Sitting of 11 October 1944

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

  BULGARIAN TROOPS (YUGOSLAVIA AND GREECE)
  Captain Duncanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Bulgarian troops have now left Yugoslavia and Greece.
  The Minister of State (Mr. Richard Law): No, Sir. Although the Bulgarian Government profess their readiness to withdraw completely from Yugoslavia and Greece and to hand over the administration to the local authorities, this withdrawal in practice has been limited and Bulgarian troops still remain on Allied territory.
  Captain Duncan: Is not that very unsatisfactory in view of what may be necessary for the peace terms, and will my right hon. Friend state when the Armistice terms will be carried into effect?
  Mr. Law: Yes, Sir, it is extremely unsatisfactory. The Bulgarian Government can be in no doubt about the attitude of His Majesty's Government, for we have repeatedly declared that they will have to evacuate the territories they have filched and robbed from Allied nations. With regard to the Armistice terms, discussions on that matter are still in progress.
  Mr. Riley: Is pressure now being applied on the Bulgarians to carry out the withdrawal of their troops in the territories referred to?
  Mr. Law: Yes, Sir, I think everything possible is being done, and as I have said,
  1720
  there is no doubt whatever about the attitude of His Majesty's Government in the matter.
  Mr. Ivor Thomas: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether this unsatisfactory position has arisen through bad faith on the part of the Bulgarian Government, or inability to control their troops?
  Mr. Law: I do not think I can give a reply to that question offhand.

  PORTUGAL (NAZI WAR CRIMINALS)
  Mr. Alexander Walkdenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received satisfactory guarantees from the Portuguese Government that it will forbid asylum to any Fascist or Nazi war criminals whom the Allies desire to bring to judgment.
  Mr. Law: Yes, Sir. The Portuguese Government have informed His Majesty's Government that it will not, by granting asylum in its territory, permit war criminals to escape the decisions of the national or international tribunals competent to try them.

  PRISONERS OF WAR AND CIVILIAN INTERNEES, FAR EAST
  Mr. Keelingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any arrangements are being made for prisoners of war and civilians in Japanese hands to receive and send telegrams.
  Sir Douglas Hackingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether arrangements can be made to enable our prisoners of war in the Far East to send telegrams to their next-of-kin in this country.
  Flight-Lieutenant Teelingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received official information of the conclusion of an agreement between the United States Government and that of Japan, whereby telegrams may be sent home by American prisoners-of-war in Japanese hands and payment made by the United States Government, this to be effective in one month's time; and whether he envisages concluding a similar arrangement for our own prisoners in Japanese hands.
  Mr. Law: An offer to allow prisoners of war and interned civilians to send cables home has been received from the Japanese Government through the International Red Cross Committee and has been accepted. The effect of this will be that all British prisoners of war and civilian internees in Japanese hands will be allowed to send one ten word cablegram exclusive of address and signature to their next-of-kin. This service will be free of charge to the senders and their next-of-kin, the cost being met in the case of prisoners of war and internees from the United Kingdom by the British Red Cross War Organisation. The cablegrams will be routed from Japan through Geneva.
  We hope that this service will be started at once, but I feel bound to strike a note of caution. Having accepted the proposal we look to the Japanese Government to carry it out. As the large majority of our prisoners of war are not in Japan itself but in the Japanese occupied territories in the South everything depends on the messages being forwarded as rapidly as possible from that area to Japan. The Japanese authorities have undertaken to forward them wherever possible by air mail, and the success of the whole scheme will depend upon their willingness to implement this undertaking.
  It is also proposed to allow next-of-kin to send a similar message to the prisoner of war or interned civilian. The details of this part of the scheme have still to be worked out but an announcement will be made in due course. This is less urgent since many relatives have so far had little or no information from the Far East and it is, therefore, more important that they should receive news from the prisoner of war or internee than the other way round.
  Mr. Keeling: Has my right hon. Friend every reason to believe and hope that this system will be put into force for British prisoners as early as it will be for American prisoners?
  Mr. Law: Yes, Sir, there is no reason to suppose we shall be at any disadvantage.
  Sir D. Hacking: Has this system worked well between Japan and the other countries? I understand it has been in operation for Australia for some time.
  Mr. Law: I am not sure whether that is so. I am afraid I shall have to have notice of that question.
  Mr. Sorensen: When were the negotiations for this magnificent scheme begun and completed?
  Mr. Law: I am afraid I cannot give a precise answer, but they have been going on for some time.
  Colonel Sir Arthur Evans: Have His Majesty's Government a complete list of prisoners of war and civilian internees held by the Japanese Government?
  Mr. Law: I shall require notice of that question.
  Mr. Petherick: Is it envisaged that those concerned will be allowed to send only one telegram? Does the agreement take into account the possibility of sending telegrams in the future, say once a month?
  Mr. Law: No, Sir, I do not think the agreement envisages telegrams once a month. I think the important thing is to get the first telegrams off and received, and then we may hope that the service may be continued, but I would not like to hold out any hopes that it would be anything like as frequent as my hon. Friend suggests.

  FRANCE

    Civil Administration
    Mr. Cocksasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has yet received a request for full recognition from the Provisional Government of France and for its representation on certain Allied commissions; and whether he can make a statement on the matter.
    Mr. Law: Although the French Administration has never put forward any official request in writing to His Majesty's Government for recognition as Provisional Government, yet both in official and unofficial conversations it has been made clear to the British representative in Paris that the French hope and expect that recognition will be accorded at the earliest opportunity. As regards representation on Allied commissions, my hon. Friend will have seen from my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, Central, yesterday that the question of French

    1723
    membership of the European Advisory Commission is under consideration.
    Mr. Cocks: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government are waiting until the election of the Assembly on 7th November before taking a definite decision on recognition?
    Mr. Law: I think the position of the Government was quite clearly outlined by the Prime Minister in his speech to the House a week or two ago. I have nothing to add to that.
    Mr. Lipson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the serious effect this may have on the future if there is any undue delay in the matter?
    Mr. Law: I am sure that I am aware of all the factors involved.

    British Ambassador
    Mr. Boothbyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the right hon. Member for the St. George's Division (Mr. Duff Cooper) has now taken up the appointment of His Majesty's Ambassador Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to the French Republic in Paris; and whether General de Gaulle's administration has yet asked for formal recognition as the Provisional Government of France.
    Mr. Law: My right hon. Friend the Member for St. George's assumed charge of His Majesty's Embassy at Paris on 13th September. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rochester (Captain Plugge) was informed on 5th July, my right hon. Friend holds the personal rank of Ambassador. He has not yet presented credentials as His Majesty's Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary. As regards the last part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to-day to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks).
    Mr. Boothby: Is not the reply of my right hon. Friend an indication that the present situation generally is most unsatisfactory, and cannot be allowed to continue as it is? Would it not be better to clear it up by appointing the right hon. Member officially, and recognising the French Government at the earliest opportunity?
    Mr. Law: I think my hon. Friend is clearly entitled to make such deductions
    1724
    as he pleases from my reply. I think the reply is clear.
    Sir Herbert Williams: Who has been appointed chargé d'affaires for the interests of the people of St. George's?

  POLAND

    General Bor (Capture)
    Captain Duncanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any official information as to the German claim to have captured General Bor in Warsaw.
    Mr. Law: The Polish Government have authorised me to say that on the morning of 4th October they received a message from Warsaw, in which General Bor stated that, as all ways of escape were now closed, he and his staff would have to surrender at midday. There is therefore no reason whatever to doubt that the German claim to have captured General Bor is correct.
    Captain Duncan: Does that not vitiate the accuracy of the information put out by the Lublin Committee, which stated, time and again, that General Bor had never been in Warsaw, and will he convey that information to the Ministry of Information so they may decrease the amount of publicity given to the Lublin Committee's report?
    Mr. Law: I have no doubt my right hon. Friend the Minister of Information will see the reply to this Question, and my hon. and gallant Friend's supplementary question.

    Children (London Food Parcels)
    Mr. R. C. Morrisonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the sending of food parcels from London schoolchildren to individual children in Poland has been stopped; and whether arrangements are being made to resume this service.
    Mr. Law: I understand that the despatch of food parcels to children in Poland had, unfortunately, to be suspended owing to transport difficulties. The resumption of the parcel service to liberated areas is a matter for arrangement in consultation with the Soviet authorities, and, while I am informed that this has not yet been arranged, hon. Members will no doubt have seen Press

    1725
    reports of the distribution of relief in liberated Poland by the Soviet authorities. I cannot say whether the difficulties in the way of the resumption of the despatch of parcels to those parts of Poland still under enemy occupation can be overcome, but the whole question is at present under consideration.

    FORMER ITALIAN COLONIES (FUTURE ADMINISTRATION)
    Mr. Hyndasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the demonstrations which took place in the ex-Italian colony of Eritrea in January and February of this year, in favour of reunion of this territory with Ethiopia; and whether, in fulfilment of the promises made in R.A.F. leaflets dropped in Eritrea, the Government will now declare its intention that the principles of the Atlantic Charter shall govern any decisions concerning the future administration of these African territories now liberated from Italian rule, and the occupants given full and free opportunity of indicating their desires in this connection.
    Mr. Law: I am aware that interest of the kind indicated by the hon. Member has been evinced in certain quarters in Eritrea. As regards the second part of the Question, the future of Eritrea must await consideration by the United Nations, at the conclusion of peace.
    Mr. Astor: Has not the Foreign Secretary said that in no circumstances is Italy going to get her colonies back; and would there not be widespread opposition to the re-establishment of Italy on our communications through the Red Sea?
    Mr. Law: Certainly, the Foreign Secretary said that in the hearing of most of us in this House.
    Mr. Hynd: Has not the right hon. Gentleman misread the second part of my Question, which asks not whether the United Nations shall come to any ex parte decision, but whether the principles of the Atlantic Charter shall be applied to these territories?
    Mr. Law: No, Sir, I did not misread the. Question; I would point out that we are not the sole signatories of the Atlantic Charter. The United Nations as a whole are signatories. It is a matter for the
    1726
    United Nations as a whole, and not for us alone.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the union of Eritrea and Abyssinia has not existed since the shadowy days of the 16th century; and will he do his best to save the Emperor of Ethiopia from his friends in this country?

    RUMANIA (OIL AND REFINERY COMPANIES)
    Captain Gammansasked the Secreof State for Foreign Affairs if any representatives of British oil companies in Rumania have yet returned to that country; and, if not, under whose auspices these oil and refinery companies are at present being operated.
    Mr. Law: No representatives of British oil companies have yet returned to Rumania. So far as I am aware, the oil and refinery companies are at present being operated under the existing Rumanian administration, in co-operation with the Allied Control Commission.
    Captain Gammans: Can my right hon. Friend say when the British representatives are likely to return?
    Mr. Law: I am afraid I cannot give any precise indication. Rumania is a zone of active military operations, and until the position there is cleared up it will not be possible for the companies to send any representatives.

    GERMANY (TRANSFER OF POPULATION)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any definite decisions have been reached regarding the compulsory transfer of Germans from East Prussia, Danzig, Silesia and Sudetenland to the German Reich; how many are estimated to be involved in such a transfer, particularly from Sudetenland; whether this will apply to Sudetenland German Social-Democrats and other anti-Nazis; and what method it is proposed to adopt in any discrimination between working-class families to be transferred and those not to be transferred.
    Mr. Law: I am not at present in a position to make any statement on this subject, which is not one that His Majesty's

    1727
    Government can decide unilaterally, since it concerns many of the United Nations:
    Mr. Sorensen: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that it would be an outrage to transfer Sudeten Social-Democrats to Germany in any circumstances? Is any attempt being made to define the political affiliations of these people?
    Mr. Law: I certainly appreciate the considerations in the hon. Gentleman's mind. When I say that I am not in a position to make a statement, that really means that I cannot make a statement.
    Mr. Sorensen: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that these very determined anti-Fascist German Social-Democrats shall not be transferred?
    Mr. G. Strauss: In view of the importance of this matter, and the serious effect that the transfer of these vast populations would have on the settlement of Europe, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that no decision will be taken in this matter without consulting the House?
    Mr. Law: Of course the Government will consult the House as far as it is possible to do so, but in many of these matters it is essential to act quickly.

    BOMB-DAMAGE REPAIR (LONDON)
    Mr. Walter Edwardsasked the Secretary of State for Air the number of R.A.F. personnel used to assist in the repair of bomb-damaged houses in the London region since the introduction of the fly-bomb.
    The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): Since July last, when the R.A.F. were asked to help, some 2,000 airmen have been continuously engaged on bomb-damage repairs in the London area.
    Mr. Edwards: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of the great damage to house property in London and the shortage of labour, the figure he has given is very small indeed, and that it should be greatly increased to meet the difficult situation which will exist this winter?
    Sir A. Sinclair: The considerations to which the hon. Members refers in the first
    1728
    part of his Question are not those for which I am directly responsible. I am directly responsible to this House for the efficiency of the Royal Air Force and the vigorous conduct of its operations against the enemy. Subject to those considerations, I am most anxious to help those who have suffered from bomb damage.
    Mr. Astorasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works whether he will consider using prisoner of war labour to do unskilled work in clearing bomb damaged sites and houses in London so that the time of skilled building labour should not be wasted in demolition and clearance work.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Hicks): Italian co-operators have already been employed under the Ministry of Home Security on clearance of bomb-damaged sites in London. The extent to which further use can be made of this labour for this work depends on the availability of accommodation in or near London. Skilled building labour is not used on demolition and clearance work, which in London is carried out by the special organisation known as the War Debris Survey under the Ministry of Home Security.
    Mr. Astor: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise the importance of getting on with this job urgently and of not allowing himself to be deflected by any local prejudice on these matters?
    Mr. Hicks: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Stephen: Will the Minister state of what Co-operative Society these Italians are members, and, if they are not members of a Co-operative Society, will he use some other word than "cooperators" to describe them?
    Mr. Hicks: I dare not mention Camlachie.
    Mr. G. Strauss: May I ask my hon. Friend whether he would suggest that Italian co-operators would work with a better heart if the insults to them made in the Press were to cease?
    Mr. Thorne: Is there an interpreter where these men are working?
    Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Has any attempt been made to discover the experience or knowledge of these Italians, who seem to be keen on repairing bomb-damaged

    1729
    houses? Has any attempt been made to find out whether they are craftsmen or not, and whether they are using this as an opportunity for doing work which they should not be doing at all?
    Mr. Hicks: The clearance of debris in the London area is a matter for the Ministry of Home Security and not for my Department. As to whether the men are capable of repairing and building, inquiries have been made; corps have been formed, and, in some areas, they have built their own camps.
    Sir H. Williamsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works whether his attention had been drawn to the fact that the present excessive hours being worked by the men engaged on the repairs to bombed houses are causing undue fatigue, with the result that the amount of work being accomplished is less than would be the case if they were working substantially shorter hours; and will he take steps to bring about a change.
    Mr. Hicks: I am aware that there is some divergence of view with regard to the hours at present being worked on the repair of bombed houses in London, but the Government, after reviewing all the factors of this very urgent situation, decided to maintain until 8th October a 62hour week. As the hours of daylight become shorter, the hours worked are being progressively reduced to 51½ hours per week in mid-winter.
    Sir H. Williams: Is the Minister aware that everybody engaged in the direction of this labour thinks the hours have been excessive, which fatigues the men and is causing general dissatisfaction?
    Mr. Hicks: I do not think my hon. Friend can chide me for not advocating a shorter working week. It is the urgency of the situation that has compelled the Government to order longer working hours.
    Sir H. Williams: What is the use of saying that when the longer hours produce less output?
    Mr. Hicks: I cannot agree with that.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Daily Newspapers
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that the commanding officer of a R.A.F. station, of the identity of which he has been informed, recently forbade a local newsagent to supply "The Times" newspaper or the "Daily Worker" to R.A.F. personnel, and that it was only after some delay that "The Times" was again provided in the N.A.A.F.I. reading-room and the messes; if the "Daily Worker" is now once more delivered at this R.A.F. station to such airmen as desire to purchase it; and if he will state the reasons for this discrimination against these two papers.
    Sir A. Sinclair: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to this case. The action taken by the commanding officer was unauthorised, and steps have been taken to ensure that both the newspapers referred to are freely available for purchase at the station in question.
    Sir H. Williams: Was the action of the officer influenced by my description of "The Times" as a threepenny edition of the "Daily Worker"?

    Publication, "Target"
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for Air if he will remove the restrictive notice from the cover of "Target," the R.A.F. review of current affairs and topics, in view of the fact that its contents are censored before publication and include nothing of a secret nature, and of the recent removal of the similar restrictive notice from the cover of the A.B.C.A. bulletin.
    Sir A. Sinclair: I have recently reviewed this question, and have decided that this restriction can now be removed.

    Education Officers
    Mr. Tinkerasked the Secretary of State for Air the position of those who have been seconded to the R.A.F. as education officers as regards gratuity and demobilisation.
    Sir A. Sinclair: The majority of the teachers who have been seconded by local authorities to the Royal Air Force educational service are employed and paid as civilians, although they have been granted commissions. A minority, who are not

    1731
    employed on educational work, are mobilised, and will be treated in regard to gratuity and release in exactly the same way as other officers in the Royal Air Force.

    Personnel (Army Postings)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that on or about 11th August his Department issued a letter advising R.A.F. personnel who were being discharged for compulsory enlistment into the Army, that they would be given an opportunity of expressing any preference they might have regarding the regiment or corps that they wished to serve in; that in most cases no such opportunity was given, with the result that much disappointment and resentment were caused; and why this promise was given.
    Sir A. Sinclair: The letter to which the hon. Member refers was issued to airmen on deferred service. Those who were not specially suitable for any trade were given the opportunity of expressing a preference for particular regiments or corps, but they in common with the others, had been told that it might not be practicable to meet their wishes. A minority with special qualifications were posted to Army units where qualified men were urgently required. They were not given the opportunity to express a preference because it would clearly not have been practicable to give effect to it. I regret if this was not made clear to them at the time, but to have posted them to other units would have been wasteful of their skill.
    Mr. Driberg: While thanking my right hon. Friend for the unprecedented phenomenon of three comparatively satisfactory replies running, may I ask him if it is not rather unfortunate that some, at any rate, of these men were, so to speak, led up the garden in this way?
    Sir A. Sinclair: I have expressed regret if there was a misunderstanding about the communication to these men but the word "practicable" was intended to be interpreted in the way I have said.
    Mr. Driberg: Should there not have been more thorough consultations with the War Office before that letter was drafted?
    Sir A. Sinclair: I can assure my hon. Friend that there was consultation.

  CIVIL AVIATION

    Empire Conference
    Mr. Montagueasked the Secretary of State for Air (1) whether the British officials attending the preliminary parleys at Montreal, on 24th October, in advance of the Washington Conference on civil aviation, will have authority to press for any definite attitude on the proposals of Australia and New Zealand for the control and operation of international air trunk routes by an international authority or, failing common agreement on this, the establishment of an Empire air board; what is that attitude; and will Parliament be given an opportunity of discussing British policy before the all-in conference meets;
    (2) whether he has given consideration to the desirability of setting up a civil aeronautics board to have authority over Empire air lines, similar to the authority existing in the U.S.A. under the Act of 1938, and with similar powers; and whether he will instruct the British delegation attending the Washington Conference that support shall be given to this or any approximately similar project.
    Sir A. Sinclair: Discussions between officials at Montreal will be concerned with operational and technical questions connected with the establishment of air routes between British Commonwealth countries. The hon. Member can, I think, be assured that no proposal will be ruled out from discussion which is likely to facilitate inter-Commonwealth co-operation in this important field. Questions of international organisation are for the ensuing International Conference, and, in this connection, I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my Noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal in another place on 10th May last. The last part of Question No. 23 should be addressed to the Leader of the House.
    Mr. Montague: Are we to be governed in future, in all matters relating to civil aviation, from another place? Does the Secretary of State realise that he has not answered my question as to how this House is to have any mandating of policy on civil aviation before the Conference meets?
    Sir A. Sinclair: Of course we are not governed by the proceedings in another place; but it sometimes happens that it is

    1733
    convenient for a Minister, in reply to a Debate there, to make a statement of policy on behalf of the Government. As regards the latter part of the supplementary question, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are most anxious to associate this House with them in their deliberations on questions of policy; but the time is not a matter for me, but for the Leader of the House, and perhaps my hon. Friend will address his question to him.
    Mr. Montague: May I suggest that it is a matter for the House of Commons, and is the House of Commons to have no opportunity whatever, previous to the Conference on 1st November, of deciding matters of vital interest to civil aviation?
    Sir A. Sinclair: I agree that it is a matter for the House of Commons, and that is why I suggested to my hon. Friend that he should address his question to the Leader of the House.
    Sir Oliver Simmonds: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that our delegates to Montreal will not go tarred with the brush of State monopoly, but, instead will breathe the fresh and virile air of private enterprise?
    Sir A. Sinclair: They will breathe the fresh and virile air of Montreal in these commercial discussions.
    Mr. Bowles: Can my right hon. Friend give the names of our delegates, and can he tell us what was meant by the Lord Privy Seal's expression, on 10th May, "economic competition"?
    Sir A. Sinclair: I cannot give the names of the officials at the moment, and I am not quite sure if it would be in Order for me to interpret here and now a phrase in a speech made in another place.
    Mr. Molson: Is it not the case that there have been no fewer than four Debates on civil aviation in this House, in two of which the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) gave the Government bad advice?
    Mr. Montague: The bad advice was monopolised by speakers from that side of the House.
    Mrs. Tateasked the Secretary of State for Air (1) whether those who represent His Majesty's Government at the
    1734
    forthcoming Imperial Conference on Civil Aviation are to expound the policy of B.O.A.C. or whether they will have the duty of expounding the British Government's policy with regard to civil aviation;
    (2) why the Imperial Conference on Civil Aviation has been convened in such haste; and whether the British delegates are to be sent to attend this conference before there has been any previously declared Government policy in respect of civil aviation.
    Sir A. Sinclair: The arrangements for the forthcoming Commonwealth conversations between officials, have been made not with haste but with deliberation, as a result of consultations between the Governments concerned over a considerable period of time. Our object will be to attain the gratest possible measure of co-operation in the establishment of air routes between Commonwealth countries. Our representatives will, of course, act on the instructions of His Majesty's Government and the recommendations of the officials will be referred to the Governments for approval.
    Mrs. Tate: Will this House have an opportunity of knowing what is the policy of the Government with regard to civil aviation, before our delegates are sent to attend the Conference?
    Sir A. Sinclair: No. They are going, as I have said before, to discuss questions that are of an operational and of a technical character. The recommendations of this Conference will have no effect until they have been approved by the Governments concerned, and I think that will be the time when it will be proper to have a discussion.
    Mr. Bowles: May I ask the Minister whether, supposing agreement is reached at Montreal on the 23rd of this month, it will mean that the Imperial country or Government represented at Indiana on 1st November will go with that policy, and try to push it across the Conference as an agreed policy?
    Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sir. I think that is a great misunderstanding of the objects of the Commonwealth Conference, which is a meeting of the family of the Commonwealth of Nations to discuss questions of an operational and technical character, which are important to the

    1735
    services between the Commonwealth countries. The International Conference will discuss the broader issues of international air lines throughout the world.
    Mr. Montague: Are we to have a Parliamentary Secretary in this House?
    Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the Government.
    Mrs. Tate: I beg to give notice that, owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Minister for Civil Aviation
    Sir O. Simmondsasked the Prime Minister (1) the duties and responsibilities of the Minister for Civil Aviation;
    (2) whether the Minister for Civil Aviation will control a Department of Civil Aviation wholly independent of other Ministries.
    Sir Frank Sandersonasked the Prime Minister (1) whether it is proposed to appoint an Under-Secretary to assist the Minister for Civil Aviation; and to whom questions concerning civil aviation should be addressed in this House;
    (2) whether he can define the precise functions of the Minister for Civil Aviation; whether it is proposed at this stage that he should take charge of the Ministry; and whether the Department of the Director-General of Civil Aviation at the Air Ministry is to be transferred to him.
    Mr. Attlee: As already announced, the executive day-to-day control of civil aviation is vested by Act of Parliament in the Secretary of State for Air, and no change can be made without legislation. My noble Friend Lord Swinton will be the Minister of Cabinet rank responsible for civil aviation planning at home and abroad. The detailed arrangements to enable my Noble Friend to discharge these responsibilities cannot be settled until he has returned to this country, and has had an opportunity to survey the position himself. I would prefer to make a statement at a later date dealing with the various points raised in these Questions.
    Sir O. Simmonds: Could my right hon. Friend assure the House that this com-
    1736
    promise, which fails to meet the almost unanimous views of the House as to the future organisation of civil aviation, will be of a temporary nature and certainly will not extend far beyond the European war?
    Mr. Attlee: I am afraid I cannot accept my hon. Friend's premise.
    Mr. Bowles: Will the right hon. Gentleman hand to the Minister when he returns a copy of the Labour Party's policy "Wings of Peace"?
    Mr. Attlee: I hope my hon. Friend will send him one.
    Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate, in view of what has been said on the other side, that some of us are rather anxious that civil aviation should be brought into line with the Government policy on transport?
    Mr. Attlee: Yes, Sir, I am quite aware of that. I thought my hon. Friend behind me over-estimated the degree to which he was expressing the unanimous opinion of the House.

