever she has taken that independence away. But in return she must receive what she has not yet had—a fair share of the world's economic resources. I hope we shall hear no more of the rather foolish statement that before the war she could buy all the goods she wanted from any market she chose. How could she possibly do that when formidable barriers were set up against her exports, which were her only means of payment? She came to the conclusion that she would not get her fair share of the world's economic resources unless she fought for them, and for that and other reasons, as we all know, she limited still further her imports of ordinary goods and started to import war materials.
Japan has declared that she is fighting for the freedom of the peoples of Eastern Asia. Let her be called upon to prove her sincerity by granting to those nations
1142
whom she claims to have delivered from Western domination a freedom which can be recognized as genuine by competent neutral observers, and let her refrain from unfair economic exploitation of those countries, particularly in regard to the drug traffic. But she again, in return, must be granted her fair share of the world's economic resources and trade. It is nonsense to talk of driving her people back to live and starve on their barren and rocky islands, with no adequate provision for their economic needs at all.
Russia, from time to time, has expressed democratic sentiments. Let her prove their sincerity by retraining from claims to annex the territory of her smaller neighbours and by refraining also from interference with their political affairs. Let there be no more of these exceedingly fishy plebiscites which Pravda describes as democratic. If, as is quite reasonable, she wishes for security against military attack, let that security be found by the revival of that bold and statesmanlike proposal which the Soviet Government themselves made a good many years ago and which we, to our shame, ignored, the proposal for universal world disarmament. There was never a time in the history of the world when suffering peoples would be more ready to leap forward to support any political leaders who made such a proposal, and there is no doubt whatever that they would desert any leaders who wrecked the satisfactory working of such a scheme by refusing to grant adequate safeguards and rights of inspection.
If only the statesmen, even of one country, could take their noses out of the mud and blood in which they seem to be so deeply embedded, and look forward to the future with real vision; if only they could have sufficient faith to believe that when one's aim is right mountains of obvious difficulty can be overcome, especially if one seeks and deserves the help of God; if only they would show themselves prepared to take for peace one-tenth of the risks they are prepared to take for war; if only they could realize that in international affairs honesty is the best policy, and that alike from the highest motives and from the lowest and most material it pays to treat the people of other countries with justice and generosity, whether you like their Government or not, then indeed they

1143
could achieve for suffering humanity a great and lasting deliverance.
Many people at the present time feel, and understandably, warm gratitude to the people of Russia for the tremendous advantage which we have gained by their valour and sacrifice. Surely the most practical return we can make them is to put forward a statesmanlike proposal which will give them immediate deliverance from their terrible war casualties, which will allow them peaceful possession of their own Russian territory, and will enable us, so far as lies in our power, immediately to help them with the postwar reconstruction of their great country. Then there is the contribution which Britain and America might make, a contribution made mainly, but by no means only, in the economic field, a contribution which could be worthy of their profession to be Christian nations, and which could make them the true leaders of the world.
I feel that a successful appeal might even be made to those financiers, big industrialists, armament-makers and owners of newspapers who exercise such tremendous political power on both sides of the Atlantic. Surely they must possess some feelings of humanity which might lead them at this time of crisis to desire to save mankind instead of to destroy it? Surely if they have deceived even themselves into thinking that their way has been right, they possess sufficient intelligence to realize their mistake? If it is power they want, can they not find it in serving instead of in exploiting mankind? I can guarantee that they would find power of that kind infinitely more satisfying than any power which they have hitherto tasted. If it is wealth that they want, cannot they be satisfied with the ample returns to be derived from developing industry to full capacity, instead of pursuing policies of restriction and sabotage? If they could take as their motto the motto of Rotary, "Service not self," they could set their feet on the first steps of the road to heaven, instead of following, even more surely than their victims, the road to hell.
There is to-day a choice between the ways of two men, between that of the armament-maker Zaharoff and that of the tax-gatherer Zaccheus—a character in the New Testament. Do they wish to imitate that human vulture Zaharoff, who
1144
boasted that he had sold more arms than any man living, but whose closing years were shadowed, it is said, by fear of assassination by one of the many people he had caused to suffer, or will they take the way of Zaccheus, who turned from exploitation to restitution and service, earning in this life the gratitude and respect of his fellows and in the life to come the welcome "Well done, good and faithful servant"?