  HOUSING

    Portal Bungalow
    Captain Gammansasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works if he will give a detailed specification of the Portal bungalow and a detailed estimate of costs.
    Mr. Hicks: I have arranged to put in the Library a copy of the specification which has been produced for the information of local authorities. The cost of these bungalows is clearly the cost of the total of the many component items. It can only be determined when the firms have had experience of the mass production of the many parts. The prices will be fixed when an investigation has been completed. In the view of my Noble Friend it is not advisable or good business to announce at this stage the Ministry of Works estimate of what these costs should be.
    Major Woolley: Will the Parliamentary Secretary see that similar information in respect of the three other temporary houses will be made available to hon. Members?
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Will my hon. Friend also cause to be placed in the Library plans and drawings of the latest type of Portal bungalow so that hon. Members could be informed, pictorially, of what is taking place?
    Mr. Hicks: Yes, I think I can agree to that.
    Mr. Gallacher: Are not the Scottish firms qualifying for setting up for the manufacture of these houses?

    Experimental Houses, Northolt
    Captain Gammansasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works if he will supply detailed specifications and estimates of costs of the experimental houses erected at Northolt.

    Comparative Cost, etc., of Experimental and Demonstration Houses at Northolt.

    —

    Brick House Type 'C' (with bay window)

    No fines concrete

    Foamed slag concrete

    Steel framed clothed with brick (with bay window)

    House planned as pair of flats

    Broad fronted house

    Dudley Urban

    Dudley Rural

    Terrace partial gas type

    Flatted dwellings (per flat)

    Area

    862 f.s.

    850 f.s.

    850 f.s.

    862 f.s.

    900 f.s. plus outbuilding

    850 f.s.

    900 f.s. plus outbuilding

    900 f.s. plus outbuilding

    864 f.s. average

    900 f.s. average

    Total

    £759 Increase on pre - war 64 per cent.

    £770

    £760

    £780

    £920

    £740

    £830

    £850

    £750

    £730

    Cost per ft. super

    (17/7)

    (18/1)

    (17/10)

    (18/1)

    (19/-)

    (17/5)

    (17/-)

    (16/5)

    (17/4)

    (16/3)

    Including overtime and Sunday work, travelling time and expenses and Subsistence paid by Ministry of Labour.

    Total

    £815 Increase on pre - war 77 per cent.

    £825

    £815

    £835

    £995

    £790

    £890

    £910

    £800

    £755

    Cost per ft. super

    (18/11)

    (19/5)

    (19/2)

    (19/5)

    (20/7)

    (18/7)

    (18/3)

    (17/7)

    (18/6)

    (16/9)

    Manhours

    2,050

    2,190

    2,175

    2,080

    2,760

    2,030

    2,425

    2,470

    1,935

    900

    NOTE.—Costs are estimated immediate post-war costs (exclusive of overheads and profit) based on actual labour and material costs on individual pairs of houses at Northolt adjusted as necessary for contracts of 500 houses. Labour is included at London rates of wages (craftsmen 2s. 1½d., labourers 1s. 8d.).

    Kitchen Units (Production)
    Mr. Craven-Ellisasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works whether, in connection with his announced production of kitchen units, equal facilities in regard to price and the release of raw materials will be available to private industry which may be producing superior designs to meet the same purpose.
    Mr. Hicks: It is the intention of my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Supply,
    Mr. Hicks: Specifications are being prepared for the information of local authorities and I will arrange for copies to be placed in the Library. With regard to estimates of costs, as there are a considerable number of figures involved I am circulating a statement with the
    OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Craven-Ellis: Will my hon. Friend also see that private enterprise receives these details as well as this House?
    Mr. Higgs: May I ask the Minister what rent is likely to be charged for these bungalows?
    Mr. Hicks: That is definitely a matter for the Minister of Health and the local authorities.
    Following is the statement:
    who is acting as agent for my noble Friend in regard to the supply of the standardised kitchen unit, to draw on all suitable industrial resources for their production, for which the necessary materials wil be made available.
    Mr. Shinwell: Has my hon. Friend abandoned the policy of centralisation of purchase of these materials; and can he give any estimate, now or in the OFFICIAL REPORT, of what is the difference in cost between purchasing centrally, and allowing purchasing to be made piecemeal?
    Mr. Hicks: As my hon. Friend is aware from the reply to previous Questions, it is not considered desirable or good business to publish our estimates of the cost now, and, as I said in the Debate in August, we are still negotiating with the firms who manufactured them, with a view to reducing the price. Consequently, it is not possible for me to give a fixed price now, either of central purchase or otherwise.

  ROYAL NAVY

    Expenses Claims
    Mr. Petherickasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will institute an inquiry into the present system of naval expenses claims, under which not only do long delays occur in settlement but all claims are cut without the claimant being informed of the reason or having any right of appeal.
    The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander): As the reply is rather long I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    All claims for naval expenses which can be settled by the local naval authorities are paid by them. Only those not clearly covered by Regulations are referred to headquarters. These necessarily take longer to settle. The problem has been aggravated by shortage of experienced staff and a recent removal of the Department concerned. Further inquiries are sometimes necessary and may be prolonged owing to ships' movements. A reasonable sum will always be advanced, pending final settlement, to prevent hardship. I cannot agree that all claims are reduced and that claimants are not informed of the reasons when reductions are made. In a large majority of cases explanations are volunteered, and in all cases can be obtained on request. An appeal that the regulations are operating harshly will always receive consideration. All practicable steps to avoid delay in the settlement of claims are being taken, and I do not consider that there is necessity for a special inquiry.

    Royton (Warship Adoption)
    Mr. Sutcliffeasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if his attention has been
    1740
    called to the financial adoption by Royton in Warships Week of the sloop "Sparrow"; whether this ship was in existence at that date or has since been constructed; and if he can make a statement on the subject.
    Mr. Alexander: When the Warship Weeks adoption scheme was introduced, in order to meet all the requests from local authorities, it was necessary to include in the scheme not only completed ships but also those under construction or in the new building programme but not yet laid down. At the time of her adoption by Royton and district H.M.S. "Sparrow" was in the third category. Since then developments in the war situation have caused changes in priority which have very much delayed the completion of H.M.S. "Sparrow," and I am afraid that it will still be some considerable time before she is ready to sail the seas. I appreciate the disappointment which this long delay has caused to the people who so generously adopted this ship, and have therefore offered them a frigate in her place which has already seen active service. I understand from a letter of 5th September from the town clerk that the council have accepted this offer. I hope that the link between this vessel and the people of Royton will be close and friendly.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: Is the First Lord of the Admiralty aware that, as a result of the hope expressed in a letter of July, 1942, by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, that a lasting association might be formed between the townspeople and the ship, school children have been writing continuously ever since and no notification whatever was given by the Admiralty for two years, until in July of this year the council made inquiries; and should not some notification have been given previously?
    Mr. Alexander: I certainly think it was unfortunate that a confidential notice was not sent earlier that the ship had not been proceeded with so rapidly.
    Sir H. Williams: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that even a worse fate has befallen H.M.S. "Firework"?
    Mr. Alexander: Certainly not, Sir.

    Accident (Portland)
    Mr. Loganasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if his attention has been

    1741
    directed to the inquest held last week on four naval ratings at Portland; was there a test made before they entered the tanks; why were there no respirators issued to these men; and is it the intention of his Department to compensate the parents of Ordinary Seaman Peter Trainor, aged 20, of 70, Flinders Street, Liverpool, for the loss of their son.
    Mr. Alexander: An inquiry into this regrettable accident has been held by the naval authorities, but the report has not yet reached the Admiralty. I will communicate with my hon. Friend when I have fuller information. Any claims for pensions in respect of these casualties will fall to be considered in the normal way by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions under the Naval War Pensions Regulations. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my sympathy with the relatives of the deceased ratings.
    Mr. Logan: Although I am not directly concerned with the other ratings involved, I have great sympathy with their relatives. I want to know particularly however about the expenses of the funeral and the arrangements for the family of Peter Trainor, whose death was due to an accident, not brought about by the lad himself but by the neglect of someone else.
    Mr. Alexander: I would like to await the examination of the report of the board of inquiry, but I shall be very glad to discuss details with my hon. Friend, to see if it is possible to arrange anything. I would not like to commit myself to a public statement, until I have seen the details.
    Mr. Logan: If I put down another Question next week, will the First Lord be able to give me an answer?
    Mr. Alexander: I am prepared to see my hon. Friend to-day, if he chooses.
    Mr. Walter Edwards: If the facts are as stated in the Question, it seems that the boy's death was caused through negligence; and if such is the case, will the right hon. Gentleman see that the Admiralty pay compensation, and do not leave it to the Ministry of Pensions, otherwise the father of the lad will be subject to a means test to see whether he is to receive a pension or not?
    Mr. Alexander: I am sure that my hon. Friend will allow me to examine the report of the board of inquiry when it comes up after previous examination by the experts. I would not like to make any statement at the moment.
    Mr. Logan: Can I put down another Question?
    Mr. Alexander: I have already said that I will see my hon. Friend.

  KENYA

    Soil Conservation Service
    Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether improvements in the pay and conditions and terms of service of trained Africans in the Soil Conservation Service in Kenya can now be made.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Colonel Oliver Stanley): The question whether the present terms of service provide adequate remuneration for this staff is under consideration by the Kenya Government, and it is hoped that a decision will be reached shortly.
    Mr. Creech Jones: May I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman whether he will hurry these discussions, which have been going on for such a long time?
    Colonel Stanley: I have asked for a further report.

    Land (European Settlement)
    The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Earl WINTERTON:
    39. To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Wood-Winterton Agreement in regard to the demarcation of land is still in operation in Kenya; and what is the estimated area of land suitable for European settlement in the highlands which is still unoccupied.
    Earl Winterton: In view of the large number of Questions on the Paper still to be answered and the fact that we have only reached Question 39, I ask that the answer to my Question may be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. [Interruption.] I do not suppose I shall get any credit for setting that example.
    Colonel Stanley: I hope that the result will be satisfactory.

  UGANDA

    Mulago Hospital (Grant)
    Colonel Lyonsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the serious overcrowding of patients at the Mulago Hospital in Uganda; and what steps are proposed by way of immediate remedy.
    Colonel Stanley: Yes, Sir. A free grant of £477,500 has been made under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act for the construction of a new hospital of 1,100 beds. The Governor proposes to increase the present accommodation to 700 beds in temporary buildings while the new hospital is under construction.
    Colonel Lyons: May I ask my right hon. and gallant Friend whether he has given instructions for this matter to be pressed on with all possible speed?
    Colonel Stanley: I do not need to give instructions. The Governor himself is perfectly aware of the necessity for expedition.

    Government Offices (Transfer)
    Colonel Lyonsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what requests he has received for the gradual transference over a period of years of Government offices from Entebbe to Kampala on the grounds of public convenience and economy; whether such recommendations have been endorsed by the Governor; and whether he will give this matter favourable consideration when examining the Colony's programme and plans for postwar development.
    Colonel Stanley: The transfer of the Government offices to Kampala has been suggested by non-official bodies, but no official proposal has yet been received from the Governor, though I am aware that it has been engaging his attention. It is stated in the Uganda report on Post-War Development, which I recently placed in the Library, that the provision of new central offices might well find a place in a loan programme to be drawn up after the war.

  AFRICAN COLONIES

    Government Railways (Air and Road Transport)
    Colonel Lyonsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the
    1744
    various Government railways in the African Colonies are co-operating financially and otherwise with local airway developments and with road transport and bus companies as is now being done elsewhere; and if not, will he urge them to do so as soon as possible to avoid future complications.
    Colonel Stanley: None of the Government railways in the African territories for which the Colonial Office is responsible, at present participate financially in local airway development, although some Government railways operate road transport service. I entirely agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that the closest co-ordination of all transport activities is desirable. I know that the Colonial Governments share that view, but I will again bring the point to their attention.

    Armed Forces (Disability Pensions)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is now in a position to report on the review by West African Governments of disability pensions paid to members of West African forces.
    Colonel Stanley: Yes, Sir. This matter has been carefully considered by the West African Governments. The increase of 50 per cent., which has hitherto been payable under the provisions of local legislation in special circumstances, is to be paid in all cases. The awards are now considered adequate.

    West African Produce Control Board
    Mr. John Dugdaleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has now received the Report on the cocoa operations of the West African Produce Control Board.
    Colonel Stanley: The Report has been published to-day as a White Paper, and is now available to Members at the Vote Office.

  PALESTINE

    Local Councils (Powers)
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will consider taking steps to increase the authority and powers of the local councils in Palestine so as to enable them to play a more responsible part in local administration.
    Colonel Stanley: The progressive extension of the powers of local authorities is a matter which has engaged active attention of the Palestine Government during recent years. An ordinance is in process of enactment empowering the High Commissioner to set up village councils.
    Mr. Lipson: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say whether the powers of the local councils in Palestine will be equal to those of the local authorities in this country?
    Colonel Stanley: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down.

    Premium Bonds
    Sir Percy Harrisasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why it has been found necessary to introduce in Palestine a draft Bill to enable an issue to be made of premium bonds; whether he can give particulars of same; and whether there is any precedent in any part of the British Empire for raising money in this way.
    Colonel Stanley: Having regard to the general financial position and the dangers of inflation, the Palestine Government and His Majesty's Government are anxious to raise in Palestine as much money as possible by local borrowing. After most careful consideration of all methods it was decided that premium bonds would make the strongest appeal to the population of Palestine. It is proposed to issue 100,000 bonds of £10 each. The bonds carry interest of 1 per cent. Premia will be paid quarterly. The first bond drawn each quarter will be redeemed for £1,000 and 158 others will be redeemed for smaller amounts. A premium bond issue was made in Cyprus and India in 1943.
    Sir P. Harris: Seeing that the proposal for premium bonds has been turned down repeatedly in this country, may I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman why he thinks it advisable to apply this gambling idea to a Mandated Territory, where the people cannot be consulted; and does he think that Palestine should be encouraged to gamble?
    Colonel Stanley: The circumstances are entirely different. In Palestine to-day there is an acute danger of inflation through war conditions, and there are not
    1746
    the leisurely circumstances in which this proposal has been considered in this country. A further difference is that, whereas this country is well accustomed to ordinary family savings, so far that has been a failure in Palestine.
    Sir Irving Albery: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend give the House any information about the actual rate of interest on these bonds, allowing for the premium paid?
    Colonel Stanley: I said "I per cent."
    Sir I. Albery: I know, but that does not allow for the premium.
    Colonel Stanley: If I can get an actuary, I will have it worked out and send to the hon. Member.

    Terrorist Activities
    Mr. Hamilton Kerrasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any statement to make regarding recent terrorist outrages in Palestine.
    Colonel Stanley: There has unfortunately been a recrudescence of Jewish terrorist activities in Palestine. On the night of 27th September attacks were made on four police stations by members of the Irgun Zvai Leumi, the military organisation of the New Zionist organisation. They were planned and executed by a force estimated to have been at least 150 strong and armed with bombs and automatic weapons. There were casualties among Palestinian police and civilians and considerable damage was caused to police buildings. Casualties were also inflicted on the terrorists and two men were arrested, one of whom had been wounded. Quantities of ammunition, two bombs and Irgun flags were seized. On the morning of 29th September a senior British police officer, Mr. J. T. Wilkin, of the Criminal Investigation Department, was assassinated while walking to his office in Jerusalem. The assailants escaped. On the night of 5th-6th October the Tel Aviv offices and stores of the Department of Light Industries were raided by 50 persons, some of whom were armed, and textiles valued at £100,000 were removed. The raiders announced themselves as being members of the Irgun Zvai Leumi.
    These attacks, the object of which is to further political aims, seriously impede the war effort of the United Nations and can do nothing but harm to the Jewish

    1747
    cause. They are the work of a relatively small body of extremists and are condemned by responsible leaders of Jewry in Palestine and throughout the world. I am sure that the whole House will join with me in condemning these outrages and in expressing its sympathy with the victims of this murderous campaign.
    Colonel Sir Arthur Evans: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether His Majesty's Government have any information as to how automatic weapons and ammunition are procured by these people; and what steps will be taken to prevent such occurrences in the future?
    Colonel Stanley: I am afraid that there have, during the last five years, been a great many troops moving about in the Middle East and that undoubtedly a certain number of arms have either been stolen from them or, in some cases, sold by them.
    Earl Winterton: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that those of us who are in touch with opinion in that country, are most alarmed by the information which is reaching us that both sides are arming preparatory to civil war after the war? Will he consider publishing a White Paper on the subject, as the majority of people in this country have not the least idea of the seriousness of the situation, and the terrible strain placed upon the administration in Palestine?
    Colonel Stanley: I agree with my Noble Friend that it is most important that people should realise the very tense situation there. I will consider in what way we can bring it to the public's attention.
    Mr. Lipson: May I ask whether an order has been issued, or will be issued, stating that all unauthorised persons in Palestine having arms must surrender them to the authorities?
    Colonel Stanley: It is, of course, already a criminal offence to have unauthoirised arms.
    Mr. Mack: Cannot the Minister make it clear that the action of these elements in Palestine is execrated, not only by the responsible leaders of Jewry there, but also by the whole of the Jewish population, who are willing and anxious to give every kind of assistance to the authorities to see that this kind of thing is stopped?
    Colonel Stanley: Yes, Sir, but verbal denunciation is not, in itself, enough. What we want, and what we shall hope to get, is the active collaboration of the whole of the Jewish population in Palestine.

    JAMAICA (BAUXITE)
    Mr. Rileyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the law in Jamaica regarding mineral rights; does the freehold owner of land possess a right to ownership of undisclosed minerals; what is the position with regard to bauxite; and if the Colonial Government or the Colonial Office is taking any action regarding the production of bauxite in Jamaica.
    Colonel Stanley: In Jamaica mineral rights, except over precious metals and oil, belong to the owners of the surface soil. It has been decided that Jamaica bauxite is not required for the war effort, and accordingly no action is at present being taken by the Government for its production. I am in consultation with the Governor on long-term policy.
    Mr. Riley: Can the Secretary of State say whether the American companies are being established in Jamaica to exploit the production of bauxite, and what action is going to be taken?
    Colonel Stanley: The buyers of private land showing possibilities of bauxite have been warned by the Government that as part of the long-term policy restrictive legislation may be introduced and may be retrospective in effect.

    ITALY (ARMISTICE TERMS)
    Mr. Graham Whiteasked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to publish the full armistice terms to the Italians.
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): As far as His Majesty's Government are concerned, the terms will be published when it seems appropriate to the United Nations to do so.
    Mr. Graham White: Having regard to the manifest difficulties caused by the absence of this knowledge, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that everything is being done by everyone concerned, to enable the Armistice terms to be published?
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this House and the country are very largely without information on the question of whether the Allied Forces in Italy are receiving help from the Italians, both militarily and from the point of view of labour forces? If I ask him a question on this subject next week, will he reply fully on the matter as a result of his experience in Italy?
    Mr. Attlee: Perhaps the Noble Lord will put that question down.

    SERVICE BENEVOLENT FUNDS (CO-ORDINATION)
    Major Conantasked the Prime Minister what progress has been made in the establishment of a co-ordinating agency for the many Service benevolent funds in order to prevent overlapping and ensure that cases of hardship are dealt with expeditiously.
    Mr. Attlee: The co-ordinating agency which was formed last year has, I understand, been dissolved.
    Major Conant: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise how essential it is, if delay is to be avoided by ex-Service men in obtaining assistance from war aid societies, that there should be a coordinating agency? Will he take urgent steps on the matter?
    Mr. Attlee: These are voluntary funds.

    GERMAN PEOPLE (EUROPEAN SYSTEM)
    Mr. Priceasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider making a statement to the German people, similar to the one he made to the Italian people, indicating to them the kind of conditions they must set up in human relations among themselves before they can be regarded as qualified to become members of a European system.
    Mr. Attlee: While there is no doubt much in the Prime Minister's recent message to the Italian people which the German people would do well to take to heart, I would remind my hon. Friend that our present task is to fight on until Germany has been forced to capitulate.
    Mr. Sorensen: If this proposal is adopted, can it be made quite clear that
    1750
    the essential political principles should apply not only to Germany but to all countries?
    Mr. Attlee: That is a totally hypothetical question.

    UNITED NATIONS (POST-WAR WORLD TRADE)
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Mooreasked the Prime Minister what consultations have taken place with our Allies to ensure that all the United Nations which have been actively engaged in hostilities will have equal opportunities to gain their share of post-war world trade and that none will seek especial opportunities to outstrip the efforts of colleagues, restricted owing to a more wholehearted participation in the war.
    Mr. Attlee: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the terms of Article 7 of the Mutual Aid Agreement which covers this point.
    Sir T. Moore: Does not my right hon. Friend realise that the disquiet which has been expressed in this House during the past few days and weeks, reflects anxiety in the country about the possibility of our being left in this endeavour to secure postwar trade? Does he not think that the Government are really showing a somewhat lethargic attitude towards this very important point?
    Mr. Attlee: No, Sir, the Government are very conscious of it.

    PRE-SERVICE UNITS (VOLUNTARY RECRUITING)
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Prime Minister if it is the policy of His Majesty's Government that recruiting for the three pre-service units after the war shall be maintained on a voluntary basis.
    Mr. Attlee: Yes, Sir.

    BRITISH EMPIRE CASUALTIES, WESTERN EUROPE
    Mr. Keelingasked the Prime Minister the casualties in Western Europe of the armies and air Forces, respectively, of the British Empire from D-day until the dispatch of air-borne Forces to Arnhem.
    Mr. Attlee: Particulars of casualties for the period asked for by the hon. Member are not available at present. If the hon. Member will repeat his Question in about a week's time, I hope to be able to give figures to a more recent date than those last published in regard to this theatre of operations.

    PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (COSTS)
    Mr. Keelingasked the Prime Minister when it is intended to introduce legislation to put into effect the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference on the conduct and costs of elections and expenses falling on Members and candidates.
    Mr. Attlee: These proposals, together with the other proposals of the Speaker's Conference, are under consideration and a statement will be made as early as possible.

    LOCATION OF INDUSTRY (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
    Sir O. Simmondsasked the Prime Minister which Minister is responsible for deciding or approving the location of industrial undertakings about to manufacture goods for the home and export markets.
    Mr. Attlee: As is stated in paragraph 30 of the White Paper on Employment Policy (Cmd. 6527), inquiries on this subject should be addressed to the Board of Trade, which is the channel through which Government decisions are expressed.
    Sir O. Simmonds: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is grave misgiving about the Board of Trade having an adequate number of staff competent to undertake this work? In view of the vital national importance of this issue, will he see that a review is made of the Board of Trade's responsibilities in this particular field? Can I have an answer?
    Mr. Attlee: I do not see that a particular answer is required. Naturally the Government have the matter under the closest attention and, as has already been stated in this House, the Board of Trade's personnel have been selected for this purpose.
    Mr. George Griffiths: Will it be possible for the Tories to shelve the President of the Board of Trade? Do they want him out of the way?

    JOINT PRODUCTION COMMITTEES
    Mr. Manderasked the Minister of Production to what extent technical and administrative workers are represented as such on joint production committees; and whether he will encourage such representation.
    The Minister of Production (Mr. Lyttelton): I regret that the information asked for in the first part of the Question is not available. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary stated in the Debate on the Motion for the Adjournment on 3rd August, the formation of joint production committees depends on voluntary action. The Government are certainly in favour of these bodies being fully representative.

    PENICILIN
    Mr. Saltasked the Minister of Supply by whom penicillin is being produced in Great Britain at the present time; and in what quantities.
    Mr. A. Edwardsasked the Minister of Supply whether he can make a comprehensive statement on the development of the penicillin position during the last three months; whether the erection of a large plant at a cost of £1,250,000 has been now authorised; which company has received the contract for the project; and when production will be commenced.
    The Minister of Supply (Sir Andrew Duncan): As regards plants in this country, I would refer to my statement in reply to a Question by the hon. and gallant Member for East Leicester (Colonel Lyons) on 4th October last. The volume of penicillin production both in North America and in this country has substantially increased during the past three months. Total supplies amply cover Service needs and increasing quantities will become available for civilian use. A large-scale plant now being erected in this country will be managed by the Distillers Company as agents for the Ministry of Supply and will commence production in the Spring of next year.
    Mr. A. Edwards: Can the Minister explain why it is necessary for the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Kendall) to be left to supply all civilian needs in this

    1753
    country? There are cases of people dying who could not get it, until the hon. Member in question came to their aid.
    Sir A. Duncan: As I said, civilian supplies will become increasingly obtainable and inquiries should be addressed to the Ministry of Health.
    Dr. Haden Guest: Is the Minister aware that the Ministry of Health has made penicillin available, when required, in a large number of cases? A circular to that effect has been issued to all medical men in the country.

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Salami
    Mr. Frankelasked the Minister of Food how much salami or cervelat sausage has become unfit for human consumption and what was the reason.
    The Minister of Food (Colonel Llewellin): Up-to-date 64 tons out of 646. This was due to the lengthy storage period which was incurred owing to the somewhat slow demand for this specialised product.
    Mr. Frankel: Would the Minister consider returning these products to the control of the comestible industry where it was before? At present, control is in the hands of people who do not understand the sale of these meats.
    Colonel Llewellin: We have had more of these specialised products offered to us than we imported before the war, and that is why this position arose.

    Small Traders (Licensing)
    Mr. Manderasked the Minister of Food if he will state the number of persons now on the register of small traders who have closed down in the food trades owing to the war; and whether he will give an assurance that, in granting licences, regard will be had to co-ordination between this factor and the allocation of supplies.
    Colonel Llewellin: All food retailers have been required to be licensed. Information is accordingly available in local Food Offices of retailers who have closed their businesses during the war, but the number of such retailers could only be obtained with an expenditure of time and labour which would not be justified.
    Mr. Mander: Can the Minister say whether it is proposed to offer any facilities to those small traders after the war by way of loans or priority in demobilisation?
    Colonel Llewellin: Neither of those are matters for me, of course. Certainly an ex-food retailer who has been in the Services will have priority for a licence to re-open his shop.
    Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Will the same principle apply to catering shops as well?

    Regulations (Offences)
    Mr. Austin Hopkinsonasked the Minister of Food whether he is satisfied that the cases of offences against the Food Regulations at 54 Group, Training Command, Regent's Park, which were transferred to the Air Ministry for further investigation and punishment, have been adequately dealt with.
    Colonel Llewellin: I am advised that the cases were fully investigated and that disciplinary action followed.
    Mr. Hopkinson: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman inform us what that (disciplinary action was?
    Colonel Llewellin: These cases were handed over in the normal course to the Air Force authorities to deal with, and I think any questions of detail should be put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air.
    Mr. Hopkinson: Can the Minister inform us whether his own legal Department advised in a contrary sense, and whether documentary evidence is in existence which is absolutely conclusive and had convinced his own legal Department that a prosecution ought to take place?
    Colonel Llewellin: The arrangement was made by my Ministry in the ordinary way that these cases should be dealt with under Air Force discipline. That was quite normal, and I fully support the Department in the attitude it took.
    Mr. A. Hopkinsonasked the Minister of Food by what authority he transfers to another Minister the responsibility for investigation and punishment in cases of offences against the Food Regulations.
    Colonel Llewellin: Section 41 of the Army Act, the same section of the Air Force Act, and section 45 of the Naval Discipline Act.
    Mr. Hopkinson: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter again at the earliest possible moment, on the Adjournment, or on any other appropriate occasion.

    Statutory Rules and Orders
    Mr. Ralph Ethertonasked the Minister of Food which paragraphs of the Potable Spirits (Licensing and Control) Order, 1944 (S.R. & O. No. 1103), are additional to those required by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise.
    Colonel Llewellin: All, Sir.
    Mr. Ethertonasked the Minister of Food why, under the provisions of S.R. & O. No. 1091, he has made it illegal to send oats from England and Wales to Scotland.
    Colonel Llewellin: To save transport and because I am advised that all the oats marketed in England and Wales will be required in those countries.

    Wholesale Markets (Short Weight)
    Mr. Arthur Duckworthasked the Minister of Food what complaints he has received of shopkeepers receiving short weight or measure in wholesale markets; and whether he will take steps to provide shopkeepers with the same protection against short weight or measure that is enjoyed by the purchasing public.
    Colonel Llewellin: The same protection against short weight is enjoyed by the retailer as by the purchasing public. When complaints are received from retailers investigations are made by my enforcement officers with a view to possible action under the Maximum Prices Orders.
    Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Have there been any prosecutions of people at Covent Garden and Spitalfields Market, in cases where tomato distributors have been distributing boxes of tomatoes weighing 11 or 11½ lbs. instead of the 12 lbs., which they are supposed to weigh?
    Colonel Llewellin: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that Question on the Paper.
    Mr. Walkden: But it happens every week.

    Disabled Ex-Servicemen (Retail Licences)
    Dr. Haden Guestasked the Minister of Food whether the recently announced policy of the Government that facilities will be given to disabled ex-Servicemen wishing to open a shop applies to shops selling food.
    Colonel Llewellin: I made arrangements some time ago for putting ex-retail food traders discharged from the Services into the priority class as regards the issue of licences to re-open their former businesses. As regards disabled ex-Service persons who were not previously retail food traders, I am at present engaged in making arrangements to enable suitable applicants to be given a preference in the granting of licences. As soon as I am able to announce details I will do so.
    Dr. Guest: When does the Minister think he will be able to make an announcement on this matter, which is of great concern to ex-Servicemen?
    Colonel Llewellin: Quite soon.
    Mr. R. C. Morrison: Will the Minister bear in mind that there appears to be a tendency on the part of ex-Servicemen to invest their small savings in small shops? What happened after the last war caused the downfall of many thousands.
    Colonel Llewellin: That is why I used the word "suitable." I am anxious to get some system for advising these people and for considering whether they ought to be encouraged to undertake this work.

    PERSONAL STATEMENT
    Captain Prescott: I wish, Mr. Speaker, to make a correction in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Yesterday I put a supplementary question to the President of the Board of Trade which was reported as:
    "… does he think that the Report on the Cotton Industry is adequate in that connection? "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th October, 1944; Vol. 403, c. 1555.]
    This should have read:
    "… does he think that his statement on the Report on the Cotton Industry is adequate in that connection?"
    As the matter is one of some importance, and my supplementary question was considerably altered by the omission, may I ask that the correction should be made?
    Mr. Speaker: The Official Reporter will have noticed the correction. Listening to what the hon. and gallant Member has just said, I am inclined to think that his supplementary question was out of Order, because he was asking for an opinion and not for a statement of fact.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Sir Irvin… Albery: On Business, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he can give the House some further information concerning the Government's intentions with reference to the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Bill [Lords]?
Mr. Attlee: We hope to take the Bill on Friday. Amendments will be put on the Order Paper.
Sir I. Albery: Has the Leader of the House considered the point that, if the Government are materially altering the Bill, Members who spoke on the Second Reading will, presumably, wish to make further observations when it is taken again in its altered form?
Mr. Speaker: I think I can answer that question. It is a matter for me, and I have been given notice of a question on this point for to-morrow.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Last week I put a Question to the Home Secretary which was transferred to the Attorney-General with no possible hope of it being reached for oral answer. It was postponed until this week, and the Attorney-General is now here, but there is still no chance of it being reached. Would the Attorney-General care to answer it now, or can you advise me, Sir, as to when I am likely to get it answered?
The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): Of course, Mr. Speaker, I have no control over the time when Questions should come on, but in former days Questions which were put down to me to be answered on Wednesday were usually reached. It may be due to the increase in the number of Questions, but there have been occasions lately when, on the day that I have such priority as is given to me, my Questions have not been reached.
Mr. Gallacher: I will try again next week.
Mr. Speaker: I advise the hon. Member to keep on trying.

VOTE OF CREDIT (SUPPLEMENTARY), 1944 (EXPENDITURE ARISING OUT OF THE WAR)
Estimate presented,—of the further Sum required to be voted towards defraying the expenses which may be incurred during the year ending on 31st March, 1945, for general Navy, Army and Air services and supplies in so far as specific provision is not made therefor by Parliament; for securing the public safety, the defence of the realm, the maintenance of public order and the efficient prosecution of the war; for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community; for relief and rehabilitation in areas brought under the control of any of the United Nations; and generally for all expenses, beyond those provided for in the ordinary grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 106.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  INDIA (MISCELLANEOUS PRO VISIONS) [MONEY]
  Resolution reported:
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Government of India Act, 1935, in certain respects, it is expedient to authorise the payment cut of revenues of India of such sums as may become payable therefrom by reason of any provisions of the first-mentioned Act."
  Resolution agreed to.

  INDIA (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL [Lords]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS in the Chair]
  Clauses I and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  INDIA (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL [Lords]

    CLAUSE 3.—(Reduction of minimum number of advisers of Secretary of State.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Will the Secretary of State say a word on this Clause?
    The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): This is with reference to the number of my advisers. When the India Act of 1935 was passed, the former Council of India, which consisted of not more than 12 Members, was succeeded by a body of advisers and, as it was known that Federation would come about very soon, it was not considered necessary to alter their number. As a matter of fact during this war, owing to the difficulty of getting from India to this country, and also owing to war work, it was sometimes very difficult to get the minimum number of advisers together and, though there is no immediate question of changing the number, it is thought convenient that the

    1779
    minimum should be reduced from eight to five.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Leave of absence of Governor-General, etc.)
    Amendment made: In page 2, line 23, at end, to add new Sub-section:
    "[(2) For Sub-section (6) of the said Section eighty-six (which provides for the granting to the Governor-General and the Commander-in-Chief of travelling allowances in addition to the leave allowances to which they are entitled under that Section) there shall be substituted the following Sub-section:
    "(6) If the Governor-General or the Commander-in-Chief is granted leave for urgent reasons of public interest, the Secretary of State may

    (a) direct that he shall be entitled to receive during his absence his salary as fixed under the last foregoing Section in lieu of the leave allowances to which he would otherwise be entitled under the last foregoing Sub-section:

    (b) grant to him, in addition to his salary as so fixed or any leave allowances, as the case may be, such allowances or further allowances in respect of travelling expenses as the Secretary of State may think fit."]— [Mr. Amery.]

    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 5, 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed, with an Amendment.

  LIABILITIES (WAR-TIME ADJUST MENT) BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  12.10 p.m.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I [beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  The Bill amends the Liability (War-time Adjustment) Act. It deals with a problem with which I have been myself concerned since the beginning of the war and in which I have taken great interest. The main purpose of the original Act was to provide conciliation, and ultimately court machinery, in order that there might be a fair and reasonable arrangement of the affairs of those who, in war circumstances, were brought into financial difficulties. In most cases, these people had not been improvident nor had they pur-
  1780
  sued any of the courses which normally lead to bankruptcy, and it would have been, in the view of the Government and of the House, quite wrong to force them into formal bankruptcy. In most cases it was in the interest of their locality and of their creditors, as well as in their own, that they should be enabled to weather the storm, distribute such payments to their creditors as were reasonable in the circumstances and be in a position to start again when circumstances become normal.
  The Bill, from Clause 4 onwards, makes a number of sufficiently important Amendments to the original Act, which other circumstances or, in some cases, decisions of the law courts have shown to be desirable, but the first three Clauses deal with a somewhat different matter. They enable the conciliation and the court procedure of the Act to be applied to debts which have been put under a moratorium, under what I call the Evacuated Areas Defence Regulations. Those Regulations date from July, 1940, at a time when the coastal areas were in great danger. People were being exhorted to leave them and it was possible that at any moment, for military reasons, compulsory evacuation might have had to be applied if voluntary evacuation was not sufficient for the purpose. In those circumstances Regulations were passed applying the moratorium to certain types of debt in certain circumstances. It was felt that if a man had been exhorted, in the public interest and for the safety of the Realm and for military reasons, to leave his home in a particular area, it was quite wrong to expect him to go on paying his rent and rates and certain other things covered by the Regulations. I believe, on the whole, the code has worked not too badly but there is, of course, as a result, a very large volume of debts suspended by the moratorium which will become enforceable when the moratorium is lifted and it is essential that there should be a procedure for the tidying-up process.
  In order to invoke the procedure of the original Act a person had to show that he was in certain financial difficulties. It is possible that a man who owes a moratorium debt may be in no financial difficulties and also that the person to whom the debt is owed may be in no financial difficulty. On the other hand it may be right and proper that there should be an adjustment of the debt, a scaling down

  1781
  of the full amount having regard to all the circumstances.
  Clause I therefore provides that anyone liable for what I call a moratorium debt may go to the adjustment officer for advice and assistance to enable an equitable and reasonable settlement to be arrived at. It is really impossible to lay down a rule or code stating how these various individual cases should be dealt with, because circumstances will differ so much. Some account should, of course, be taken of hardship and ability to pay. In the case of a house account must be taken of whether the lessee, although he has not been in occupation of it, has made some use of it. He may have stored his furniture there and to that extent avoided storage charges which otherwise he might have incurred. Clause 2 gives the court power to step in if the parties cannot agree and the adjustment officer has failed. The House will find that the most general words have been used. I will read them from paragraph (a) of Sub-section (2):
  "On any such application the court—
  (a) shall determine as respects any such debt or any sum which is due or will fall due under any such liability, whether it is to be paid in full or whether it is reasonable and equitable in all the circumstances of the case (including the relative degrees of hardship suffered by the parties) that it should be remitted or reduced and, if it is to be reduced, the extent of the reduction;"
  I do not think I need trouble the House with the later Sub-section of Clause 2. If any hon. Member has any individual point arising out of this somewhat complicated Bill which I do not expound now, perhaps I may have the leave of the House to answer it later. I do not want to deal in too much detail with minor points. Those later subsections fit these new powers into the general scheme of the original Act. For example, Sub-section (9) gives the adjustment officer and the county court jurisdiction in all company cases, whatever the amount of the debt and the capital of the company. The original liability adjustment procedure did not apply to public companies.
  Clause 3 is a permissive Clause dealing with these cases: There are some areas on the coast which have never actually been declared coastal areas under the Defence Regulations but where, in fact, everybody has behaved—at least so I am told—as
  1782
  though they had been declared areas under the Regulations, that is to say, rent and rates have not been paid, people have been urged to go out, and so on. Under Clause 3 there is power in the Lord Chancellor to declare these areas subject in fact to the adjustment procedure for unpaid debts as if those debts had been suspended under a moratorium. That is, in fact, what it comes to. The remaining Clauses make amendments to the principal Act. The broad effect of those amendments is to widen the discretion given to the courts by the principal Act. When we introduced the original Act we realised that we were setting out on a rather uncharted field, that we were conferring a wide and somewhat novel jurisdiction on the courts, and we therefore thought it right to be cautious and to insert words indicating the lines between which the highway should run. But experience has shown that the courts, as no doubt one would expect, have a very fair grasp of the essentials of this problem and it is desirable that they should have a wider discretion than in some cases they have under the original Act.
  Let me now go through the Clauses, doing my best to pick out points which are of interest and importance. I need not delay for more than a moment over Clause 4, but it is an example of what I have said in that it introduces somewhat wider words into Section 3 of the original Act, which dealt with the circumstances in which a person could apply for an order, and it clears up a difficulty which arose out of a Court of Appeal decision regarding the circumstances in which an interim order could be made. That decision was to the effect that it would not be right to make an interim order unless the court could see its way to settle the debtor's whole affairs. We want the power to make an interim order although the court has not had time to go into the whole of the debtor's position. Subsection (2) of Clause 4 is really a drafting Amendment and paragraph (b) makes it clear—and this is very important—that a sum may be excepted from the property to be distributed among the creditors in respect of working capital for the maintenance and continuance of the debtor's business.
  Clause 6 enables reductions of rent to be made retrospective. I think it was an oversight that, when we were framing the

  1783
  original Act, we did not confer this power, because obviously there are cases in which a man delays before coming along —possibly he did not know about the Act. His house is in an area where he has been unable to use it for a profitable purpose and therefore all the circumstances which justify a reduction in rent —it only applies if the rent has not been paid—were operative before he actually came and said, "Can you help me to tidy up my affairs?" We make it clear that the reduction in rent which the court has power to make, subject to a limitation, may be made retrospective.
  Mr. Bowles: Suppose a woman whose husband was in the Army, a woman with two children, was living in Eastbourne and was told to go out. She was paying, say, £100 a year for her house. She had to go to another part of the country where she paid Lao a year. Cannot she be completely relieved of her rent and rates on the Eastbourne property? Has her financial situation anything to do with it?
  The Attorney-General: Has it not? It is a difficult question. Suppose a millionaire had a house in one of these areas and he left it. There would be no hardship on him. Say he had taken the house on a 14 years' lease and that the owner of the house was a poor person and that the rent from this house was a substantial part of his income. I think it might be reasonable to take those facts into account. The hardship there is on the side of the owner of the house.
  Mr. Bowles: I am suggesting that the Exchequer should pay, of course.
  The Attorney-General: The hon. Member is miles outside the Bill. He raises a far wider issue than I can deal with here, but it has been said over and over again, and I am sure the House realises it, that it would be quite impossible for the Government to attempt to pay losses of earnings or other losses which result from the war over the whole community—to make up the difference, for example, to every man who has been called up for service and leaves a profitable profession. We are spending enough money as it is—at least so I hear—and we should be on a very slippery slope if we did what has been suggested. At any rate it is outside this Bill.
  1784
  The remaining Clauses make minor provisions in respect of rent reduction and postponement. Clause 7 makes similar retrospective provisions in respect of mortgage interest. That is very important. Under most mortgage deeds arrears of interest are added to the capital sum and therefore it is important that there should be this power. The extent of the reduction is controlled, as in the case of rents, by Sub-section (2) and is related to the fall in the value of the property. The other Sub-sections deal with technical points which I do not think raise questions of principle. Clause 8 deals with relief from rates. I have had some questions about it put to me before the Debate, and so perhaps I may explain in a little detail why it takes the form which it does take. It confers a power on the court to reduce rates. It is not intended that this power should be used except in cases where what I may call the lettable value has substantially fallen and it is our intention that the reduction in rates should be related to the fall.
  It may be said, "Why not insert in the Clause a stopper to say"—as we have in the case of rent and mortgage interest—" you can only reduce the rates to the extent of the fall in the lettable value?" We have been in touch with the rating authorities and our understanding is that they prefer that the Clause should be left in this general form. Although it gives or would appear to give a very wide discretion to the court the rating authorities, having seen the Act at work, are not afraid that that discretion will be used in any way which is adverse to the position of the local authorities as a creditor in comparison with other creditors. The sum on which we pay rates, is a sum which appears in the rating and valuation list, and there is a whole code as to how those figures are arrived at, and how they are put up or down. That has its own procedure. It is felt that there might be a danger of a reduction made by the court under this Clause, being treated as if it were an alteration in the rating and valuation list and, therefore, as we understand it—it is rather a technical point but has some interest—they prefer the Clause in this general form.
  Mr. Logan: How does that affect the power vested in magistrates to give a release?
  The Attorney-General: Rating authorities have exercised their power throughout the country with great humanity and wisdom.
  The other point I have been asked about is Schedule A. There are two things I want to say. about Schedule A. Of course, a lot is said against Income Tax and the law dealing with Income Tax, but there is one thing to be said in its favour, and that is, that you can find it all in the Finance Acts. Therefore, if there was—I will suggest to the House there is not—any necessity for altering the Schedule A provisions, the time and place to do so is in the Finance Act. Schedule A is, of course, based on the amount for which premises can be let by the year. If they are let and there is a tenant, it has long been the practice, and has been followed in cases where rent has been reduced under this Bill, that Schedule A follows a reduction of rent unless made for some reason other than the decrease in value. So there is no trouble there. The owner-occupier can always apply to the Revenue authorities and say that when the value was arrived at, things were very different, but that you would not get £10 a year for it now. The Revenue authorities take that into consideration, particularly, of course, in the cases we are dealing with, in areas where circumstances have been so unusual. If, under this Clause, rates are reduced in the case of an owner-occupier and the Revenue are satisfied, as they are almost certain to be satisfied, that that reduction is due to a fall in value, they will have regard to that, although I cannot, of course, give an undertaking that in every case they will follow to sixpence, the decision of the court. I believe that the way in which Revenue authorities have dealt with the Schedule A tax, in the circumstances of hardship and any decrease in value which have arisen in these areas, has been, on the whole, appreciated and to the satisfaction of sensible people.
  Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether it is the practice of the Revenue authorities to make a reduction where the court has reduced the rates? Would they also following the example of the court in point of time, that is, retrospectively?
  The Attorney-General: Yes, I think so. I will look into that, but that is what I
  1786
  have understood, that where the court makes a reduction in rent the Revenue follows suit. However, I will make an inquiry with regard to that and communicate with my hon. Friend, or the matter can be raised in the Committee Stage.
  Mr. Hely-Hutchinson: Is it possible that a reduction in Schedule A will follow a temporary reduction in rentable value?
  The Attorney-General: Yes, that is what is happening. The conditions in these areas are temporary. They are improving already,
  Captain Peter Macdonald: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that some of these properties are unrentable, unlettable and uninhabitable?
  The Attorney-General: Certainly, and in many cases you will find that the tax has been remitted altogether. I should certainly be very glad to have any case brought to my notice, or to the Exchequer's notice, where what I am saying is not being carried out in the letter and the spirit. The power is there, and I think the machinery is there. I may say that I know of specific cases in which it has been said, in view of the line taken by the court, that the Revenue authorities have not played their part. Clause 9, again, has rather a legal meaning. It removes a doubt as to what exercising the remedy means. It arose in a case, reported in the papers, where the original claim for a water rate was against the landlord, who was potentially the debtor, in financial difficulties. Then there was the alternative remedy against the tenant. Having recovered from the tenant, the tenant can deduct it from his rent so, in fact, you were making the landlord pay the debt in full where other creditors had to take their quota, and Clause 9 puts that right in respect of general rates and water rates. Clause 10 is a drafting Clause.
  Clause 11 is important. That abolishes the priority under the Bankruptcy Act. It was felt that those powers, as far as bankruptcy was concerned, were right and should be maintained. But in very special cases which we have had to deal with, where the war has brought insolvency to people whose capacity, and indeed, whose business in normal times

  1787
  never suffered that disaster, it was found, in a good many cases, that Schedule A, the rates, rent, and war damage contribution loomed very large, and there was not much chance of the other creditors getting their heads up above this brick wall so, as a reasonable concession, both by the Exchequer and by the local authorities, we propose that for these purposes priority shall be abolished and everybody will stand on an equal footing. Clause 12 is merely a power to approve compromises. Clause 13 extends. or rather enables one to meet, the case where a man who was in financial difficulty was killed or died before he had a chance of applying. In the case where the people interested are members of his family they can go to the court and the man's affairs can be adjusted as if he had lived. Clause 17 gives the court the proper power under the Money Lenders Act. Clauses 18 and 19 deal with technical points. Clause 20 introduces the Schedule, and Clause 21 is an interpretation Clause.
  That is the Bill. It is somewhat of a patchwork, but we believe it will improve a code which we also believe, on the whole, has worked well. May I say that when I moved the Second Reading of the original Act from this Box, now some three years ago, I said that its usefulness would be measured not by the number of court orders, but by the number of settlements which would be arrived at. The actual legal working is, and must be, complicated, but I believe it has played a very useful part, not only in the cases it has dealt with, but by making creditors come together and deal fairly with their debtors.
  Mr. Woodburn: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman any idea of the number of settlements made outside the courts by the liability adjustment officers?
  The Attorney-General: I believe I have a note of the number and will produce it.
  12.40 p.m.
  Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I do not rise for the purpose of delaying the House in coming to a decision on this important Bill. I think we are greatly indebted to the Attorney-General for the description he has given of the various amendments in the law which are being made. They, of course, cover a
  1788
  very wide range of detailed points, and I have no intention of going over those details again. I propose to confine myself to two main observations. The first question which I was going to ask has already been answered to a very large extent, by my right hon. and learned Friend. In reading through this Bill one is aware of the very wide discretion that, in places, it gives to the courts. As a rule, the courts are rather unwilling to have wide discretions thrust upon them, and I was delighted to hear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, in the exercise of the powers already conferred upon them by the original Act, the courts have experienced little or no difficulty in this matter.
  I think that is a very great tribute to the courts themselves and to those who have come before them seeking relief and arrangement through their means, and if the right hon. and learned Gentleman's knowledge of what has taken place, leads him to think that the still wider powers of discretion conferred by this Bill will, equally, be acceptable to the courts, I do not think this House will take any exception to the conferment of these wider powers. I was also very pleased to hear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it was his opinion that a very large number of claims had been settled outside the provisions of this Bill and the question which my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) asked as to whether he could give us any idea of the number, is certainly one the answer to which, if he can supply it, will be most interesting.
  That is really all I have to say which is strictly relevant to the passage of this Bill, but there is one further observation I should like to make. There are a great many people who have become bankrupt and many of those people are, no doubt, morally guilty in reaching bankruptcy. Of course, a great number of people who do reach bankruptcy in ordinary times cannot be held very greatly to blame for what takes place. Without saying that it is entirely outside their power to prevent the circumstances, over which they have comparatively little control, and which have brought them to the bankruptcy courts, I would point out that this war-time Bill has shown us that in the circumstances of war it is possible to arrive at a more humane method of dealing with people who, through no fault of