We hear a great deal of talk nowadays about the possibilities and dangers of the Second Front. Cannot we try the possibilities and the dangers—yes, and the dangers—of Christian principles applied to international affairs? There are some people who think that Christian principles cannot be applied to international affairs until you reach some distant millenium where every man and woman has become a saint. No greater mistake could possibly be made. Christian principles are the only true cure for a world filled with sinful and stupid people, for a world in which you cannot trust your enemies and cannot always even trust your friends, for a tortured and tormented world like that which we see around us. Surely our Government, who to-day are obviously prepared to take tremendous risks for and with their people, might show themselves willing to take those risks, not for destruction but for construction, for policies likely to promote life and not for policies which, as their own advocates tell us, are certain to result in death and yet more death. Surely they can choose the better way, rescuing civilization from the morass into which it is plunging ever more deeply, while the light of reason and of high principles grows ever more dim and ever more flickering. Cannot a new torch be lit and this nightmare ended?
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD BRUNTISFIELD): My Lords, the noble Duke was good enough to intimate that he did not wish the Government to reply to the speech he has made this afternoon unless they wanted to. It is true that among the matters to which the noble Duke has referred there are some which at this stage of the war cannot be discussed in public with advantage. Nevertheless, to allow the noble Duke's speech to pass without any comment from this Bench would, I think, be of even less advantage, and I must ask your Lord-

1145
ships to bear with me for a while. The noble Duke on several occasions during the last two years has treated your Lordships to dissertations on the causes of the war, how it could have been avoided, and how it should be conducted. He must be fully aware by now that few if any of your Lordships find exactly infectious the confidence with which he advances his own pet theories, and I doubt, therefore, that he expects the speech he has made this afternoon to meet with any greater measure of support than did those he has previously delivered to this House. But I must say that on this occasion the noble Duke really has excelled all his past performances. His methods, so far as I can make out, are to build his case upon a mass of false suppositions and then, having enlarged upon those false suppositions, he indulges in fallacious cures for situations which largely exist in his own imagination. Some of the passages of his speech, if he will allow me to say so, not only verged upon the impudent but verged even upon the subversive, and I look with dismay upon the interpretation which some circles who do not know the noble Duke as well as we do may put upon his remarks in this House this afternoon.
At the outset of his speech he said that now is the time for us to ask ourselves "Where are we getting to?" As I listened to him I could not help reflecting "Where might we have got to if we had adopted his advice and his point of view?" Certainly not to the hill-top at which we have now arrived and from which, beyond further and still higher summits, we can see with increasing clarity the light of victory dawning. The noble Duke, judging from his speech, has either failed to study the speeches of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary in the House of Commons a fortnight ago, or else he has deliberately ignored them. Moreover, he appears to have failed completely to appreciate the spirit and purpose of the Atlantic Charter, in which are set out in simple but unequivocal language the principles which the United Nations intend to follow when the forces of the Axis have been defeated, and the enslaved nations liberated, when a new world has to be built up out of the ruins of the old, and when machinery for the preservation of peace, the settlement of international problems, economic as well as political, will require to be re-established.
1146
No doubt this moment, when it arrives, will provide suitable scope for discussion. Meanwhile, until that moment comes, and because His Majesty's Government have consistently taken the line that it is not for one party to the Atlantic Charter to place a unilateral or strained interpretation on any particular article of the Charter without due prior consultation with other parties, there is nothing to be-gained, but on the contrary much to lose, if we indulge in detailed and over-analytical interpretations of the declarations contained in the Atlantic Charter. I do not propose, therefore, to discuss the noble Duke's speech point by point but will limit my remarks to stating broadly what is the basis of the Government's policy in bringing the war to a victorious conclusion and in playing their part in the settlement of post-war problems.