  1789
  their own, would in ordinary circumstances reach bankruptcy. I am not going to suggest that you could take all the limitations of time which are implied in the length of run of the original Act and obliterate them all, or that you could make this purely war-time Measure, without any change, apply to peace-time conditions. But I do suggest to the Attorney-General whether, before the war comes to an end, or the original Act ceases to operate, he should not consider, if some of these merciful, humane and expeditious methods which have been applied in full during the war, might not be carried over into the times of peace. I realise the difficulty. It will be an experiment, and we cannot expect it to go on too far. I hope however, the point will be given full consideration, because if we can relieve some of the unmerited suffering which at present arises in bankruptcy, I am sure it would be the view of the House that it should be done.
  12.46 p.m.
  Mr. Hely-Hutchinson: I feel sure that the House will welcome this Bill, particularly as it is a further recognition of the special problems that affect individuals in what are called Defence and Evacuated areas, and also in districts which, while not technically Defence and Evacuated areas, have suffered from very much the same difficulties. One of the most refreshing and inspiring things to watch in the course of the war has been the way in which individuals, faced with every kind of difficulty and with dwindling resources, have fought their own way and paid their own way without asking for help. There is a tremendous pride in Englishmen which makes them good debtors but bad beggars. I hope that that may long continue. While I welcome this Bill, I think that there are one or two points with regard to it which entitle us to say that it is only good as far as it goes.
  I am glad my right hon. and learned Friend admitted that it is not only the debtors who have difficulties. There are often difficulties which creditors experience. Contrary to a prevailing impression, creditors are not as a class rich and well-to-do people. In the world of debits and credits, the number of creditors is large and the average amount of their credits is small, whereas, relatively
  1790
  speaking, the number of debtors is small and the average amount of their debts is large. If anyone doubts this, all he has to do is to ask a bank whether their depositors are more numerous than their borrowers, and he will find that, whereas depositors are numbered in millions, the borrowers are numbered only by the hundred thousand. And, as the balance sheet of a bank adds up to the same amount on both sides, it follows that the average credit of a depositor is much smaller than the average debit of a borrower.
  There must be many cases which will come within the purview of this Bill where not only can the debtor ill afford to pay but the creditor can ill afford to forgo. There are many small creditors—such as elderly people living on small fixed incomes, such as interest on mortgage, or rent of a small house, or something of that kind—who can ill afford to give up what they may be asked to give up under the provisions of this Bill. In such cases, where the debtor cannot pay and the creditor can ill afford to forgo, there is only one solution, and that is help from outside. What is needed is someone with a cheque book. It is necessary to inject some new money. Those of us who represent Defence and Evacuated areas have impressed on the Government the necessity of finding some additional money and injecting it into this situation in order to solve cases which will otherwise be insoluble without great and undeserved hardships.
  I was glad to hear what my right hon. and learned Friend said on the subject of Schedule A. In the minds of most of us rentable value, rates, and Schedule A, in equity, hang together; and where rates are remitted, albeit temporarily, there should be a parallel remission of Schedule A. I am not sure that that has been the case in the past, but I hope that in the future, at any rate, remission of Schedule A will follow remission of rates. I am sure that this Bill will be welcomed, but, in welcoming it, I would like to say to the Government that I hope they are not under the illusion that it really tackles the problems of the Defence areas. The Government will have to go a great deal further than this Bill in dealing with the problems of those areas. The taxpayers will have to stump up. But in saying this, I would add that all the finance in the world will not be of the slightest use in the Defence

  1791
  and Evacuated areas unless materials and labour are available for the money to buy.
  12.52 p.m.
  Mr. Loftus: As one who has in his constituency two boroughs subject to a moratorium, I welcome this Bill whole-heartedly, but, like my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Hely-Hutchinson), I regard it as a Bill to alleviate, but not to effect a cure of, the ills from which these coastal towns are suffering. We quite recognise that the losses of individuals due to the war cannot be met throughout the country, but we feel that the coastal towns have special claims for consideration for some extra help. The fact that these are moratorium areas is an indication that the Government regard them as having a claim to exceptional treatment. Secondly, there is evacuation. I admit that it was not compulsory, but it was as near compulsory as possible. I have heard a loud speaker van sent by the Ministry of Information touring the streets, and frightening people by saying that they must go away at once. Therefore, while it was not officially compulsory, we can take it that it was unofficially. A third factor is that all these areas largely depend on visitors, but for four of five years they have been prohibited. There is a fourth factor. We recognise that places like London, Coventry and Liverpool have suffered terribly, but they have not endured the continuous strain of four or five years. In the coastal areas there has always been during these years the daily possibility of quick cut-and-run raids, and there was always a continuous strain in the coastal areas which went on year after year, day after day, and night after night. Lowestoft has had about 2,000 alerts and more people killed than even the much enduring borough of Dover. I feel that that makes another claim for separate consideration.
  This Bill gives great relief to the debtor, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings pointed out, creditors in many cases suffer as much as, indeed more than, debtors. In coastal towns there are elderly people dependent on the rents of houses who to-day can only live with public assistance. Therefore, we who represent these places must really press for some kind of further relief for cases of exceptional hardship. There should be
  1792
  interest-free loans to be administered by the local authority who should be responsible for repayment.
  Major C. S. Taylor: Why should the local authorities be responsible for repayment?
  Mr. Loftus: The ideal thing would be a grant, and I would press for grants if possible, but if grants are unobtainable, then there should be interest-free loans. If it is a loan, somebody should be responsible for repayment, and the local authority, which would issue the loan, should be responsible. I would like to ask a question on Clause 6. Would it be possible for the court in certain cases to extend the period of a lease. A lease during these five years has been without value in many cases, and, therefore, it would seem equitable in some cases to extend the lease as a compensation for loss during the five years. That must be done, of course, without prejudice to the rights of the lessor, and that might be a difficult point to achieve. With regard to Clause 8, the remission of rates is necessary, but let us recognise that it will impose loss on the local authority and make the task of reconstruction in these towns still more difficult. Therefore, I would ask my right hon. and learned Friend if we can have an assurance that the special grants plus loans, which have hitherto been given to these local authorities, will not be cut off immediately after the armistice, but will continue for part of the reconstruction period. I ask that because my two boroughs have so far not taken advantage of the offer of Government grants plus loans, but they feel that, when reconstruction comes, they must get financial assistance. I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his clear exposition of the Bill. It does not, however, go far enough, because we must have a continuance of the grants, we must have labour and material for repairs of properties, and we must have special types of treatment.
  I have already urged the exceptional claims of these towns. They have been front line towns, subject to continuous attack, day and night, for many months; but they have also claims in the national interest. When the war is over and after the Armistice with Germany, our people who have been enduring the strain of war and suffering from over-work, blackout and lack of holidays, will demand and require immediate holiday facilities.

  1793
  They will want to go to the seaside towns, whose recreational facilities must be provided, by further Government help, if necessary. Let us remember that the rehabilitation of our national health after the war, will largely depend upon the speedy rehabilitation of our coastal towns.
  1.2 p.m.
  Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I rise to welcome this Bill. It amends an Act in which I have, perforce, taken a considerable amount of interest. I have had very close personal contact with the matter, because I had the honour of addressing this House for the first time during a Debate upon the Measure which is now being amended, and I have followed its administration thereafter with great interest. I agree with the Attorney-General that the test to be applied to its efficacy is not to be found in the number of cases brought before the courts, but in the number settled by the use of the conciliation machinery which the Act set up. The statistics will show that conciliation has taken by far the greatest burden of adjusting these liabilities. The House can congratulate itself upon having established for war purposes, a just and equitable method of assessing rights and obligations when debtors are faced with difficulties as a result of war conditions.
  I welcome the extension of that principle to the cases set out in the Bill, and to the moratorium cases in particular. I also welcome the fact that the equitable principle embodied in the Act has been extended to the liability for rates and that Crown debts have been placed on the same level as other debts. We are, in fact, setting up what is almost a complete code for adjudicating upon liabilities in the circumstances when a debtor is unable to meet debts arising through no fault of his own. We started with the cases where the position was caused by the war, and now we are extending the principle to cases arising owing to evacuation. I am sure that we can extend it further some day to all proper cases where the position of the debtor is one in which he himself cannot be expected to shoulder the responsibility.
  Having said that about the Bill and the desirable amendments of the law which it incorporates, I have a word of Stricture. The Bill, as presented to us,
  1794
  is about the worst piece of legislation by reference that I have ever seen. The Act which it amends is not very long, although somewhat legal in phraseology. We are supposed to consider the amendments of the law proposed in the Bill, before we come to this Chamber, and I find that three different methods are employed in order to set them out. First there is quite an admirable method, of providing in the Bill for such an amendment and then setting it out in the Schedule along with all the other provisions of the Section which is being amended, so that in the Schedule we get the new Section as it will be if the Bill is passed. That is a very desirable extension and makes that amendment almost intelligible in itself.
  There is a second method, by which proposed amendments of the Act are put up in Clause after Clause. There are a number of them in the Bill, substituting one Sub-section for another and omitting certain words in the setting up. Then there is a third method, the old, standard method of providing in one Clause in the Bill for a series of amendments which will be found in the Schedule, where they are tabulated. It is bad enough for those of us who have been trained in the law, and who have earned our bread and butter by working out these puzzles, to have to sort out exactly what is the eventual result of these provisions—let it be remembered that we have to do so before we have the advantage of the Second Reading speech by the Attorney-General—but it is difficult to imagine how the layman can work out, without an expenditure of time quite disproportionate to his other duties, what the real effect of all these amendments of the law will be.
  I urge upon the Government that they should follow still further the first of the methods shown here, that is to say, that they should print the original Measure as it will be altered when all the amendments suggested have been incorporated. I am confident that it is not beyond the skill and power of your other self, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as Chairman of Committees, to rule out of discussion matters which have been settled in the Act to be amended, and which are not affected by the amending Bill. Subject only to that criticism, I welcome the Bill.
  1.10 p.m.
  Mr. Jewson: In welcoming the Bill, I would make one very important reservation, which is that it must be looked upon as only one step in dealing with the problem as between creditor and debtor, and not as a final settlement. It has already been pointed out that the Bill is very partial in its attitude, being almost entirely in favour of the debtor. It leaves the creditor to bear the whole loss, when loss arises from the Regulations that we ourselves have made from time to time. That was the first impression made upon quite a number of my constituents, who at once drew my attention to that fact. They declared that the Government were getting away with it at the expense of the unfortunate creditors. It has already been pointed out that there is no difference between creditors and debtors, in fact nearly all of us are both creditors and debtors at the same time, and the creditor is not by definition richer than his debtor.
  Creditors are worthy of at least as much consideration as debtors, and if we are to accept the Bill as a final step we shall leave the creditors to carry a burden which they ought not to be asked to carry alone. The method of moratorium, which is a very proper thing to use, is only a shock-absonber to tide over a sudden emergency. That is its proper use and it should last usefully for three months or six months and do no harm. When we find it extended to four or five years it inevitably creates an impossible situation. That is just what it has done, and that is why we have this Bill to try to clear up that situation. I do not want to say anything about the rates side of the matter. There is a scheme relating to municipal affairs which I am confident will ultimately be extended satisfactorily to deal with that matter. But as the Bill applies between individual creditor and debtor, we shall have to look for something further from the Government to meet the situation arising from the burdens which are now placed upon the shoulders of creditors alone.
  Clause 6 raises some apprehension in my mind. It refers to the letting value of premises being depreciated "as a result of war circumstances." The Government order people to clear out of these areas, tell everybody else to keep out, and then say that the letting value has depreciated!
  1796
  Of course, it has! That situation is the direct responsibility of the Government, who should be prepared with a scheme to lessen the burden which the Bill leaves upon the shoulders of the unfortunate creditor. To make battle areas, people in some parts of the country were told to clear out, but not without compensation from the Government. The defence areas, which have put up with so much for so long, do not base their claim for compensation upon the enemy action which they have had to face, as all parts of the country have been liable to that as well—although a good case could be made out on that ground, as was indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus—but on the ground that they are suffering from direct orders given by our own Government. Surely the whole community should take its share in bearing the consequences of those orders. Subject to the one reservation that we must not consider the Bill as closing the door to anything further being done to meet the situation, I welcome the Bill, and I hope it will go through.
  1.15 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe: We who are interested on behalf of residents of the coastal areas, are always grateful for any small recognition of the plight which has fallen upon them, but this Bill represents only a very small recognition of that plight. I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hughes) that it is an extremely badly drafted Bill. That has certain advantages, as it will curtail the length of what I have to say, because after reading a number of times some of the parts on which I wished to comment, I was unable to understand them. I shall, therefore, have to pass them over. There are one or two things I want to say in relation to this Bill generally. I rather apprehend that the purpose of this Bill is working back towards the normal conditions; it is the first step towards ending the moratorium period. That is rather an alarming circumstance, because it appears to signify that the Government take the view that the whole of our troubles in the coastal areas will end with the end of the war. Of course that is not so. If one looks at the Defence Regulation which the earlier Clauses of this Bill amend, one finds that the Bill only deals with one small part of our

  1797
  special problem, particularly in relation to rent and hire purchase contracts. The end of hostilities will not solve our difficulties in that regard.
  It is not, generally, sufficiently realised that these coastal areas have, virtually, only one industry, and that is the letting of rooms, of hotel accommodation, and of course that involves the letter being in possession of furniture, and the question of rent and the furniture hire-purchase contracts are of vital importance to people in those areas. This Bill, therefore, goes to the very root of their one and only industry. It has been said by other hon. Members, and I shall not repeat their arguments now, that this Bill goes nothing like far enough for us in relation to the damage we have suffered through the war. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) point out that this is not merely a local but a national problem. It is in the national interest that these areas should be restored to normal prosperity at the earliest possible moment. Any other course may well result in the creation of an almost devastated area, and the existence of a devastated area, as we know only too well from the inter-war years, is something which affects not only that area itself, but the prosperity of the whole country. Therefore, it is essential that everything that can possibly be done should be done to bring prosperity back to the coast towns.
  When I said I was rather apprehensive about whether the Government were fully alive to our difficulties, I doubted whether they realised that these difficulties will not end with the termination of hostilities. I was rather fortified in that view by a phrase which occurs in Clause 2. In Subsection (3), line 35, there is a reference to "the relevant period." I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will clear up when he replies, what is the reference there, and what is meant by the relevant period. If the relevant period is a reference to the evacuation period, of course it is nothing like enough. I apologise for repeating that our main industry in these areas is the provision of holidays, and the letting of accommodation to visitors; and of course, as ancillary to that, the provision of entertainment. But the end of hostilities will not solve our problems. Most of the accommodation which is normally available has been requisitioned,
  1798
  and it will be many months, maybe more than that, we may have to count it in years, before we can have restored to us our hotel accommodation. This is no time, of course, to go into the problems which will be involved in that. The provision of the relevant labour and materials, and I hope the financial assistance which will be necesary for that, are of course not in place in a discussion on this Bill, but they are matters to which the Government will have to give their attention. This Bill is a small, an insignificant part, of the help they will have to give to us.
  There is one other particular matter on the Bill to which I would like to refer, in Clause 2, Sub-section (4). The effect of that Sub-section, as I understand it, is to establish that if the principal debtor is relieved in any way by the liabilities adjustment officer, the guarantor is only relieved to the same extent as the principal debtor. That is perhaps rather an unhappy position, because many guarantors entered in to guarantees in peacetime, in the belief that they were giving their guarantee in normal circumstances. They could not be expected to guarantee the principal debtor against the risk of war, and in effect, therefore, the guarantor is being called upon to implement a guarantee against a risk which he could never have foreseen. I hope the Attorney-General will give some consideration to that matter and leave the Clause open wide enough for adjustment to be made to relieve the guarantor to a greater extent than that is at present possible under this Bill. These are the comments I want to make on the Bill itself, but I urge upon the Government the importance of this question to the evacuated areas, and I feel bound to warn them that none of us will be satisfied by this small contribution towards our prosperity, and that we look to them for further assistance. Certainly we who are interested in these areas propose to go on pressing them, until they have done everything in their power to restore the prosperity of coast towns.
  1.23 p.m.
  Captain Duncan: I, too, welcome this Bill as I welcomed the original Bill when it was introduced three years ago, in 1941. At that time we had a particular problem through the bombing of London, and my constituents were extremely grateful at that time to the Attorney-General for passing that Bill

  1799
  into law. The situation is now entirely different, but still that Measure and this amending Bill are required. I want to raise one or two points from the local authorities' angle arid in doing so I do not want to refer to the coastal areas at all. I want to refer only to those areas not covered by the evacuation transactions. I would refer to the principle in relation to the priority of debtors. The priority of debtors was laid down in the Bankruptcy Act, 1914. Section 33 (1, a) laid down that the priority was all parochial and other local rates due within 12 months, all assessed taxes, and not exceeding in the whole one year's assessment, wages, workmen's compensation payments and national health insurance contributions. Under (I, b) all these debts rank equally and other debts rank after that. In this Bill, for the first time, under Clause 8, Sub-section (1), rates are to be—
  Major C. S. Taylor: On a point of Order. In view of the fact that this Bill affects a large portion of the United Kingdom and that various Government Departments are affected by, the troubles and distress of these coastal areas, and in view also of the fact that at the moment there are only two Members on the Government Front Bench, would I be in Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in drawing attention to the fact that there are not 40 Members present?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The hon. Member would be out of Order in asking for a count at this hour.
  Major Taylor: On that point of Order, if I have drawn attention to the fact that there are only two Members on the Government Front Bench and that other Ministries should also be represented, I have perhaps succeeded in my purpose.
  Mr. Gallacher: Further to that point of Order, could a request be made that some responsible Ministers should attend, even at this particular hour?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a matter for me, but for the Government.
  Captain Duncan: I had reached the point that rates are to lose their priority over ordinary trade debts. That raises two points. First, I think it is clear from
  1800
  the Attorney-General's speech, that Schedule A property tax generally ranks pari passu with rates, and, under Clause 11 (1), pari passu with all other debts. It seems unnecessary therefore to put Clause 8 (1) in the Bill at all in view of Clause 11 (1). It is only a drafting point.
  The Attorney-General: There are two quite different headings. There is the power to reduce rates, rather on the same sort of lines as rents are reduced, because the value of premises has fallen. The abolition of priority under Clause II is really quite different.
  Captain Duncan: There is a further point in connection with that. This is the first time it has ever been done and local authorities feel that it should not be regarded as a precedent for further legislation. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) rather suggested that some such procedure might be devised for carrying on in peace. I think the Government will find that local authorities will be chary of giving up the priority rights, which they now have, under the Bankruptcy Act. I hope an assurance will be given that it will not be regarded as a precedent. I do not want to quarrel with the procedure set out in this Bill, but I think it would be interesting to describe, very shortly, the extremely convenient arrangements which have already been made to deal with this question. There are two ways in which it can be done. You can go to the assessment committee and attempt to get a reduction in your assessment, or, when your assessment has been fixed by them, you can go to the rates rebate committee of your council, and ask them to reduce the actual amount you have to pay. That method has worked extremely well in the constituency which I represent. I wonder whether in the circumstances, Clause 8 is really necessary for areas other than the coastal ones. Perhaps if my right hon. and learned Friend would say that he did not propose to put it into operation in these other areas, it would relieve the minds of people who are concerned about it. One small point arises on Sub-section (3), which provides that:
  "Where the rates in respect of any premises are payable in the first instance by any person other than the debtor, but are recoverable by him from the debtor, the debtor shall be deemed to be liable for the payment of these rates."

  1801
  and under Sub-section (1) he may be relieved of this liability. This appears to apply to premises the rates of which are payable in the first instance by the owner, either in consequence of a decision by the rating authority or in consequence of an agreement with the debtor. The effect would appear to be that the owner may be relieved of his obligation to pay the rating authority the rates: in other words, he may be receiving the whole of the rent, but not paying the rating authority any of the rates. If I am right in that interpretation, it seems hard on the rating authority, even though the owner may be in a parlous financial position himself. It should be necessary for the owner to make a separate application to the adjustment officer, rather than for the rating authority to be automatically deprived of the right to receive the rates. I understand that this Bill is intended to be put into operation only in areas where there is distress owing to the war and where the Government are giving a substantial subvention. The area which I represent was in receipt of a subvention from the Government, by grant and by loan. It has paid back the whole of the loan, and is on its feet again. It seems to me that in cases like that, where they are not indebted in any way, the rating authorities should be entitled to some consideration, and the procedure which I have described, of application to the assessment committee or the rates rebate committee, which is being carried on to the satisfaction of all concerned, should be continued, in respect not only of past but of present and future rates. If my right hon. and learned Friend can give some assurance on that point I shall have nothing more to say.
  1.37 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Lawson: I am not one of those who give unthinking support to all the Measures that the Government bring to the House, but I welcome this little Bill very much indeed. As the learned Attorney-General has told us, this is a Bill to extend and add to a previous Measure, which introduced novel principles. I welcomed those novel principles, and I welcome their extension. If one thinks that this is a good Measure, one must have at the back of one's mind the conception that, if the rights of property and the rights of individuals come into conflict, it is the rights of individuals that must have preference.
  1802
  That seems to me a very sensible view. This Bill, to a large extent, is an infringement of some of what we have regarded as the rights of property. It introduces novel principles, which result in the rejection of principles long established in this country; and I think we are wise to examine those principles. There is a common idea that ownership of property gives the individual a right to income, whatever the result is to other individuals—in other words, the old conception, "Business is business." This Bill, in a very limited way, dealing with limited circumstances, cuts at that principle: it cuts something away from the idea that just because you happen to own property, you are entitled to receive income from it. I was interested in the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) to the Attorney-General. He put the case of a soldier's wife, living at Eastbourne, who, because of the war, had to go away, and asked: Was it not right that her rent should be remitted? The Attorney-General said in reply that there might also be a millionaire living in Eastbourne, and if he moved away it was not right to remit his rent, which might be going to a person in poor circumstances.
  I submit that the principle introduced by this Bill is a very revolutionary one. It means that the individual has rights to income which may be bound up in the ownership of property, but that property, as such, has no rights at all. It follows from the conception that the individual has rights, and that property has no rights: that income in a community should be distributed in accordance, first of all, with the needs of the individual. This Bill also takes into account the income that the owner of property had before war conditions existed, and so the second principle is that income should be related in some way to the previous income of the individual. I do not suppose that I should be in Order if I developed that point at very great length, but, in any case, it is not a matter on which there can be any great argument: one either accepts the idea that individuals have rights and that property has not, or one rejects it. So we see the present Government forced by the circumstances to which this Bill refers—the fact that war conditions made it necessary for persons living in coastal towns to remove them-

  1803
  selves, and that their livelihood had, therefore, stopped—to introduce principles which I maintain are revolutionary.
  Mr. Gallacher: The hon. Member says that this Bill lays it down that persons do not have to pay, or owe, rent in certain circumstances.
  Mr. Lawson: The Attorney-General says that if you had two people in exactly similar circumstances, in an area from which they had to evacuate themselves, the person of humble circumstances would not have to pay his rent, but that it might be right for the wealthy person to do so. It will be seen from Clause 5 that that is correct. That is the whole point of the Bill: that these provisions should take into account all the circumstances of the individual, and should be so operated as to prevent hardship to the individual. That is a principle that I accept and welcome. While welcoming this limited provision, for certain coastal areas, I, like other hon. Members, suggest that it should be applied to many of the other problems which have arisen out of this war and which will arise as a result of this war. We may have problems similar to the evacuation of coastal towns, when we come to deal with the location of industry. The problem immediately arises out of the rebuilding of our bombed cities. The coastal areas are not the only areas that have suffered as a result of this war. Many large inland areas have suffered very greatly. As we have seen in this House in the last few days, the urgent problem of rebuilding these cities cannot remain until it has been decided, for instance, on what terms local authorities are going to purchase land.
  Lieut.-Commander Joynson Hicks:- On a point of Order. Is it in Order for the hon. Member to discuss on the Second Reading of this Bill the extension of the principle which it involves to entirely different matters?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is in Order so far. Perhaps he will continue.
  Mr. Lawson: I think that what I am saying is reasonably pertinent to the principles which this Bill introduces. I submit that on the Second Reading of a Bill
  1804
  which confessedly extends novel principles, I am in Order in saying either that I do not like the principles or that I approve of them, and in giving my reasons. Indeed, I believe that this is the time for us to say that things should be added. Without developing at any great length the point that I was making, I suggest that the principle that we should so arrange our affairs as to prevent hardship to the individual is the only way that the matter to which I am referring —that is, the public acquisition of land, or of any other property— can be applied. I think that if the Cabinet will give consideration to this matter, they will be able to meet the claim of the widow, which is always being trailed across this House, and at the same time see that the public are not exploited in connection with the sale of land to the public. I ask the Attorney-General, Does he really understand what he has started by introducing this Bill? What is going to happen if the principle on which this Bill is based is accepted by the whole of the population of this country? I am sure that the result will be that the whole of our economic system, which is built on the principle that property has rights and that individual rights matter very little, will go by the board. I welcome this Bill, because I think it is a small step towards a better and more equitable economic system, in which the rights of the individual predominantly decide and the rights of property have gone for ever.
  1.45 p.m.
  Lieut.- Commander Joynson Hicks: The House will absolve me, I hope, from any discourtesy if I do not follow the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Lawson) too far on the hypothetical ground on which he has been treading. I would, however, point out that this Bill, amending the previous Act, does contain a novel principle, not the principle to which the hon. Member for Skipton was referring, because I could not find any principle involved in his remarks at all. The Bill does contain a principle, which, to my mind, provides a very essential and admirable method for the adjustment of needs in time of emergency. The principle is, of course, that of State-sponsored conciliation between private individuals. I think that that has been, undoubtedly, in this time of emergency, of very great help, and I look forward to it continuing

  1805
  to be a very great help indeed, in the settlement of these differences which have arisen out of the emergency.
  But I feel that this a matter which, if it were extended into a general principle for adoption in wider spheres throughout the country, would be very dangerous indeed, and might well be the thin end of the wedge which would lead to the undermining of the whole of our justiciary. I desire to enter that caveat because I think that particular method, admirable as it is for the purpose we are discussing to-day, would be a very dangerous one to adopt generally. I think that nowadays we have to consider that we have all paid taxes to the Government in order that the Government may pay part back to the taxpayers in some form of subsidy. I welcome this Bill, particularly because it does not carry that particular disaster—as it is to my mind—any further. In fact, I welcome the Bill because in the areas concerned we are proud that we have, so far, been able to settle so many of the difficulties that we have sustained as a result of war, without having recourse to the public purse. We cannot go on like that indefinitely, and we look forward to a time when we must, of necessity, be assisted in much wider ways than this Bill contemplates. The effect of this Bill, which is necessary, will only be to make more permanent the existing hardship from which the people in the South coast areas are suffering. They have been hoping that the time will come when the money owing to them will be paid. Without this money they are unable to rehabilitate their own lives. The effect of this Bill is to ensure that they will get part of what they have been looking forward to receiving. It is an absolutely essential protection for the debtor, but, on the other hand, unless the creditor can gain some assistance, in some way or another, the situation in these defence areas is not going to be put right.
  One has only to take the case of a small house-owner in the locality, and I can assure hon. Members that it is a quite remarkable thing how many people in my constituency, who are now at a certain age and have retired, own two houses, in part of one of which they live themselves. The other part of the house represents, very frequently, either the whole or the bulk of their means of livelihood. That livelihood has all too often been swept away as a result of war. Frequently, these
  1806
  unfortunate people have had to leave the area altogether and have been unable to pay attention to their property, with the result that such damage as it has sustained as a result of enemy action, has been enhanced through enforced and unavoidable neglect. The situation of a lessor who is a creditor under this Bill is extremely difficult, and I am glad that the Attorney-General referred to the fact that the conciliation officer would be able to take into account, in those peculiar circumstances, the differences in the personal circumstances of the parties concerned, between whom he is seeking to find a way of settlement.
  There are many cases which one should bear in mind. Some people had the good fortune, at an early date in the war, of being able to leave one of these unfortunate areas. For health, or family, or other reasons, they had gone to live in the comparative comfort and harmony, and the almost peace-time enjoyment, of beautiful districts, far removed from the immediate seat of war, in the North and West. These people have not lost so much as the person who, perhaps, in similar circumstances, in the next-door house, has had to be removed and has come to London, who has been bombed out there and has had to go back again to a relic of his own home in one of these districts. Then, perhaps, having sustained the tip-and-run raid period, they have suffered still further trials and tribulations through flying bombs and other incidents to which all of us are well accustomed. There should be no difference in the treatment of these two unfortunate debtors, and I hope very much that circumstances of that type, as well as of the more direct financial type, will be present in the minds of these conciliation officers when they are functioning.
  I would like also to refer to Clause 3 of the Bill, which gives the Lord Chancellor power to make an Order extending the foregoing Section to additional areas. I welcome that, and I think hon. Members will appreciate the reason when I say that the line of demarcation will pass through the middle of my constituency, and I can foresee very great difficulties indeed where people on one side of the line would be entitled to the protection of this Bill, whereas people in identical circumstances on the other side would be without its protection altogether. I realise that there must be a line drawn some-

  1807
  where, but, if it were drawn without Clause 3, the line would be entirely arbitrary and bound to cause a very great deal of hardship.
  There is one point under that Clause to which I would draw the attention of the Attorney-General. The Clause provides that, if it is expedient, "the foregoing Sections of the Act" should apply in relation to another area, to which it is desirable to extend the provisions of the Bill. I am not quite sure what that means. Supposing you get a person in the coastal area who has had to be evacuated, and who has incurred debts in the area, which would be the object of the moratorium. Like the people of whom I am speaking, she derives the whole of her income from two houses she owns in that area, and has consequently lost that income. She has been evacuated to somewhere right outside the area. Having lost her income, she has suffered as a result and has incurred debts in that other area. She still has no income with which she can pay these debts, because, in all probability, her creditors will themselves be absolved, in part, of their liability towards her. I think it is clear, under the Clause, that the creditors, and the debts which the lady has incurred in that area, will come under the operation of this Bill and will be resolved. But what is the position regarding the debts which the lady has incurred elsewhere and which she has no means of being able to pay? Could the Attorney-General clarify that point, which I fully realise presents great difficulty, though I feel the Bill would not be complete unless it deals with points of that sort?
  1.57 p.m.
  Mr. Channon: Few Bills have had so many sponsors as this Bill and I really rise to join in a chorus of praise. I think the Bill will go a long wax, to get rid of the chaotic financial conditions which exist in coastal areas, and it will resolve the confusion that exists in these areas which have suffered so much in the last five years. Therefore, the Bill is welcome for itself, but, in addition, I think the large amount of praise with which we have received it is prompted by the fact that it is an indication, at least, that the Government are aware of the very difficult conditions that exist in all coastal areas
  1808
  and the acute suffering we have all undergone. Therefore, we accept it and receive it with the hope of better things to come. I think, at the same time, it should be pointed out that this Bill is only an adjustment Bill. The Government, as it were, are stepping in to arbitrate and give advice to coastal areas, but they are not offering us the other two things which we most need—money and priorities. Advice is all very well, so far as it goes, and it will be taken, but very much important factors are the money and priorities which we hope will follow later on.
  I am glad that hon. Members have referred to those two unpopular classes—creditors and property-owners. Both of them occupy a unique and very difficult position. The creditor, on the whole, has probably had a worse time in the coastal areas than the actual debtor, and I am myself aware of many small property owners—and no class has suffered more during the war than these small property owners—who are now living on public assistance in my division. They are living on public assistance, partly because they are creditors and are unable to collect the back rents due to them for some years. In some cases debtors have completely absconded to other or more prosperous parts of the country and cannot be traced and do not answer letters. The people who retired and put their small savings into property have had a very thin time during the past five lean years. They are mostly old people, They are not rich and they are a class of people that is not much championed in this House or elsewhere, and I am very glad that at last something is to be done for them. In the framework of this Bill there is provision that will bring them some relief, provided that the time factor is not too long delayed. I really only rose on behalf of a borough which has suffered very much by Government evacuation to welcome this Bill and to join my colleagues in doing so.
  2.1 p.m.
  Major C. S. Taylor: I agree with other hon. Members who have spoken, that this Bill is all right as far as it goes. Except for any areas included under the provisions of Clause 3 of the Bill it affects mainly the defence and evacuation areas. It is clear that the Government must accept a large proportion of responsibility for the grave finan-

  1809
  cial position in which these defence and evacuation areas find themselves. These areas were evacuated not for their own benefit in the first place, but for the benefit of the whole of the country. They became the front line of the defence of England, businesses were closed down and a great proportion of the population was moved away at the Government's request. Before the war these areas were very largely holiday resorts and when they became defence and evacuation areas visitors were prevented from going there. Those who remained in the areas had no alternative open to them when the holiday traffic for which they had been catering in pre-war years was taken from them. The hotel and boarding-house keeper had to close down. He could not find any other employment in the defence area. He was not in the same position as for example a garage proprietor in the Midlands whose garage was closed down because he was not allowed to serve petrol. The garage proprietor was able to find alternative employment, probably in some factory nearby, but that was not so with the boarding-house keeper in my constituency. He was probably a member of the Home Guard, and it was very necessary that the Home Guard should remain in those areas just after Dunkirk. At that time we had very little else but the Home Guard in Britain's front line.
  What have the Government done so far about these defence and evacuation areas? So far, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend (Mr. Channon) says, they have agreed to assist by giving advice between creditor and debtor. That is not sufficient. As a matter of fact they have gone further. They have done one very excellent thing. They appointed my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister-without-Portfolio to investigate the hardships, the troubles and difficulties of these coastal areas. I must give great credit to-day to my right hon. and learned Friend for the immense trouble he took in visiting Eastbourne, Brighton, Hastings and the Isle of Wight, which, incidentally, is not strictly included in this Bill at the moment. He went round and visited hard-hit businesses and discussed the problems at great length with the local authorities. We are very grateful indeed for the trouble he has taken in this matter. We now understand that my right hon. and learned Friend has submitted a report to the Government, but it is a thousand
  1810
  pities that the Government have not made some statement on that report and have not said in what way they will be prepared to assist these areas at the same time as they introduced this important but comparatively small Bill to-day.
  What can the Government do? As we see it, they can help us in this way. They can either give us a grant, recognising that these areas have been devastated financially and economically for the benefit of England as a whole, or they can give us a loan, free of interest, we hope, for a period of years to enable these areas to get on their feet again. It does not by any means stop there. We want help from the Ministry of Labour, and that is why I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour on the bench to-day. We shall want priority in the supply of labour. At the moment these coastal areas are known as "green" areas and we ask for them at least to be "red" areas and, if possible, "scarlet" areas I can see that you are getting a little restive, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, about what I am saying, but it affects the financial position of these coastal areas, and unless we have sufficient labour to reopen our industries and get upon our feet again, we shall, I am afraid, be forever in the doldrums. In addition, we also must ask for other special considerations in the form of coupons for the replacement of linen, etc.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member really is going far beyond the contents of the Bill, which deals with industrial liabilities.
  Major Taylor: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Actually, I have almost finished on that subject, but very respectfully I would submit that I am talking about the position of the creditors and the debtors that are concerned in this Bill. I am trying to explain how these people must, as creditors and as debtors, be assisted by the Government in a substantial way from a monetary point of view, rather than from an advisory point of view only. After the war, we hope these areas will be ready to welcome the people who will much need a holiday after the end of five years of hostilities, and unless the Government are prepared to help substantially in the form of a grant

  1811
  or a loan, I am afraid they will not be able to fulfil this very admirable task.
  2.9. p.m.
  Captain Peter Macdonald: Far be it from me to cast any reflections upon this Measure which has been introduced by the Government today, especially as it has been received with such universal acclaim both in this House and another place. There are only one or two aspects of the Bill which I would like to question, namely, the line of demarcation which has been drawn between certain areas. The hon. and gallant Member for Chichester (Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks) mentioned his own constituency, which the line of demarcation divides into two parts. I am in a less fortunate position, because my constituency is excluded altogether. Yet, the circumstances which apply to this Bill and apply to these other areas, certainly apply to mine. As my right hon. and learned Friend, who visited the Isle of Wight, will agree, all the circumstances for which relief has been given for what we call evacuated areas, apply to an area like the Isle of Wight. We have suffered the same misfortunes and effects of the war as the other defence areas.
  I admit that in Clause 3 provision is made, if an application is made to a certain quarter, for these areas to be brought within the scope of the Bill, but I would prefer to see them included in the Bill itself. Therefore, I am going to move an Amendment on the Committee stage to have my constituency included in the benefits of the Bill. I cannot see why there have been exceptions between what are called defence areas and evacuated areas. The only real case for it, if there is any justification at all, is that notices were put up in these areas telling people that they must evacuate, but in a good many other areas such as mine these notices may not have been put up, but, as has been said, loud-speaker vans were sent round and people were coerced into leaving the areas. Those who did not leave were generally people who had nowhere else to which to go and decided to stick it out, and they were made prisoners until the other day, when the ban was lifted. In the meantime they had to suffer the disability of having their living taken away from them; their properties were requisitioned, and they had
  1812
  to suffer bombing, dive-bombing, tip-and-run raids, and doodle-bugs. They have had all these things with which to contend, and, after four years, they have a just grievance. One morning quite recently it was announced on the wireless that the ban had been lifted, without even the Regional Commissioner having been informed. The result was that people suddenly appeared without food, accommodation, housing, or anything else. All these things may be outside the scope of the Bill, but whatever the evacuated areas have had to put up with, my constituency and a good many others have had to put up with it, and as far as my constituency is concerned, I am going to move that it shall be included in the Bill.
  Apart from that, I have no objection to the Bill. As has been pointed out, it is only an adjustment Bill; it is only introduced in order to make right the effect of a previous Measure and, in the circumstances, anybody would be a fool to object to it. Therefore, I welcome the Bill and intend to give every support to it, apart from the fact that my own constituency is left out, and I intend to see that it will be included.
  2.14 p.m.
  The Attorney-General: By leave of the House, perhaps I may answer, as I hope I can do, briefly, some of the points that have been raised. I would like to thank all hon. Members who have spoken for the welcome they have given to this Bill, and I can do that all the more readily because such shafts of criticism as were directed, were not really directed against me or, indeed, against the Bill and the problems it seeks to solve. But there were others covering a wider field and quite relevant to the details of the Bill. There is the question, whether, quite apart from proper procedure as between creditor and debtor, something more should be done by the Government for these areas. It is not for me to deal with that matter as I am sure the House will realise. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio would wish me to acknowledge the tribute which was paid to his work, and I understand from him that in this wide field the Government and those interested are in touch and, of course, I cannot make any observations upon it.
  I would like to give the figures for which I was asked with regard to the

  1813
  number of Orders as compared with the number of references to the adjustment officers and also—and here I have the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hughes) on my side—there is another figure I cannot give, namely, the number of settlements that have been effected without going to the adjustment officer because of this machinery in the background. The actual total of adjustment orders in the three years are some 716. Protection orders, a little over 1,000; requests for advice, round about 6,000 and, in between the two, about 3,000 cases on which the adjustment officers have exercised their powers under Section z of the original Act.
  I cannot agree, I am afraid, with my two hon. Friends who said that this was a badly-drafted Bill. It is impossible to understand an amending Bill without having the two documents before you; one, the Bill as it originally was, and the other the amendment. We took a great deal of trouble in preparing this Bill. As was acknowledged by the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen, in some cases we reprinted the whole thing as it will be; in other cases we thought that, on, the whole, it would be simpler to put in the new Sub-section, or whatever it was, to enable those studying it to see it with its context. If anyone will make a specific suggestion on this Bill, however, we will consider it, but speaking generally, I do not admit that its drafting deserves what was said about it by those two particular speakers. I will certainly consider, when it is on the Statute Book, whether it would not be convenient if we consolidated the two Acts into a single code.
  I was asked certain specific questions. One was whether the court can extend the lease. The answer is, "No," and I hope my hon. Friend realises that there would be difficulties about it. It may often be done by agreement however. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brighton (Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe) asked about the relevant period in Clause 2 (4), that is the period in respect of which they are proposing to effect the reduction. It may relate to the past and, in a restricted sense, may refer to the future. In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Kensington (Captain Duncan) I can assure him that the provisions of Section 11, under which the
  1814
  bankruptcy priorities are removed, is certainly not regarded by the Government as a precedent. It was thought right to do it in these exceptional circumstances but we believe that the priorities in the Bankruptcy Act should be preserved in the case of normal insolvencies. He then asked whether we need Clause 8 at all outside the coastal areas, and referred to the fact that in his own constituency —and I have no doubt he is perfectly right—what I call the regular machinery for effecting reduction of rates because of reductions in their values has been worked over the whole field. Therefore, he said, there is no need in a case like that for this Clause. Broadly, I think that is right.
  I do not think he need be under any misapprehension that the court will make what I call an arbitrary and excessive use of Clause 8 in cases where rates have been properly reduced by the local authority having regard to the falls in value. On the other hand, however, it may be that that is not so in all cases other than North Kensington and I think it would be wrong to confine Clause 8 solely to coastal areas. May I also say that in coastal areas there may have been reductions under the normal procedure as well. I believe it is right to preserve the Clause, and I believe that local authorities can well trust the court not to make use of it in a way which they would be entitled to complain of as unjust from their point of view. He asked me a specific question on Clause 8 (3) which I would like to have time to deal with and communicate with him, as it is a little complicated.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Chichester (Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks) made a thoughtful speech—and may I say here how much I have appreciated all the speeches that have been made to-day because, if my hon. Friends will allow me to say so, they showed appreciation of the work that has been done on this subject. My hon. and gallant Friend, on the whole, expressed the view that we had done about as well as we could have done within the limits which the subject set us. He asked a question about a lady who had left one of these coastal or evacuation areas to go, say, to Cheltenham, and what was the position with regard to the debts that she incurred there. May I point this out—and it is relevant to the speech of my

  1815
  hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald) —that the main structure of this Bill and the Liabilities (War-time Adjustment) Act, is in no sense confined to the coastal areas. It is open to everybody all over the country. If the lady who has gone from the coastal area to Cheltenham is, as she obviously was in the case put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, in financial difficulties owing to the war, she can go to the adjustment officer and ultimately to the court under the original Act, quite irrespective of the fact that she is affected by the coastal area moratorium. That applies to all the people in my hon. and gallant Friend's constituency and to everybody, whether in a coastal area or not. There is a dovetailing provision in Clause 1 or 2, so that, if somebody is already in the adjustment machine, or can go there in respect of something which is not a moratorium debt, then there is a procedure by which ultimately a moratorium debt is taken into the machine, and so the two things are brought together.
  The idea of Clause 3 is this. There may be areas which ought to be treated in precisely the same way as the moratorium areas and if so, there is power to act. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight said he had put down an Amendment, and of course we will consider it, but I believe it may be right to leave it in this form for the reason that, where this moratorium has, as a matter of law, been applied, the legal position is that the debts are not for the moment due. Where, in other areas, the moratorium has not been applied, the debts have remained due and settlement has been made on that basis. The main machinery of the Act is open. We did, however, think it right to take this power—and I am not expressing a view one way or the other as to what areas would be rightly included under Clause 3 because that is a matter which must be considered in the light of facts—which will have to be exercised with care, of course, and which will require a certain number of detailed matters to be decided. For instance, when you operate Clause 3, you deem the area to have become an evacuation area and therefore you have had a moratorium applying as from a certain date. The question whether an area ought to be brought in under that Clause, and if
  1816
  so what date it ought to be given, is one which requires consideration. We have every desire to see that, if the benefits of Clauses 1 and 2 ought to be extended, they shall be extended. I would like, in conclusion, again to point out, that what I may call the general machinery and procedure of the Bill, and the power given for adjusting financial troubles due to war circumstances, apply both inside and outside the coastal areas.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—[Mr. Mathers.]
  Committee upon Friday.

  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (INCREASE OF BENEFIT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  2.25 p.m.
  The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This Bill is a very short Bill which, I hope, will receive the unanimous approval of the House. The Government take the view that it is necessary to introduce this Bill in order to meet the conditions which may soon arise, and will inevitably continue, in the period of transition from war to peace. Whatever plans we, make, and however effective our organisation may be, there is bound to be a gap, in many cases, between the displacement of people from munitions, and their resettlement in what will be their normal employment. The view we take, however, is that this will cause no more than small areas of unemployment of a temporary character. For example, many works will have to be re-tooled for peacetime production, and that will vary according to the trades with which we have to deal.
  In this country we have been in the position of having to use the whole of our facilities for war work. We are not quite in the happy position of some countries where they have been able to keep large factories on a care and maintenance basis and build entirely new factories. It means, therefore, that practically the whole of our industry—particularly engineering and similar plants—will have to be re-tooled and developed. Another difficulty is that in some of our staple

  1817
  trades, where virtually whole towns have been based on a main industry, the machinery of production has been taken out. While it continued running it was useful, but it may have run for a very long time—I know of cases where plant was built as far back as the 'seventies and has gone on producing—and now, when we come to put it back into the factories, it will be useless because the spare parts, and so on, have not been made continuously and will not be made in the future. Therefore, we shall have to put into these industries modern machinery and the latest appliances, which will be to the advantage of the country but will delay the transition, to some extent, from war to peace, although we are, and have been considering the necessary priorities for this machinery to be developed. For war purposes whole works have been cleared under concentration schemes, of both plant and machinery, and we have used them solely for storage. All this has to be replaced.
  As the Minister responsible for manpower, one of my greatest tasks will be to find the necessary, efficient maintenance staffs to get these factories in working order quickly. For the purposes of the war we have had to concentrate so much on the training of dilutees and semiskilled workers that the country is short of people like millwrights and others who are absolutely essential for re-equipping these works now that the necessity is arising. It is a matter of great anxiety to find the necessary staff for maintenance work, to enable these factories to run efficiently. Machinery has become obsolete and worn out, in some trades we have not been able to make spare parts, and old machinery has been broken up so that its parts could be used to keep other machinery going. We have, of course, to try to make that good.
  In connection with re-settlement, I would ask the House, trade unions and employers to be tolerant. Before we go into the question of specialists on production we have to consider what is necessary to get factories re-tooled and plant and machinery replaced effectively. Labour displaced from munitions factories will, so far as is humanly possible, be used for urgent work, but in the interests of our national economy it is essential that we should re-establish our permanent industries as speedily as we can. An important trade union asked
  1818
  me the other day to ensure that dilutees go first when any munitions factories were closed. Personally, I think that is wrong in connection with the munitions industry. I think dilutees should be kept to the last and that we should use our skilled men in order to get our permanent industries restarted. Their approach, I think, was the wrong one on this matter. I should have thought that, in the interests of the men themselves, permanency of employment was a greater consideration than the loss of a temporary position in an industry which we know will peter out within a reasonable time.
  I ask the House to appreciate that in facing this gap, the question cannot be separated from the intense mobilisation which has taken place. We have mobilised nearly 25,000,000 out of 46,000,000 people in this country—a fact which some other countries do not appreciate. We have sacrificed post-war considerations for the war effort. The words which a colleague of mine in the Cabinet used some time ago, were "Our sacrifices have been unlimited." I should have liked, a long time ago, to have begun training certain types of craftsmen for peace-time needs. But for war purposes, and particularly for our great D-day adventure, I had to sacrifice my ideas of that sort and owing to that sacrifice we shall be considerably handicapped in the period of re-settlement. We have paid the price, but I think victory is worth it. We must try to make that good in the best way we can.
  Therefore, while we have to face the gap between re-settlement and replacement we propose to increase the rates of benefit payable under the Unemployment Insurance Act. I would like to see claims to benefit reduced to the lowest possible point, and it is, therefore, our intention, assuming we cannot put certain types of workers back into their own trades until re-tooling and the change over has taken place, to ask them to undertake other work of a reconstructional character, and not merely to go on unemployment benefit. In our devastated areas and coastal towns, which have been referred to in the Bill we have just been discussing, it is obvious that craftsmen in one trade must undertake work in other trades while transfer is taking place so that the problem of reconstruction as a whole can be tackled. Notwithsanding that, however efficient the organisation may be,