The noble Duke has referred to the Atlantic Charter and its application to post-war economic problems. There are some who argue that countries which are poor in raw materials will be unable to take advantage of the economic provisions of the Charter unless the world as a whole pursues an expansionist policy and maintains at a high level its purchases of the goods manufactured by those countries which have to obtain the raw materials they require by selling manufactured goods. If I am not mistaken that, in rather more sober language, is one of the considerations which the noble Duke has had in mind this afternoon. It will for instance be of little use to provide all nations with access on equal 1erms to the trade and raw materials of the world if there is widespread depression and the countries which need raw materials cannot sell their exports and so cannot afford to buy the raw materials which they need. This does not, of course, mean that every nation at all times is faced with a danger of deflation and that the way to solve all human ills is to pursue an expansionist policy. Indeed it is widely believed that one of our first problems in the economic field after this war will be to guard against the danger of inflation rather than deflation. At the same time it must be remembered that the war has brought about an unprecedented increase in productive capacity and that if there is a tendency for part of this productive capacity to remain unused owing to deflationary influences, it will be necessary to counteract

1147
such deflationary tendencies by appropriate expansionist measures.
I may say for the information of the noble Duke that among these appropriate measures the Government do not include the Douglas Social Credit Scheme. I shall not attempt this afternoon either to analyse the ambiguities and fallacies of the scheme or the propositions which the noble Duke himself has put forward except to say this, that in the opinion of practical economists and experienced administrators the Social Credit Scheme is theoretically unsound and manifestly impracticable. Some of them even have described it to me in language much more robust than that which one would naturally expect in those quarters. In other words, His Majesty's Government fully endorse the view that the productive capacity of the world should be used for the betterment of the standard of living of all peoples and should not be allowed to remain idle by reason of deflation. This is what an expansionist policy means, and it is to an expansionist policy in this sense that the Government are fully committed.
I said just now that I did not suppose my statement of the Government's position in relation to the questions raised by the noble Duke this afternoon would meet with his approval. He has made it abundantly clear that although perhaps he shares the same ultimate goal as do the Government and all of us in this House—namely, victory, and after victory, justice and peace for the world—there exists a wide measure of divergence in our respective methods of approach. The noble Duke seems to advocate a constant revision of policy as the war proceeds to suit events as they occur, a method of approach, as I see it, altogether alien to, and inconsistent with, the spirit of the Atlantic Charter. The noble Duke's conception that the Government are proceeding without a plan is so erroneous as to be almost laughable. If he had studied the speeches made in another place a few days ago to which I have already referred, he would know that his fears in that respect are absolutely groundless. The Government have planned their advance towards this common goal upon certain cardinal principles—principles which are proclaimed in the articles of the Atlantic Charter, principles which are unexceptionable and to which all men of good sense and good will can but sub-
1148
scribe. I do not understand what the noble Duke means when he suggests that it is a pity there is no common purpose shared by the great Powers among the United Nations. They are there plain to see. They are there for all to read. They are contained in the articles of the Atlantic Charter—originally a bilateral agreement but to which since its signature many other States have given their support.
It is manifest that the practical application of the maxims which sustain the policy of the United Nations will demand from them courage to face facts, determination to surmount obstacles and wisdom to adjust selfish interests where those interests conflict with the common good of the world at large. In the postwar world, if we are to remove the causes of war and rid mankind of fear and want, there will be even less room for unconstructive idealism and irrational sophistry than there was in the turbulent period which followed so soon, so tragically soon, after the last war. For if we of this generation fail from lack of realism and political sagacity yet again to profit from the fruit of bitter experience, what hope is there that civilization can progress or even survive?
I have heard the noble Duke confess himself an idealist and crank in the eyes of those who do not agree with him. I must say I found his appeal to realism and to a determination to face facts at the end of his speech a little incongruous after all he had said before. But to this extent I do agree with him. If we can but contrive to fashion the future in the spirit of the Atlantic Charter, founded as it is upon the true precepts of justice and brotherly love, then at least we can look forward to the day when, in the words of the Prophet, "They shall beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."

WISBECH CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
The Acting Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn.
The Order made on the 8th of February last discharged, and the Bill committed.
House adjourned.