  1819
  there is bound to be a longer gap than there is in the transfer of labour at the present time between the cut in the munitions programme and putting the workers in other industries, wherever they have to be placed.
  The Ministry of Labour's difficulty can be summarised in this form. In war, and for war purposes, we have only one customer—the State. Everything is decided on the basis that the State itself is the one customer to satisfy. When you come to reconstruction there are various demands to be met, such as export trade, and increased civilian production to satisfy the legitimate demands of the public. While the British people will submit to anything for war purposes there will come a time when they will say, "We have paid our price and we are entitled to a little let-up now." When that time comes we must, if we are to maintain the morale of our people, be in a position to supply their legitimate needs. All that involves meticulous consideration as to how and in what way we can re-distribute skilled workers in order to satisfy the demands which will be made upon us. This cannot be done with the same speed and accuracy as it can be done when meeting demands for war purposes. I assume that in some trades where I have been able to transfer people in seven days it will take probably three weeks to re-transfer. In other cases it may take a month, and in some cases two months. The Government, therefore, felt that the liability to longer unemployment should be met, and we have done it by increasing the unemployment benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Act. I would emphasize that at this stage we are dealing only with increased benefit under the insurance scheme. If those payments do not meet the situation entirely then there will have to be supplementation grants, for which the House has already made provision.
  We propose that benefits shall be increased in the case of men, single women, widows, married women who are supporting invalid husbands, or who are living apart from their husbands and can obtain no financial support from them, by four shillings a week. The increase for other married women will be 2S. a week; for young men and young women 3s., for boys and girls of 17, 3s. and for boys and girls of 16. 1s. a week. In the case of
  1820
  dependants we propose to increase adult benefit by 6s. a week with a
  further 1s. a week for each of the first two children and 1s. for each additional child. That is under the main scheme. There is of course the agricultural scheme, and, there, the benefit for men will be increased by 4s. a week, for women, young men and young women by 3s. a week, for boys and girls aged 17, 3s. a week and for boys and girls aged 16, 1s. a week. In the case of dependants the benefits will be: adults, 5s. a week; each of the first two children 1s. a week; each additional child 1s. a week. Under the agricultural scheme a maximum rate of benefit is imposed. I do not know whether it was imposed because knowledge of birth control had probably not reached the agricultural areas, but, at any rate, a maximum was imposed. Therefore, automatically, this agricultural maximum will be increased by 13s.
  May I now turn to the cost of making these increases? In 1940 contributions and benefits were raised. Under the main scheme the increase for men and women, and young men and young women, was 1d. for each party—employer, worker and the Exchequer. Under the agricultural scheme the increase for each party was ½d. The rates of benefit were increased at the same time. We raised the main scheme from 17s. to £1 and on this occasion we make it, for the adults, 24s. When that Bill was introduced, the calculations of the contributions and benefits were based under the usual statutory arrangements that had existed pre-war, on an average of 15 per cent. unemployment, the normal peace time conditions. I knew, when I introduced the Bill, that we were not likely to get 15 per cent. unemployment during the war, but I came to the conclusion that, if I increased the contribution during the war, no one was likely to miss it, and now it is extremely useful. It is a very effective method of saving. The State has the benefit of the money. The conditions of employment during the war have resulted in a steady increase of the Unemployment Fund, and it now stands at about £290,000,000. I am sure if Philip Snowden could come back to this Bench, his mouth would water. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Fund might be raided."]No, I think it is fairly well tied up.
  It is not necessary at the moment to raise contributions, nor is it necessary to

  1821
  make inroads into the fund, provided that unemployment does not rise above an average of eight per cent. Notwithstanding what I have said about the difficulties of transition, with the co-operation that is going on with the Board of Trade and the Production Departments in endeavouring to synchronise the release and demand for labour, I do not believe it will rise above eight per cent. on the average over a year even in the transition period. Therefore there are two grounds upon which we take the view that there is no need to increase the contribution. The income from contributions will cover the additional cost if unemployment is maintained within that limit. But there is an additional reason which limits the possible raising of unemployment to any such figure. I believe the House and the country are conscious that long before you reach the demoralising stage of benefits running out, you must train people for work which is available. In the recommendations which will be before the House later that will have to be dealt with more fully, but it is proposed, even in the transition period, to carry on the war time training arrangements for industries that it is necessary to develop. It is no use at this stage of the war going on training dilutees for engineering if that is going to contract. I have taken the precaution recently of slowing down in that field and have given instructions to readapt training for the purpose of what will be needed in the light of advice from the Board of Trade and the new industries which we know are going to develop.
  The Bill must not, and I hope will not, be taken as an instalment of the Government's proposals for general social insurance. We have tried to deal with the situation as we see it, and it must be taken in the light of an interim Measure to deal with demobilisation of industry and the Services and all the rest. We have, however, not exceeded what is proposed in the White Paper. We have not attempted to raise a single issue which will be the subject of controversy. For instance, we have not raised the question of equal rates for agriculture and equal rates for women. That is dealt with in the White Paper, and I have no doubt that Members will have their views to express on that point. I came to the conclusion that I had better avoid prejudicing hon. Members' views in their discussion of the general White Paper proposals. That caused a little
  1822
  difficulty, if I followed the rule strictly and worked on a basis of not less than 20 per cent. increase. I think it would be at least a 36 per cent. increase of prewar rates of benefit.
  There was one case in which I could not apply this rule without impinging upon the White Paper proposals, and that is the case of the married woman who is not independent, but living with her husband and maintained by him. In this case I have limited the advance to £1 a week whereas, if I had followed the 20 per cent. rule it would have been 22S.; but I have safeguarded the woman not dependent upon her husband so that she gets 24s., the full 20 per cent. increase.
  We have also had to consider what happened at the end of the last war. There was a very limited form of insurance covering a very small number of trades. I do not like to call them the aristocracy of labour but rather the favoured section. My section was not allowed in the sacred circle until 1920, but certain types of trades were brought within it. To day 86 per cent. of the employed civilian population is covered by Unemployment Insurance and the Government takes the view that we ought to use the Unemployment Insurance scheme to meet the conditions which will arise in the period of transition. If the circumstances of any member of the community are such that it can be held that Unemployment Insurance is inadequate, we have to fall back on supplements under other Acts which have been carried in the meantime. They have been more or less satisfactorily amended during the war and, though I represent a working class constituency, I seldom get a letter about it now.
  There is one charge, however, that falls upon the Exchequer, and that is for the increased benefit which will have to be paid to ex-Servicemen and women and others for whom similar arrangements have been made. They have been kept in benefit while they have been in the war and any benefit they draw will have to be met by the Exchequer. But there is this difference between now and the end of the last war—we are paying ex-Servicemen during eight weeks' furlough to enable them to settle down in their jobs. We regard that as minimising any possible claim upon the Unemployment Fund because, if we cannot get most ex-Service-

  1823
  men resettled in a job in that period, we shall have failed in our machinery. [An HON. MEMBER: "At military rates?"]Yes, with allowances and all the rest of it. A man can get a job the next day following his release and still draw pay for eight weeks' furlough, but, if there is a difficulty about reinstatement or a difficulty in finding employment, we take the view that we ought to do it in that period. There are, of course, certain circumstances in which that period is extended for overseas service. Taking it by and large, we think we ought to be able to deal with the ex-Serviceman's position without a substantial additional claim upon the Exchequer.
  Dr. Russell Thomas: I would point out to the Minister that at the end of the last war, I think, ex-Service men were given gratuities. Will these eight weeks in any way prejudice their claims for these gratuities?
  Mr. Bevin: No, neither the pay for eight weeks' furlough nor unemployment pay will affect any gratuity or bonus, which will be paid in addition.
  Mr. S. O. Davies: Would the Minister be good enough to tell us whether the ex-soldier will receive his discharge certificate before he starts paying?
  Mr. Bevin: Of course, I cannot enter into the Command Paper discussion now. I am only using it as an illustration. The men will virtually be soldiers in the sense that they will be on the reserve for the pure convenience of receiving their pay and allowances. I think every Member understands what that means. It is only to get over a little difficulty and in order that they may receive service pay that we regard them as soldiers. But they will be free to get a job, and if they get a job the next day this money will be "bunce." I am using a vulgarism, but that is really what it means. If the worst comes to the worst, we at the Ministry of Labour think that our machinery ought to be such that, we could get the overwhelming majority of these people back into employment during this eight weeks' period, and in consequence the claim on the Exchequer will not be heavy.
  The last point I want to make is about the date of operation. I would ask the House to allow the Minister of Labour
  1824
  to fix that date. I have no intention of delaying it, but at the moment I cannot fix a date as there are several things to be considered in conjunction with it, such as the requirements of personnel for the second stage of the war, and when cuts are likely to take effect, all of which have to be worked out. I want to synchronise the date with other events, but it is essential that the power to increase these benefits be given now. I ask the House for a unanimous endorsement of the Bill.
  Mr. Hugh Lawson: Will the Minister tell us what has been the percentage increase in the cost of living since the rates were-last increased in 1940?
  Mr. Bevin: Speaking from memory I think the increase since 1940 is about 12 per cent.
  3.5 p.m.
  Mr. Dobbie: I have listened very intently to the Minister explaining to the House this Bill dealing with unemployment insurance benefit and the increases he intends to make, and, as usual when dealing with industrial questions, or questions relative to industrial workers, he has done it pretty thoroughly and well. I should think that the House will very readily agree with the application of the increased benefit for those who are unfortunate enough to be displaced during the transition period from war to peace. The criticism that I may have to make will not be on the principle of extension of increase of benefit, but on the details concerning the amount that is going to be paid. The Minister has said that in the transition stage there is bound to be a good deal of unemployment, not only for the reason that he himself has stated, namely, the resetting of workshops and the replacing of machinery, but also because, at the moment, there does not seem to be any planned scheme for the turning over from war-time to peace-time industry. Even if there is we have not been told about it up to the moment probably for very good reasons.
  For those two reasons—the lack of a plan and the resetting of workshops and machinery—there is bound to be a good deal of difficulty to face. Looking at the position of the transition period, I wonder whether we are facing it in the way that is in the best interests of all concerned, and especially in the interests of those people who will, for the moment, be

  1825
  thrown out of employment. I believe it will be the wish of the House and the desire of the Minister to see that the unemployment benefit which is given to those unfortunate people is such—and I believe the Minister himself has said so in different words—as to keep them in a good state of health, and in high morale, so that when the opportunity is given to them to return to industry they will be in a fit condition, and we shall be able to have the same energy in peace-time production as we have in war-time production. But I doubt whether the benefits that are now being offered to them are such as will necessarily keep them either in a state of good health or high, morale.
  I was glad to hear the statement of the Minister as to the way in which those who are demobilised from the Forces will be treated. Whatever they get in the way of payments will not be too much, and I think that everyone in the House will agree. When men and women in wartime industry cease to be employed I look upon that as a form of demobilisation, and I hope it will not be long before they are able to re-enter industry for peace-time production. I wonder why it has not been possible for the Minister to say that in the demobilisation period the industrial workers will be given the same treatment as that which will be given to men and women demobilised from the Forces and that for a period they will be given something approaching their average wages. The House and the Minister have frequently eulogised the work and efforts of men and women in the munition factories and pointed out that they are an essential part of the front line in that they keep the men in the Forces supplied with the materials necessary for their work.
  One would have thought that it would have been possible for the Minister to come along with some such scheme. He may have had some difficulty with the Treasury, but one would have thought that what was good for one section of the community was good for another. The Minister has intimated that there is something like £300,000,000 accumulated in the bank on account of the Unemployment Insurance Fund. I hope that he does not intend to keep it in the bank and that the money will be used for the benefit of those who are unemployed. He gave an estimate of something like 8 per cent. as what we may anticipate in un
  1826
  employment. In 1939 there were about 15,000,000 people, and probably many more, in insured employment. Eight per cent. of that figure will be pretty hefty and I hope that we shall not see anything like it. I would like to have seen some of these accumulated funds used for demobilisation payments to those who are thrown out of work so as to raise the benefit that will be paid to them.
  I regret to see that the difference between agricultural and other workers is continued. We have brought certain amenities to the life of the agricultural worker, and for him as for other workers the cost of living has risen. We must not forget that the unemployment benefits were far too low at the beginning. The 20 per cent. increase looks reasonable if the payments were reasonable to begin with, but they were not. I should have thought that the Government would have put agricultural workers on the same basis as the rest of the workers. An agriculture worker with a wife and two children, which we may take as a typical family in the country, will get 50s. made up of 24s. for himself, 16s. for the wife and 10s. for the children. Surely, that family does not need less when the man is unemployed than it did when he was employed. If we have learned anything from the sorrow and suffering of the last five years, surely it is that our job should be to remember our people when they are out of work through no fault of their own. Our job is to keep their physique and morale as high when they are unemployed as when they are employed so that, when they get the opportunity, they can go back to work fit and well. Out of the 50s. for the agricultural worker's family, 10s. will have to go for rent and rates as a minimum, and that leaves only 40s. for a family of four people to meet all their human needs. It is not enough.
  That sort of thing will cause disillusionment, disappointment, and sometimes anger in the hearts of men and women when they know that there is nearly £300,000,000 in the Unemployment Insurance Fund. They will think that this House has forgotten all the things said here about their work in the war. This is the way in which ordinary men and women will look at it. The War Service Grants Committee, in looking at the human needs of people, have said that after rent, rates and other necessities

  1827
  have been met, the minimum on which human beings can be expected to exist anything like decently is 22s. per unit. Two children of school age are regarded as one unit. After applying the means test, which I really ought to call the needs test, though I do not know the difference, the War Service Grants Committee give a minimum of 22s a unit. There are three full units in the family I have mentioned as an illustration. That would give them £6s. Those are the comparisons that the ordinary man and woman will make when they get to know about the Bill. When the moment comes that they are unemployed, they will make comparisons of that kind.
  In view of the tremendous accumulation of funds, and in view of the promises which have been made and the eulogies showered from all sides of this House upon the industrial workers during the last five years for their efforts, I hope the Bill will be regarded only as a stop-gap Measure and that it will not be long before the Government take a further step. I do not suppose that the Minister will tell us about plans or schemes of employment, in view of what he has said, but no matter what the explanation is, the ordinary man or woman will look at the vast sums in the Fund and will remember those promises, and will look to the Government to have a well-planned scheme ready in regard to employment. They will think that a Government which could win a war like this ought to be able to arrange the affairs of the country so that unemployment will not attack us again as it has in the past. They will look upon the £290,000,000 in the Fund as sheer hoarding by the Government at a time when it is needed by the people who have made the contribution.
  I therefore ask the Minister to look at the matter again between now and the Committee stage to see whether he can do anything better to raise the amount, or can induce the Treasury to give assistance in dealing with demobilised munition workers in the same way as we are doing with demobilised people from the Services. It is no use saying to those people what the Minister has said to us, and what many hon. Members thought was very good, that we should not have to attack the main fund. They will say that it does not matter whether we draw
  1828
  out of the main fund or not, because that is for what it was built up. They will say they are the victims of the system. The grant of 50s. a week to an unemployed man and women and two children, on the basis of the War Service Grants Committee, works out when analysed at 13s. 4d. per head. We cannot keep the spirit of the people up by treating them like that.
  We welcome the increases that are to be made. Speaking for the party to which I belong I say that we shall not vote against the Bill and shall support it, but that we have those criticisms to make. There is a probability that we may put down Amendments for the Committee stage, but we hope that the Minister will look at the Measure again before then from the standpoint of raising. the benefits or endeavouring to do something on the same lines for the demobilised munition worker as we are doing for the demobilised members of the Services.
  3.25 p.m.
  Mr. Storey: I am sorry that my hon. Friend has just put forward that argument. I think he has forgotten that this is an insurance fund and that it belongs to all the workers in the country. We should not do as he suggests, "blue" the balance on the first people to become unemployed. We must hold the balance fairly between all the workers, to see that when they are in need there is something in the Fund to provide their insurance benefits. There are four things which I want to say about the Bill. The first is that it is a thoroughly useful Measure. It will enable a great many workers to tide over those periods of unemployment during which many of them will suffer a severe diminution of income from the high earnings they are drawing now, which is bound to result from the change-over from war-time to peace-time production. The second thing is that it is a fully justified Measure. Though it proposes to raise the main benefit to the level proposed in the social insurance White Paper before we start to collect contributions at the level proposed in that White Paper, seeing that the sum included on account of unemployment insurance in the White Paper contribution is a fraction of a penny less than the workers have been paying for that purpose over the last four

  1829
  years, I am entitled to say that what we are doing is fully justified.
  The third thing I want to say is that we should pay a tribute to the foresight of the Minister of Labour who, at a time of high wages and a high level of employment, persuaded this House to increase contributions, so that, at a later date, he would be in the position that he is in now, able to propose an increase of benefit that will tide us over difficult periods. The fourth thing is this: We are about to embark upon a wide extension of social insurance and it is very desirable that, at the earliest possible date, we should build up big reserves against future benefits proposed. I hope, therefore, that when this House has approved the proposals in the White Paper the Government will remember the success which has attended their foresight in 1940 and will consider, as it may be easier and quicker, as seems to me very probable, to build up the machinery for collecting contributions than to set up the machinery to distribute benefits, whether they cannot do as they did in 1940, start callecting contributions at the earliest possible date, even before the full scheme comes into operation.
  I see my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Social Insurance-Designate sitting in his place on the Government Front Bench. I should like to offer our congratulations to him on his appointment. I hope that as soon as we are able to drop the word "Designate" from his title, he will show that he is able and willing to take quick action to bring into effect the machinery for the collecting of contributions at a date before the whole scheme comes into operation, so that he may fortify the reserves behind his Fund while unemployment and wages are at a high level. That. is all I wish to say. I hope the House will give the Bill a quick passage to the Statute Book.
  3.29 p.m.
  Mr. Graham White: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has said that he would regret any discussion of this Bill as a partial instalment of the wider scheme of social security which we shall have an opportunity of discussing later. One thing I might allow myself to say in this connection is that it is a rare and refreshing thing in the history of social insurance matters to find a Measure brought here
  1830
  which does not add to our difficulties by creating fresh anomalies and additional difficulties in that patchwork pattern we have built up in the last 25 years. I will not anticipate anything about the forthcoming discussion which we shall have, but anything we can do by a Bill of this kind, or even by administrative action, which will relate all our transactions in the field of social security to the common scheme which we intend to have under a common authority, will be to the good. I mention that as one reason why I welcome this Bill. We have at last come to the important decision that these things are not to be left to be dealt with by the haphazard stress of some economic development or political move, but by an organised and co-ordinated plan. The time we have wasted in this House because we could, not come to this conclusion earlier has been greater by far than the time which would have been taken in making a properly co-ordinated scheme.
  The Minister of Labour carries us with him, I am sure, in his account of the transitional period he foresees, and the gaps which are likely, to occur. I think we all welcome the fact that there are plans, so far as he was able to tell us about them, which he has in mind for dealing with the situation as it develops. It has been a tremendous job to mobilise this people for war. There has been nothing like it. I think he said it had not been quite realised; I agree with him, especially in regard to the part played by the women of this country. Looking at it simply as a matter of machinery, and I think perhaps we are inclined to attach too much importance to machinery sometimes, it ought to be no more difficult to remobilise this people for peace than it has been to mobilise them for war. But there will be this profound and marked difference. All this mobilisation for war has been done under the most powerful incentive of danger and the saving of our skins, as well as for other purposes we have had in view. I would venture to say that the success of the remobilisation for peace will not depend upon our concentrating our minds upon the distribution of £290,000,000, or the promises made to the people, or anything of that kind. It will depend, it is true, upon the best plans we can make, and so far as I understand them, and so far as we have been told them, I think the plans

  1831
  are being well made. There has been far more foresight devoted to this business than there was at the end of the first German War, vastly more. Therefore we can go forward with reasonable confidence and hope.
  Whether these things are going to work or not will depend on a realisation by the people that when this war comes to an end we will have an opportunity of making this country a place fit for human habitation for everyone. We must not rely upon promises. In passing, I disagree entirely with the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Dobbie). He said he does not want to see this money left in the bank. I do not suppose it is in the bank; it is probably invested. I want to see it remain there as long as possible. I do not want to see people needing these benefits.
  Mr. Dobbie: I hope the hon. Member does not think, or give the House the impression, that I was hoping for a great army of unemployed. I reiterate that I want to see a portion of that money spent in the interests the men and women who have contributed to it, and who need it.
  Mr. White: Then there is not so much difference between us as I had thought. I did Hot suppose that the hon. Member wished to see unemployment. None of us want that, but that Fund lying there is a measure of the unemployment, in a sense. The longer it lies there the higher will be the level of employment in the country as a whole. It is satisfactory to have such a sum of money there. My right hon. Friend recalled the shades of Philip Snowden. In those days such a sum, or even one half of it, would have altered the whole situation, and the course of history indeed, at that time. I assure the Minister that he will have the support and the toleration for which he asks in the plans for training and the like which he brings forward. I heard with great satisfaction what he said about dilutees. I think the people who take a different view have got the matter wrong. It is right that those in an industry should be the first to return to the building up of that industry, and that that means the making of more employment. There are some items which could be criticised in the scale of benefits proposed in the Bill. There are points, of course, with
  1832
  regard to these benefits which one could make. I do not propose to dwell upon them. My right hon. Friend has, at this stage, left the disparity between the benefits for women and the benefits for men. He has to leave something, I suppose, to this Commission on equal pay, which we hope is to be set up. They must be allowed to have some work to do.
  Mr. Bevin: May I interrupt my hon. Friend? This question of women's benefits is related, in the White Paper, to other benefits, and I do not want on this Bill to prejudice the discussion on the White Paper, in which women's total benefits and contributions can be debated.
  Mr. White: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend. We shall, as he says, have an opportunity of discussing these matters when the question can be regarded as a whole without doing anything to create prejudice or other difficulties. Therefore, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends I am very glad indeed to welcome this Bill.
  3.38 p.m.
  Mr. Stephen: I would join with the hon. Members who preceded me in congratulating the Minister of Labour on the lucid statement he gave us on the proposals in this Bill. I also feel myself more in harmony with the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Dobbie) than with the representative of the Liberal Party. I am not in the least happy about this Bill. It is an interim Measure to deal with a problem that is bound to arise, the period of transition between war and peace. I feel that the amounts proposed for those who will be unemployed during the period of transition are quite inadequate. The men and women who become unemployed during the period of transition are suffering war damage. Their unemployment is the outcome of this war and of the changeover from war to peace. For this war damage they are not to receive any adequate compensation. If a man's property is damaged by war action he receives full compensation, at 100 per cent. of its value. The property of the worker is his labour power and the opportunity to use that labour power, but all he is to get is this unemployment benefit; which means a big reduction in the income coming into his home during the period of unemployment.
  The Minister of Labour said that he did not think that, ordinarily, the dilutee

  1833
  should first have to go when the changeover happened, but that the skilled man should go first, to prepare the way for the dilutee later, when war production ceased. But when the skilled man goes first, what is he going to? He is not going to another job, but to a period of unemployment, before the changeover takes place. If the skilled man were going out of a job into another job, there would be no complaint from the trade union movement and the organised working-class movement. He would be going from one job, where his skill is of great service to the community, to another job, where his skill would be of even greater service to the community. But the skilled man has to pass through a period in which he will have no job at all. For so many weeks he will be unemployed, and during those weeks he comes down to this small unemployment insurance allowance. That is what constitutes the unfairness of this Bill.
  I agree with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham that there was no real Government plan for the transition from war to peace. There is this miserable little Measure, to provide a certain amount of unemployment benefit for a limited period; that is not a plan for the changeover of industry from a war footing to a peace footing. The Government are sitting down, supinely hoping that private enterprise will do the job, and that, when this war factory and that war factory are closed down, the captains of industry will have been looking ahead and considering the possibility of providing for a certain amount of production. Surely it is the responsibility of the Government to see that the whole fortunes of our working people, who have made all those sacrifices during the war, are not left to be decided by what may be done by private individuals here and there to bridge the period from war to peace. That is the job of the Government. Although I believe in the nationalisation of industry, I am not saying that the Government, in undertaking that responsibility, should necessarily put the industry of this country on a basis of nationalisation; but the Government should have a plan, under which the people who have run the industries and the other people who can be used shall be used to the best advantage, with a view to full employment.
  If the Government had real confidence in their scheme, they could be much more
  1834
  generous during the period of transition. They have allowed, in their demobilisation plans, for full pay to the demobilised men for about a couple of months. The Minister says that if at the end of that period they cannot put them into jobs, the Government will have failed. That will be a lot of consolation to the soldier and his wife and family, if the soldier has to go on to this miserable scale of benefit and to have his income reduced in this way. Why is it that, in these difficult circumstances, it is always the worker who is called upon to make sacrifices and to have his standard of living driven lower and lower? I have not the slightest confidence that we are going to fit every one of those demobilised men into jobs during this period of eight weeks.
  Even the Minister of Labour will be much cleverer than I think he is, and the Government will be a much more wonderful Government than I believe them to be, if they are able to do that, and, as I have seen them carry on so far, they have given no impression of being such a remarkable lot of people. I hear hon. Members in this House who are interested in various industrial concerns—for example those who have an interest in civil aviation—and some of them have held up their hands in despair at what they consider to be the inefficiency and lack of vision of the present Government. I have no confidence in the Government at all in this connection.
  What is the position? If a person becomes unemployed in this transition period, then it is unjust to the person concerned that he should be called upon to make greater sacrifices than other members of the community, by having to suffer a reduction in his income. You are carrying the soldier on for a few weeks until you can fit him into industry. If you believe you can fit him into industry, do not give him just these few weeks. Say to him that you are going to continue him on that rate, until you can fit him into industry. When he goes out again, he should still go back on this rate, which you considered to be the only adequate rate of maintenance for a man during the period of stress and strain when you got him to fight your battles for you.
  As this is true of the soldier, so also is it true of the general munition worker

  1835
  in the factory and workshop. So I say that this Bill, which the Minister presents as so much an advance on anything that happened after the last war, is not very much different as far as I can see. The principle underlying it is the same as that applied at the end of the last war, when the Government of the day made a payment of 29s. a week to the demobilised people for a certain period, until they felt that they had lost sufficient of their military ardour and the Government could take it away from them without on outbreak in the country. The same thing that is happening again. I am glad to have the opportunity of making my protest against the meanness of this Measure, and against the way in which the worker is being placed in a different position to the property-owner, in that he is not receiving 100 per cent. compensation for the loss of his employment. I want to make my protest against this Measure as being utterly inadequate to deal with the situation.
  I know the hon. Member for Rotherham has suggested that, between now and the Committee stage, something more generous might be done with regard to these allowances. I do not see any very great hope of that. The measure of support that is being given by my hon. Friends above the Gangway to this Measure is one of the reasons why some of my colleagues in the House thought it unnecessary to put down a reasoned Amendment to this Bill. I do not feel that we can really change this plan which the Government have brought before us. I do not feel that there is a sufficiently great spirit of revolt in the House against the proposals. But I do feel that, afterwards, when the men come home, when the demobilisation of people from industry takes place and the number of the unemployed begins to grow—and here notice that this Bill is contemplating an 8 per cent, increase in unemployment during the transition, which is a matter of between 1,500,000 and 2,000,000 people unemployed—when these circumstances arise, then we shall have a protest in the country that will mean the return to this House of Members who will see to it that, as this country passes through this period of peril, it will become the possession of the workers of the country, to be used to bring happiness and peace to all.
  3.56 p.m.
  Mr. Colegate: I welcome this Bill, which I think is very necessary in the circumstances that are likely to arise. It is to be expected that there should be short and sharp bursts of unemployment during the transition, and it is more likely to be the case this time than it was after the last war, because a larger proportion of the national effort has been devoted to the war. Many works which were, in the last war, carrying on partly with civil work and partly with Government contracts, have been turned over wholly to Government contracts, and when these Government contracts are cancelled it means that, for a short time, a larger number of men will be unemployed. While I welcome the Minister's statement, I must confess that I was extraordinarily disappointed with the speech of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Dobbie) and the speech which we have just heard. I think it is extraordinarily unfortunate that people should make statements that promises have been made by the Government about employment—that wonderful promises have been made by the Government —and that, when we have Debates like this, we see the falseness of those promises and how they are not being fulfilled, Before statements like that are made, we should be told when and where the promises were made, and which Minister made them. I have followed this matter very carefully, and I cannot trace any part—
  Mr. Dobbie: Would my hon. Friend be good enough to make reference to the appropriate part of the speech which he says I made?
  Mr. Colegate: Yes, certainly. The hon. Member said quite clearly that this Measure did not fulfil the promises made to the people of this country.
  Mr. Dobbie: Does it?
  Mr. Colegate: First, before you can answer that, you have to see what was the promise made, and that was what my hon. Friend never told us.
  Mr. Dobbie: Full employment.
  Mr. Colegate: Neither from the Prime Minister, nor from any other responsible Minister, can I find that there has been any promise at all. On the contrary, there has been a constant warning from the

  1837
  members of the Government that, whilst every effort will be made to introduce a social security scheme, it would be unwise to make promises of any definite nature.
  Mr. Silverman. Does the hon. Member not agree that the Government repeatedly promised that, after this war, people in industry should be secured full employment, and, in the absence of full employment, their standard of living should not be allowed to fall below a recognised minimum?
  Mr. Colegate: That does not mean anything at all, but the Government's statement means a great deal. It means that the policy set out in the White Paper on full employment will be applied to meet the case, and, to meet the case where there is no full employment, the Beveridge scheme will be there to assist those who are, unfortunately, displaced from industry. That is the only promise that has been made, and the statement that while £2, £3, £4, or £5 a week had been promised by some responsible member of the Government only 50s. is given for a man, wife and two children, is extremely misleading and one that ought not to be made by any responsible Member of the House. In the same way, the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) says that the effect of the withdrawal of Government contracts falls on the workers alone. That is sheer, undiluted nonsense. There is no other word for it.
  I know of cases in my constituency where firms have had their war contracts cancelled. The men have, through the efforts of the Ministry of Labour, been transferred to other employment and a few have received unemployment benefit. But a firm which was earning handsome profits and is now losing thousands of pounds a week has received no compensation whatever—nor am I suggesting that it should receive it. To make out that employers are receiving 100 per cent. compensation while the workers are not is a piece of nonsense and will not stand up to the examination of the facts. In a war of this character there are bound to be very sharp and heavy dislocations. That is inevitable and, therefore, it is necessary that the provisions for unemployment insurance should be improved. I do not see, if we admit that, how we could conceive that the Minister of Labour could do other than bring in a Bill of this kind,
  1838
  because had he gone any further in any way he would undoubtedly have prejudiced the whole position of the social security scheme which we are to discuss shortly. Therefore, I maintain that the question, as it arises now, is a simple and temporary one and should be dealt with by the Bill.
  It is no use asking the Minister of Labour, on a Bill of this kind, to produce a vast plan for the restarting of industry, especially as hon. Members who raised the question know, as well as I do, that the matter cannot be discussed while the conditions are what they are at the present time. There are a number of very serious questions arising with the United States which, with good will on both sides, will be solved, but until they are solved, to come down and claim that, on a relatively small Bill of this kind, the Government's plans for the whole restarting of British industry should be introduced is to have a totally mistaken sense of proportion I welcome this Bill and I am sure that every industrialist will. We know that, while there should be no serious unemployment at all for years and that there is an immense amount of work waiting to be done, there is bound to be heavy unemployment in these few short weeks, in particular areas, or in particular works. To meet that case it is essential, since the drop from earnings and not from wages will be heavy, that increased provision should be made for unemployment benefit. I do not see that more can be done than is done under the Bill and I extend to it, therefore, a very hearty welcome.
  4.4 p.m.
  Mr. McEntee: I had the unfortunate experience, as had many other Members of this House, of being unemployed in years gone by when there was no such thing as unemployment benefit or unemployment insurance. I have never been happy about the use of the term "insurance" with regard to unemployment. I have walked the streets, seeking work, knowing that I was competent and willing to earn my living. In those days I frequently walked behind a banner on which was inscribed "Work or Maintenance." If the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Colegate) and some other Members of this House had had such an experience they would perhaps take a different view of the matter we are discussing. I have to ask myself, 1s 24S.

  1839
  a sum of money upon which an adult man can live reasonably at the present time? I say, immediately, that it is not. If I were to ask anybody to take me into their house as a lodger, board me, do all my washing and provide me with those things which are essential for my comfort, for 24s. a week, I do not believe that they would be willing to do it. In addition there is the question of clothing. How could a person clothe himself on that sum of money? He might smoke, or even like a drink, when he could get one, but he certainly would not get one on that inadequate sum.
  To quote the words of the hon. Member for The Wrekin, it is "sheer nonsense" to say that an adult man or woman in this country could be maintained for 24s. a week. Such a sum is inadequate and that is a word which has been used by my hon. Friend here. I look upon a trained human being, whom we call a worker, as one who has the labour-power stored in his body which he seeks to use for the purpose of making things that are useful for himself and for other people. I put it to the Minister of Labour, who is responsible for the employment exchanges, that, if he would go to an employment exchange to-day, he would see a number of human beings who have been trained to produce useful things and seek an opportunity to use their labour-power for that purpose. If one of these human wealth-producing instruments, call them what you will, is unemployed the nation is the poorer. It follows also that if work can be found for him, the nation will be the richer. But a time comes, it always has been so, at least in my experience, and undoubtedly, it will come after the war, when a number of men and women will be unemployed. When they come back from the Services and they have no employment they will feel as bitter as I did—perhaps more so—when I was unemployed. They will be asking, "Would you, yourself, like to live on 24s. or give me the address of anybody who will enable me to live on 24s. a week?" Of course, it cannot be done, and everybody in this, House knows it cannot be done.
  An effort will be made to put into the Bill that which will be adequate to maintain a person in reasonable decency during the period when the nation is unable to find employment for the worker. I hope
  1840
  that it will be done and that Members will remember their promises in whatever terms they may have been made. They were that a reasonable decency in life would be afforded to the men coming back from the Services, and to others too. I suggest to the Government that many of us would like to know something about the efforts that are being made to reduce the number of unemployed during that period. For instance, what is being done in regard to the development of our Colonies. I read a lecture given by a very eminent geologist a little while ago in which he said that there were only 12 geologists employed in the whole of the Colonies—
  Mr. Speaker: I must remind the hon. Member that we are discussing unemployment insurance and not unemployment as a general problem.
  Mr. McEntee: Very well, Mr. Speaker, I will take another opportunity of drawing attention to it, maybe in Committee when you are not in the Chair. I certainly would not in any sense, however, desire to disobey the Chair. On the actual Bill before us to-day I want to ask the Government to reconsider their policy in regard to the amount which should be given to the unemployed. Why should we have to pay insurance for this insurance benefit? We are a body of people banded together in what we call a nation because we have common interests—at least we are told so—common responsibilities and a common desire to live. I often hear the term "brother" used. I often hear that we are a hand of brothers. That has been heard often enough during the war, and I hope we shall be told it as often during the peace. I was sorry to hear the Minister say that because the workers are earning a few extra shillings a week, as they have been doing recently, it is the time to fleece them of more than we should have fleeced them had they not been earning so much money. We are charging them more for the benefits they may get from this Bill in the future because they are earning a few shillings more now. That does not appear to me to be a good reason and, frankly, I think no Government ought to put forward such a reason in an Insurance Bill. I would congratulate the Minister on a considerable advance in insurance thinking, but, at the same time, I must express my very bitter disappointment that the Minister

  1841
  of Labour and the Government should consider a sum to be adequate to provide a person with the ordinary necessities of life which everyone in the House knows to be inadequate.
  4.14 p.m.
  Mr. Gallacher: I am very disappointed with this Bill and with the Minister of Labour. Here is a Minister who had a job to do, the biggest job ever tackled by any Minister of this country, and he tackled it in a big way. I am quite certain there is not another Member of the Government who could have done the job he has done—a very big job—and now, as part of it, he is faced with the fact that some of those he has organised are going, for a time at any rate, to be out on the streets. And what do we get? An hon. Member on the other side said that no promises were made. Why, we have had nothing but promises. Time and again we have heard it stated from the Front Bench and from the back benches that we are never going back to the old conditions and standards of life that applied in 1939. Time and time again it has been heard by the soldiers and by the workers that there would be something big and something new and something better than they have ever known before. And what do we get? Twenty-four shilling a week.
  The hon. Member for West Waltham-stow (Mr. McEntee) asked if any Members on the other side could live on 24s. a week. Why, it would not do them for one dinner, never mind for a week. What does that sum represent? It represents the spirit of 1939. It represents the attitude to the workers employed or unemployed that existed before 1939. Oh, there are some great philosophers on the other side—it is amazing to sit here and listen to them. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) said there would have to be an arrangement to tide over men who would suffer a serious loss of income, and the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Colegate) said that there will be short and sharp bursts of unemployment. What did we hear from these philosophical gentlemen last week? Why was it, when there were short and sharp bursts of bombs, that hon. Members on the other side were so anxious, even prepared to wreck a Bill, that they forced the Prime Minister to come down here in order to ensure that those who had their
  1842
  property blasted by the war would not suffer any drop in income? Why is it that men who have their property blasted by the war must get every penny returned and maybe a bit more, but that men who have their jobs blasted by peace—not by war—skilled men, anxious and willing to work, ready to serve their country but denied that right, get 24s.? I ask the Minister how he can possibly square it—a big man capable of doing a big job, yet what a pitiful little production this is. The Minister cannot justify it.
  There is no use in saying that the Minister is tied down by national unemployment insurance and so on and so forth. Nothing was allowed to stand in his way when taking these men from one factory and putting them into another, and taking them from the factories into the Army. Nothing would stand in the way if the Government were prepared to treat these men as they are entitled to be treated. Not the Minister, not a Member on the Front Bench, not a Member on the other side, could go to any part of the country and justify this 24s. a week. I will tell hon. Members why. I had a letter last week from some Civil Defence workers which I took up with the Home Office. When they moved from their home to another district, what did they get? They received 24s. bd. lodging allowance —not 24s.—and there was not one of them who could get lodgings under 30s. a week. What did the Ministry do in order to try and overcome their difficulty? It gave the Civil Defence workers a free meal each day. Say this cost 2s. per meal, that meant another 14s. Then the meals were stopped and that is why they protested.
  The Minister has said that we must keep the dilutees working and take out the skilled men in order that they can be ready for work in other directions. These men are being penalised not because they are not capable of doing their job, but because it is to the advantage of the Minister and the Government and the country that they should be taken out of the factories and retained for work elsewhere. Recently this House accepted a decision that 12s. 6d. per week was the lowest that could be allowed for the maintenance of a child if it was to grow into healthy man or womanhood. Now the Minister comes forward with these 1939 proposals. The Government will try to argue that the percentage increase is a little higher than

  1843
  the increase percentage in the cost of living. Is that the spirit in which we are approaching this matter? Are all the evil conditions of the pre-war days to be maintained? The men in the Fighting Forces and munitions factories will have fought, will have toiled and striven in vain if the spirit behind this Bill is to be the spirit which will meet them when the days of war are over and the days of peace have come.
  4.23 p.m.
  Dr. Russell Thomas: I would first like to deal with a point made twice during this Debate, once by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) and again by another hon. Member opposite, who said that property owners would be repaid 100 per cent. for any losses they have suffered. I would like to remind them that in the case of many property owners, especially small property owners, that is not so. They will not necessarily be paid 100 per cent. Further, many of them have suffered heavily during the war, and have lost their properties, and are now receiving public assistance at a lower rate than is proposed by the present Bill.
  Mr. Stephen: I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said in the case of the small property owners, but it is because they are working class people that they will get less. All the big property owners will get 100 per cent. and more.
  Dr. Thomas: I would not admit that all the small property owners are working class people; many are in a different sphere of life. However, in the short time at my disposal I want to allude to some of the remarks made by the Minister. He said that the unemployment which he expects in the immediate future would be on a very small level, that it would be scattered up and down the country, in this trade or in that, and that a period of time would be required for re-tooling and reconditioning factories, during which there will be unemployment which, he thought, would not reach more than 8 per cent. That, as an hon. Member pointed out, is a considerable figure. The Minister did not say how he would regulate the figure at 8 per cent. Would it be regulated by the rate of demobilisation?
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: My hon. Friend does not want demobilisation into unemployment?
  Dr. Thomas: No, but does the Minister intend to stabilise the figure of 8 per cent. by the rate of demobilisation? I am merely asking the question. How long will this transition period last? We are told that factories will be reconditioned and so on, and that during that time unemployment will begin to fall, but the Minister did not say that it was not only a question of putting facories right for producion, by re-tooling and reconditioning them, but also a question of recapturing our foreign markets and our export trade. That is the point I want to make. Until we can recapture that trade this period of transition may be very long indeed. I ask the Government, as complementary to what the Minister has said, to produce a policy aimed at recapturing our world trade and markets. We cannot depend solely on home industries. We cannot get rid of unemployment solely by rebuilding one another's houses. Unless we can enter the big markets of the world and recapture those we have lost—and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that our post-war exports must be 50 per cent. in volume above our pre-war figure—then this transitional stage will be very prolonged, and the unemployment figure, I suggest, will be rather higher than the Minister suggested.
  Mr. Bowles: Presumably the hon. Member means the foreign markets we had before the war. We had at one time about 1,500,000 unemployed, even though we had those markets.
  Mr. Gallacher: When the hon. Member for Southampton (Dr. Thomas) says, "We must recapture our foreign markets," is he in favour of the workers getting the profits or representatives of those on the other side of the House getting them?
  Dr. Thomas: I do not want to follow that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) said, I believe, that the number of people employed in export trade was limited—
  Mr. Bowles: No, the hon. Member was saying that we must recapture our foreign markets before we can look to full em-

  1845
  ployment in this country. Presumably he means the markets we had between the two wars, during which time we had as many as 1,500,000 unemployed at one time.
  Dr. Thomas: Yes, and that is a sinister warning. If we had 1,500,000 unemployed when we possessed large foreign markets that shows the magnitude of the problem we have to face now, when we have very few foreign markets left.
  Mr. Silverman: Does the hon. Member realise—
  Dr. Thomas: No, I will not give way again. I ask the Government to consider in conjunction with the proposition they have brought to us to-day—
  Mr. McEntee: On a point of Order. Is there any relation between foreign markets and unemployment?
  Mr. Speaker: There have been so many interruptions that I have found it difficult to gather the point. As a matter of fact I think I ought to have interrupted the hon. Member, and I ought to have interrupted the hon. Member below the Gangway, as he was getting very far away from unemployment insurance.
  Dr. Thomas: I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker. I think I have made my point. I have come to the end of what I wished to say. We have been told that there is going to be a short transition stage. Unless the Government produce some such measures and guidance as I have suggested, I think this stage will be very prolonged indeed.
  4.31 p.m.
  Mr. S. O. Davies: If we had any confidence that the Government were tackling the problem of demobilisation and the transferring of workers from war to peace industries, we should not be so much concerned about the rates laid down in the Bill. But we are left in this pretty helpless position, that we have not been able to discover that the Government has even the capacity to tackle these admittedly very difficult problems. We have heard speeches from supporters of the Government in every one of whom I could see at least a sort of budding Minister, and I could find no reason why most of them could not fill such a position in a capitalist Government. I have naturally taken as much interest in this great prob-
  1846
  lem which will confront us at the end of the war as anyone in the House and I cannot be persuaded, either that the Government has plans or is capable of planning to prevent a situation which will be as bad, if not worse, in terms of unemployment after the war. The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Colegate) has assumed that we shall only have short and sharp bursts of unemployment, but gave us absolutely no grounds for that opinion. He is not in possession of more information on the problem than Members on this side, and he is interested in an industry which put more than 500,000 workers in the ranks of the unemployed after the last war. I do not think speeches such as we have heard can inspire us with the least confidence that there is anything awaiting our workers after the war, and the millions who will be demobilised, but to join another huge army of unemployed. When we have a Bill of this kind, laying down the conditions and the amount of income on which these unemployed will have to live, we are compelled to think in terms not of a few weeks or months but possibly years of unemployment, and that applies to many hundreds of thousands of men and women.
  We have been driven to this conviction by the Government, which has shown such inability to face up to these problems. It passes my comprehension that the Minister of Labour should tell us that, if a man were transferred to a job a considerable distance from where he lived, he would have 24s. 6d. a week allowed for lodgings. To our amazement he tried to justify such an allowance for a man to live and to retain some measure of self respect and pride. He knows that it cannot be done. It is an unqualified insult to men and women who have done the grandest job of work that has ever been done in our history. It is contemptible in the extreme. He has had to discriminate again between the rural and urban worker and between men and women who probably have worked side by side in factories, performing precisely the same kind of work with equal skill and producing an equal output. With all the reactionary instincts of the most high bound Tory he carries on distinctions and discriminations of that kind. He has had even to distinguish between boys and girls the moment they have reached the age of 16. I regret that he has been

  1847
  forced to handle such a miserable, contemptible rag of a little Bill. I am confident that in the comparatively near future his stated opinion will have to change. What an anti-climax to the great work that he has done during the war!
  Mr. Bevin: Clywch, clywch.
  Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman has hurt my sensibilities enough in this Bill, and I hope he will at least leave my native language alone. Circumstances have compelled me to talk in this strain this afternoon, for we have to think in terms of the consequences of the horrible dislocation that will confront us at the end of this war. I am satisfied that the Government have neither the brains nor the desire to cope with the changes. The only changes they will attempt to bring about will be changes within capitalist economy, which will lead us to the same disaster and destruction that took place in the inter-war period. I cannot possibly support this Bill, and if an opportunity presents itself to us to improve it I shall do all I can to help the right hon. Gentleman so that he may not be reminded in the near future of this most miserable of all the Bills that he has brought before the House.
  4.42 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel H. Guest: I welcome this Bill wholeheartedly, and I want to do my part in refuting the attack which has been made by the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. S. O. Davies) on the Minister of Labour. I have been associated with factory work during the whole of the past four or five years, and I have not found any Ministry more human, more sympathetic and more willing to take care of the workers than the Ministry of the right hon. Gentleman and his officials. In every way they have been helpful to the industry and have looked after the interests of the working people, and I would like to take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation of the Minister and his Ministry.
  Mr. S. O. Davies: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman prepared to tell the House that these splendid workers, in whom he has been personally interested during the war, and who may be walking the streets in the, near future, should be asked to live on 24s. a week?
  Lieut.-Colonel Guest: It is because I know that people have unfortunately to be put off work that I welcome this increase in unemployment benefit, and I welcome the fact that the large fund which has been collected from the contributions of the workers themselves should be made available for this increase. I am glad that the Minister is making use of the fund in this way. There is no denial of the fact that there must be a period of broken employment when we pass from war to peace, and if that transitional stage can be eased by an improved benefit for unemployment, I am entirely sympathetic and support it wholeheartedly. I am glad to say that the working people with whom I have had the opportunity of associating have been able during this period to put by considerable savings. The savings in some of the industrial savings funds are very remarkable. That means that they will have something to fall back on in their times of difficulty.
  Our most important task will be to try and prevent unemployment occurring for long periods during the transition stage, and the Government can do a great deal in that respect. That task will fall largely on that great Department the Board of Trade, and we shall have to look to it for guidance as to what freedom manufacture and industry are to have and in what directions we shall be able to devote our energies for the export and home trades. I hope that the Departments associated with the Board of Trade will do their best to be as flexible as possible so as to allow peacetime operations to get going in the direction in which we shall have to go. We know the time it takes to prepare tools and machinery and to get plans drawn for all the things we want to make after the war, and we must have as much freedom as we can get to devote our energies in that direction provided we do not interfere with the war effort. The two Ministries which after the war will be the most important in the development of our export and home trades are the Ministry of Labour and the Board of Trade.
  We have in this country a great chance for the future. Luckily the plants in this country are almost immune from damage. Other countries with whom we may have to compete have suffered heavy losses in their plants. Admittedly, of course,

  1849
  America is in a better position still. There is a great opportunity for British industrialists, and if we are given freedom and as much help, flexibility and release of controls as possible, the periods of unemployment will not exist for a very long time. They can be largely governed by Government policy. I support the Bill because it will help in the transition stage by doing something for the people who, unfortunately, through the closing of war production, are compelled to report as redundant to the Ministry of Labour before they can be placed in other work.
  4.47 p.m.
  Mr. Tinker (Leigh): I know that the Minister will think we are ungrateful in not accepting this Measure with open arms, but whenever the question of unemployment comes before the House, we on this side must make it a big issue because we ought to know what it means. We have all been looking forward to the time when unemployment will to a large extent be done away with. Some alarm was created in my mind when the Minister dealt with this question because he gave the impression that there will be large patches of unemployment. I asked myself whether the war had been fought for the purpose of large numbers of people being thrown out of work in the period between the cessation of hostilities and getting them back to regular employment. I understood it was the intention that, when the war ceased, people would be kept in work, even at Government expense, until there was some other avenue open for them. The Minister said that somebody had argued that it would be better to take out the dilutees before the skilled men. I take it that what was meant was that it would be better to put the dilutees out of employment and keep the skilled men at work. The Minister said that he was going to take skilled men out of munitions and put them to other work immediately. On that line of argument, why should there be any thought of any substantial number being out of work at any time? I hoped we had arrived at a stage when, whatever happened, there would be no large volume of unemployment. When the Minister spoke of 8 per cent. unemployment I do not think he had in mind what it could mean.
  Mr. Bevin: I did not say I had 8 per cent. in mind. All I said was that if unemployment did not rise above 8 per
  1850
  cent. there was no need to increase contributions. I do not suppose that it will rise to 8 per cent.
  Mr. Tinker: When the figure of 8 per cent. gets abroad and people read this Debate, their minds will go back to the serious plight in which we were between 1923 and the war. I want to remove from the minds of the munition workers that there is any idea in our minds of a period of unemployment for those who have rendered such valuable services to the community. The Minister has come forward with a proposal for some slight increase. He might have said to himself that if he had not come forward with it nobody else would have bothered, but, as he has come forward with the increase, we have to examine it. I am trying to prove that there ought not to be a big volume of unemployment while conditions are controlled by the State. If there should happen to be such a volume of unemployment, could not the State step in and say to the people concerned: "It is not your fault. We are prepared to give you a decent standard while you are unemployed." If the unemployment is the fault of the State, why cannot the State say, at least for a period: "We will give you money equivalent to full wages until industry becomes settled"? Every hon. Member who spoke from this side of the House has proved that 24s. a week is not sufficient to provide board and lodging. It means that those who are out of work will have to dig into their reserves in order to carry on until work can be found for them by the State or some other body. The issue before us is whether we ought not to do something which is worthy of a great nation in a time like this. Nothing less than the average wage of a worker in munitions should be provided, until the State can provide the unemployed with work. It is not the fault of the unemployed that they are out of work. As to the training scheme, would it not be better if the Minister of Labour set out on those lines immediately?
  Mr. Bevin: It is going on now.
  Mr. Tinker: If that is so, why should anybody be unemployed at all?
  Mr. Bevin: I am trying to help my hon. Friend. In a war period, when contracts are going on, you can transfer people in a few days. When you are

  1851
  going in reverse, you must get skilled men in first, and get your machine plant in, and it takes a longer time. If my hon. Friend had heard my statement he would appreciate that what I can do in a week when it is one way, takes me at least three or four weeks when it is in the other.
  Mr. Tinker: I see the strength of that argument, but I would ask my hon. Friend, should the unemployment exceed a certain length of time, say, four weeks, whether the Government have it in mind to give something more than 24s. per week. This is the first attempt to deal with the unemployment problem and insurance benefit since the war started, and we have to meet the situation now. The trouble has not arisen before. The unemployed man always had a chance of work, if he was 100 per cent. capable. We have had difficulty in arguing that men must be found work because of their disability, but the men we are now talking of will be 100 per cent. qualified to do their work. It will get round among the munition workers that, when the war ceases, we shall go back to the bondage of unemployment and lower rates of pay. I hope that when the Minister winds up the Debate he will make it clear that the unemployment will be for a week or two only.
  4.54 p.m.
  Mr. Silverman: The essential, basic proposal of the Bill is that the standard rate of benefit for unemployment shall be increased from the pre-war figure of 20S. to the figure of 24s. In the course of the Debate, a great deal of praise has been given to the Minister and a great deal of disappointment and criticism have been expressed. I direct the attention of my right hon. Friend especially to the consideration that all the praise and satisfaction have come from the benches behind him and all the disappointment from the benches in front of him. If that does not give him pause I suppose there is nothing in the world that will.
  An advance from 20S. to 24s. represents no substantial increase, indeed no measurable increase at all, in the rate of benefit. The advance in the cost of living that has taken place between the time when the figure was raised to 20s. and to-day when it is being raised to 24s.
  1852
  is far greater than the proportionate increase that is now proposed. I do not understand the basis of the argument which says that this represents a substantial advance, though not enough. Even an hon. Friend beside me apparently fell for it. It does not represent any substantial advance at all. What it does is to keep the unemployed worker on a Poor Law standard. It gives him no more, and conceivably less, than the Poor Law authorities would have to give him if there were no unemployment insurance scheme at all. In other words, what the Government are making him do under the scheme is to pay an insurance premium in order to get Poor Law relief. That, it is said, represents an advance. That is a fulfilment of promises that have been made. That is the generous gesture made by the Government, as an earnest and token of the new world they hope to build, on the ruins of the old, when victory has been won at the cost of so much sacrifice and so much blood.
  Hon. Members have sought to justify this proposal, on the basis that it does not affect many people. Surely, we have long departed from the days when you could justify an intolerable oppression and injustice on the ground that not many people suffered by it. If the argument as to the number of people affected being small is relevant at all, it is an argument in favour of higher payment rather than of lower payment. If the number of people is small, it would not cost very much. The truth is that the argument is entirely irrelevant. The question is whether what the State is doing to the man and for the man represents an equitable way of dealing with the man, and whether the numbers are small or big has nothing to do with the matter at all. It has been said—I heard the interruption made by my right hon. Friend just now and I cannot help saying this—that when you are gearing up for higher production for war purposes and you have to make transfers, you can do so quickly, and when the wheels of industry are being allowed to run down, because production is no longer so necessary as it was before, you cannot transfer so quickly. I do not know whether that is so or not. I am perfectly prepared to take the word of the Minister of Labour for it.
  What I would like him to tell the House is this: Here is a situation where a man

  1853
  ceases to be employed through no fault of his; here you have a situation where a man ceases to be employed through no fault of yours. Here, therefore, is a man who ceases to be employed through no fault of anybody's. It is proposed in these circumstances to reduce his earnings substantially below the minimum subsistence level. It is proposed to reduce his earnings below, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, a lodging allowance. How can that be justified? How can it be right, fair, just or equitable? How can it hold out any hope to the workers of this country that they are to gain anything by all the toil and suffering and the blood that has been shed, that they have shed, in these five long years? What earnest does it give them, what proof does it give them, of the sincerity of the Government's repeated promises that we are not going back to the old world of between 1918 and 1939?
  This proposal is callous, it is cynical; it is almost blasphemy to say at this time of day that because you no longer need this man's services, because you cannot adapt your machinery quickly enough, and he has therefore to cease work and be thrown out on to the streets, you are to reduce his earnings, his income, his standard of living, below that at which it is possible to live at all. Hon. Members on the other side have said, "Do not trouble much about this. This is something for the transition period." We are entitled to ask, transition from what to what? Transition from war to peace? During the war we have been able to use everybody's services. Are we then facing a period of transition to a time of peace when we shall not be able to use people's services? Is this the plan for the treatment of unemployed after the war, on the basis that after the war there is to be the same kind of unemployment there was before?
  If that is so, it is a dreary prospect indeed for the men, a dreary, dusty answer to the question my right hon. Friend once asked himself, "What are they coming home to?" If not, if the suggestion is that this is only a transition period in another sense, that plans are under way, constructive plans, real plans, plans that can be applied with reasonable speed and full effectiveness, to make sure that there shall be full employment in the future, and
  1854
  that unfortunately these cannot be applied just yet but it will only be a short time before they are applied, I ask, as my hon. Friend behind me did, What justification is there for not maintaining, for that short period, the small number of men affected on a standard of benefit which makes it possible for them to maintain a reasonable standard of existence in the meantime?
  This is a petty Bill, a frightening and depressing Bill. It would go far, if this is all the Government have to say, to disillusion and disappoint the returning soldiers; it would go far to persuade the masses of people in this country of what many of us on this side of the House, some of us reluctantly, and some not, have long believed, that there is nothing for the people of this country, nothing for the workers of this country, to be got out of this Coalition Government, and that the presence of Labour Ministers in it merely prevents the organised Labour movement of this country from getting that elementary portion of social justice they could otherwise get. My right hon. Friend is a hostage in the Government. [Interruption.] Does he say he has real power?
  Mr. Bevin: I hope so.
  Mr. Silverman: If he says he has real power, and that his mind really goes with this Bill, that is a bigger charge than I am making against him. I am endeavouring to suggest to him that perhaps he does not really believe that this is just and equitable. If he says he does, that is a much worse charge than any I am making.
  Mr. Bevin: Make the charge as black as you like.
  Mr. Silverman: If there is any statement in the few remarks I have made that is not accurate, perhaps my right hon. Friend will tell me which it is. If I have stated the facts correctly the facts themselves make the charge. The right hon. Gentleman must not say that I am making it; he is accusing himself. I say again this Bill either represents, in his mind, a fair and just scheme, or it does not. If it does, he has abdicated; if it does, he has resigned; if it does, he has given the lie to the whole of a long and useful life.
  Mr. Bevin: Thank you.
  Mr. Silverman: If it does not—[Interruption]—I cannot hear the right hon. Gentleman. It is not a bit of good sitting there and muttering.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman would address the Chair.
  Mr. Silverman: I am doing my best to do at the moment. I happen to be in possession, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and while I arm in Order, no doubt I can go on addressing the Chair. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to say anything I will give way. The muttering will come from outside. Mutterings are rising in the streets and in our factories.
  Mr. Reakes: May I ask the hon. Member, why not be more charitable, when he knows there is a Coalition which has kept him in this House for five years longer than he should have been?
  Mr. Silverman: The hon. Gentleman who interrupted me ought to be careful. He came into this House on false pretences. He used to be a member of my party.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Let us get away from personalities.
  Mr. Silverman: I think it is the case in this House that if a Member is attacked, he has the right to reply.
  Mr. Reakes rose—
  Mr. Silverman: I am not giving way again.
  Mr. Reakes: I never attacked the hon. Member. I asked him to be charitable.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Both hon. Members might abstain from mentioning each other.
  Mr. Silverman: I have been attacked and I propose to reply to the hon. Member.
  Mr. A. Bevan: It is not, in my respectful submission, out of Order for one hon. Member to reply to another in this way. If it is so we shall soon be reduced to the muted accents of a Sunday-school class.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I never suggested that we should be muted, but I suggest that, when we are discussing a very serious matter as we are doing now, it is better
  1856
  to address the Chair, and to keep our minds strictly on the Bill, rather than to get into what seem to me to be becoming personalities. I did not intervene to stop interruptions until I thought they had gone too far.
  Mr. Silverman: Perhaps you will do me the justice, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to remember that I had the courtesy to give way to my hon. Friend, in order that he should make what was, no doubt, intended to be a helpful and charitable contribution to the Debate. What he said was that the existence of a Coalition Government accounted for my presence here. That, of course, is not so; but it does account for his presence here, because he got in by opposing it. He was opposed by every party in the Coalition. He was elected by his constituents in a by-election because he opposed the Coalition Government.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This is going too far. Obviously we cannot on a Bill of this kind discuss on what basis a particular Member was elected.
  Mr. Silverman: I do not propose to discuss that. I only ask the hon. Member, before he makes such charges, to remember that he left this party because he supported Munich, and this party opposed it.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This is going too far. I ask Members to come back to the Bill.
  Mr. Silverman: I gladly agree. I have gone just as far as I think I ought to go; and perhaps as far as I need to go. If the hon. Gentleman now thinks that he has gone too far, I am satisfied. What I said to my right hon. Friend—and it was said in all charity—was that I knew that, as Minister of Labour in a Coalition Government, where the Tories are in a very great majority, I did not expect him to get everything that we on these benches would like. Nobody on these benches would be disappointed because he did not get all we want. What does disappoint us is that, when he gets a puny little Bill like this, he lends his great authority in this country to defend it as being a good Bill.
  5.14 p.m.
  Mr. A. Bevan: Most of what I would have liked to say has been

  1857
  said by a number of other Members. I have, I suppose, made more speeches on unemployment insurance in this House than almost any other Member. After listening to what has been said this afternoon, I think that one more note ought to be added. The Minister of Labour probably looked on this Bill as a pedestrian departmental Measure, made necessary by evanescent circumstances. It is obviously not a great Measure. We are not blaming him for not having revolutionised the whole social insurance system of this country in a page and a half; but, as we are going on later—not to-day—to the consideration of very much more important Measures, we ought to inquire what is behind the figure stated in the Bill; because that is going to have a great bearing on what is going to happen in regard to those later Measures.
  I am puzzled. We used to be told, When we discussed the rates of benefit before, that the benefits were related to the actuarial conditions of the Fund. That is not the case to-day. The Minister of Labour has told us that unemployment will have to reach eight per cent. before the present rates of benefit will render the Fund insolvent, and that he did not anticipate that we would reach eight per cent.—he said that, in reply to an interruption. So that 24s. a week is not related to any actuarial calculation of the state of health of the Unemployment Insurance Fund. The 24s. can be disregarded from that angle. It cannot be said that it is based on the general condition of trade in the country; because the country is severely rationed, so there will be no great call on our resources if the amount is made greater. What then is the basis of the 24s. per week? It is not based upon any economic consideration, obviously; because, only a few months ago, the right hon. Gentleman made a very excellent speech, in introducing what I thought was a very bad White Paper, the White Paper on Employment Policy. In that White Paper the right hon. Gentleman said that the reason why unemployment occurs in the country is that people's purchasing power does not keep up with the rise in production. But, obviously, you cannot argue that way, and at the same time, when a man loses his work, reduce his purchasing power from his original wages to 24s. a week, and expect all the factors that make for production to be main-
  1858
  tained. That is the way to make more unemployment still, So the 24s. benefit cannot be based on any economic factors that the Government have in mind. I admit that that is not strictly relevant to the present situation, because we are living in a time of scarcity; but are we to assume that when a time of plenty comes the 24s. will be raised to a much higher figure, to keep employment going? Otherwise, we still have to seek a reason for the 24s.
  It is not based on any desire to keep the unemployed man, because he has paid contributions into the Fund, in a position superior to those who have not paid contributions; because the man would get the same amount from public assistance. [An HON. MEMBER: "He would get more."]He would get more from public assistance. So, in fact, the unemployed man, who has built up an enormous aggregate figure in the Unemployment Insurance Fund, is being put in a worse position than if he had paid no contributions at all, provided that his domestic position entitle him to receive public assistance. I do not want to put it on a too acrimonious level, because I admit that the Bill is not a big Measure, and, therefore, perhaps, we could not expect great principles to animate it; but I think we are entitled to ask the Government to take these matters into consideration, because they are worrying us. We ought to have some explanation as to why the figure is fixed at 24s. We have not had that explanation, and I know that the Minister is not going to give it.
  Mr. Bevin: I gave it.
  Mr. Stephen: The hon. Gentleman is stressing the fact that this is not a big Measure, but does he realise that this might be the only Measure for years which will stand between the unemployed and destitution?
  Mr. Bevan: But I am taking the Government at their word, and believing that before long these White Papers which have been coming down on us like a shower of confetti in recent months will be harvested in Bills. If anybody in my constituency asks me why there is to be 24s. a week benefit, I shall want to be able to give a reasonable reply; and at the moment, I frankly confess, one does not occur to me, except that the Minister of Labour is merely following in

  1859
  the traditions of the office of Minister of Labour in this regard. Why not, as my hon. Friend suggested, continue the payment of wages? There is no reason against it. There is no reason why, if the State is unable at the moment to use the services of men, those men should be thrown on an income of 24s. a week. A soldier would not be, and these men are all industrial soldiers. We have not even had the orthodox reasoning of Conservatives, which used to put with such ponderous detail many years ago. It is not a question of putting a man on the labour market, and, by reducing his income, forcing him to seek work. That is not the situation. These men are all at the orders of the Ministry of Labour. The Essential Work Orders are in full operation, and these men are members of the industrial army. If a soldier is not fighting battles, are you going to reduce his Pay?
  I must confess that I am still searching for this will-o'the-wisp explanation of why this figure of 245. has been arrived at, and I cannot find it. I tell the right hon. Gentleman that he is going to cause a lot of ill-feeling. Some people say that you ought not to pay wages, because some men will be Idle and those in work will be angry, because those who are idle will receive the same for doing nothing. That is what is happening in the country. A good many employers are taking men back to work, though the men themselves are doing very little for it. Excess profits conceal a great deal of under-employment. That is happening in many industries at this moment, and these men, who are turned out of work and get 245. a week, will be perfectly well aware that, in some industries, men who are practically idle are receiving wages. I should have thought it would have been much more imaginative at this period to have decided to keep these men on the pay roll, not on the employer's pay roll, perhaps, but for them to be paid average wages at the employment exchange, until the redistribution of labour in the country is brought about. Nobody complains that these men will be idle because, obviously, there must be great dislocation in the change-over in production, but, if we are to have these payments of benefit on this rate, as a precedent for future economic policy, then, indeed, it is going to be a
  1860
  very grave and sombre outlook for the people of Great Britain.
  The Prime Minister said last Friday that there are many bloody battles ahead of us. I am sure there are. Germany is not yet beaten, and the conquest of Japan has still to take place. Are we to send a message across to France, to Burma and India, that, when these men come home, for reasons over which they have no control, they are to be reduced to a standard of living of 24s. a week? That is not the way in which we are going to hearten them for their battles. I think it is a very great mistake for the House of Commons to pass this Measure without taking all these factors into consideration, and I agree very much that it is the Minister of Labour who is called upon to defend what I consider to be an indefensible proposition.
  5.24 p.m.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: I had resolved not to intervene in this Debate, but I think it is extremely unfortunate that, for the first time for a very long time, unemployment benefit should be the occasion of a display of differences in feeling on this problem, between the two sides in this House. This problem was brought home to me very forcibly last week. A lieutenant in the Army, discharged with a wound, came to see me last Monday. He had been to the employment exchange a week before, and he wanted to know what the country was going to give to him. He had experienced it on the previous Friday, when he had received £1 unemployment benefit, and he was extremely disturbed. I want to put it to every hon. Member in this House that, if an unemployed discharged soldier, a single man, came to his door and told him that he was expected to live on £1, he would find himself terribly disturbed, too.
  The Minister will say that he has increased this rate from £1 to 24s., but is that an adequate answer to this discharged officer? This country can give him 24s. a week on which to live after experiencing all the hardships he has endured; is that to be the position? I know my right hon. Friend is in this difficulty. He is endeavouring to improve something which has been determined by the House on previous occasions, and he is limited by statutory provision. I do not think that is an adequate answer, because we are still puzzled about this 24s. Does the

  1861
  Minister want to keep his £295,000,000 surplus, and let these returning men live on an inadequate standard? Why cannot that fund be raided for these men to maintain themselves, until a permanent scheme is devised? I can see no answer to that, and I must say that the reasons given by the Minister in his opening speech seem to be an inadequate explanation to give to the discharged officer who came to see me last Monday.
  But there is something bigger in this Debate to-day. It is the general apprehension in the minds of the hon. Members on this side of the House that unemployment will not be limited to 8 per cent. after the war. If they were satisfied that unemployment was going to be negligible, unemployment benefit would not be a subject for major discussion in this House, but we are not satisfied. I have tremendous faith in my right hon. Friend, and I know his reputation and the work he has done in this country. But, nothing that I see satisfies my mind that we have no reason to be apprehensive about the position of our people in this country once war production is terminated.
  My suspicions are heightened by another point in this Bill, to which the Minister jocularly referred —the wages stop Clause in the case of the agricultural worker. What on earth is the reason for the wages stop Clause there? I know the Minister has raised the amount by 13s., but do we not understand that we are to have a prosperous agriculture and there is to be employment for all? If so, why this need for a stop Clause? If it is not to be so, are we to take it that it is the Minister's view that an agricultural labourer with sufficient children to take him over the £2 13s., must be cut off at that and be penalised because of the Clause in this Bill? The Minister has probably done more for the agricultural workers of this country than any other person. Why has he done this in this Bill? These are questions which I should like him to consider in the reply he makes to the House.
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. Rhys Davies: I will not detain the House for more than a minute or two, but several hon. Gentlemen behind me have been asking a very specific question and I should like to press it a little further. What was it that
  1862
  induced the Government to increase the amount of benefit by 4s. instead of, say, 2s., 6s., 8s. or 10s.? There cannot be any actuarial calculations here at all. There is no actuary who will offer any opinion on the Unemployment Insurance Fund unless the Government can assure him that the rate of unemployment will not exceed, say, 8 or 10 per cent. He will then give his actuarial calculations on that basis. But what Government is there that can decide that unemployment will not go beyond 8 or 10 per cent.? No one, of course, will object to an increase in unemployment insurance benefit.
  The people in my division will be affected very intimately by what the right hon. Gentleman is doing in this Measure. It might impress the House if I told them that at one period of time between the two wars, in one part of my constituency there was an unemployment rate among women of 93 per cent. Only seven women out of every 100 of the insured women population in one area were employed. I have said before, and I repeat it again, that in spite of all the promises of a new Jerusalem and the glorious State that is to emerge and what the Government are going to do after the war, I can see nothing that any Government can do to alter the situation in some of the districts that I happen to have the honour to represent. My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) asked the Government what they were going to do about employment when peace is restored. What does he expect to get at the end of a disastrous war like this? What can the nation expect when it has spent its substance on war for five years, with £20,000,000,000 of debt hanging over its head?
  Mr. Tinker: I expect that the resources in the country will be used for these purposes as they have been used for war purposes.
  Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend is surely too intelligent to assume that the present Government will use the nation's resources as he suggests. He may remember a statement made by an eminent statesman that political parties join coalitions in ignorance and separate in disgrace. This Coalition is in disgrace before the parties begin to think of separating. I hope, however, that the right hon. Gentleman will listen favourably when some of my hon. Friends put down

  1863
  Amendments to the Measure and that he will be kind enough to agree to them.
  I and some of my friends worked for wages before any of our social services came into being at all. There was no workmen's compensation, unemployment, health insurance, old age pensions or widows' pensions when I started working in the pit; and I am very proud of our achievements in this country in the way of social legislation. I think, therefore, that this meagre increase of only 4s. is a serious blemish on the whole system of social insurance. It cannot be related to the cost of living. If it were so related, then the right hon. Gentlman is not fair to the unemployed; 24s. in 1944 will not meet the increased cost of living by comparison with 17s. in 1939.
  Finally, I am hoping, of course, that there will be no unemployment in this country. I am satisfied of one thing, however, that unless we change our attitude towards the fundamental economic and financial problems of society unemployment will come upon us as before. Right hon. Gentlemen stand at that box from time to time and make glowing promises to the poor people of a grand time when the war is ended. I wonder how many of them will be in power at all to carry out their promises. I hope, however, once again, that the right hon. Gentleman, having listened to some very strong criticisms 'of the Bill, will also listen favourably to some of the Amendments to the Measure which may be put forward in due course.
  5.36 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. McCorquodale): I think that on the whole we have had a good, and sometimes hard-hitting, Debate, which the House has enjoyed, though I personally must say that I regretted one or two rather personal attacks on my right hon. Friend. Fortunately, I believe that the esteem in which he is regarded throughout the whole length and breadth of this land is far too well-founded for it to be damaged in any way by attacks of that sort. I do not believe they do any harm except to those who make them. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) did sugar his pill a little by some almost extravagant praise of the Minister in the opening of his remarks. Some brick-bats followed after, hut he at any rate has the excuse of a general com-
  1864
  plimentary regard for my right hon. Friend.
  I have wondered at times if some hon. Gentlemen were not labouring under a misapprehension with regard to this Bill. A visitor from outside, listening to some of the speeches, might have thought that the Government were proposing a reduction. The facts are, of course, quite otherwise. The Government are proposing that the benefit rates should be increased at least 20 per cent., and more in certain cases, while increased contributions are not being demanded at the present time. That will take place in this interim period while the change-over, the reconversion of industry is taking place and until our full social security plans can take legislative shape and become law. Some Members have criticised as totally inadequate the 20 per cent. increase. That for a man, wife and two children, the average family, is 12s. a week increase, and I do not know any responsible trade union leader who, having negotiated a 12s. a week increase, would not think that he had done rather well and would not expect to be blamed by everybody on that account.
  Mr. A. Bevan: With whom has the Minister been negotiating?
  Mr. McCorquodale: He has not been negotiating. The Government came along and put this forward without any demand at all by the House of Commons up to now. I appreciate the anxiety of hon. Members in all parts of the House for the unemployed man who has been serving his country so well on the field of battle or in industry during the war—it is an anxiety we all feel and we all want to do the best we can. But this Bill is an Unemployment Insurance Bill. Insurance benefit rates, as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) pointed out, are based on the insurance principle and are dependent on the contributions and on the expectation of unemployment. Now the Minister has said that these rates can be afforded provided unemployment does not go above 8 per cent., and that is the actuarial basis for this Bill, because we are confident that unemployment during the next two years will not exceed 8 per cent. on an average.
  Mr. A. Bevan: Could the hon. Member inform the House what 8 per cent. would involve in terms of unemployment?
  Mr. McCorquodale: In 1939, before the war, there were 15,000,000 odd insured workers; 8 per cent. of that would be—
  Mr. Bevan: That would be 1,250,000 —with their families, over 4,000,000 people—
  Mr. McCorquodale: I have not said, nor has my right hon. Friend said or suggested, that 8 per cent. should be regarded as the normal unemployment rate, but it would be quite wrong for us to come down to the House and say, "There will be no unemployment." There are bound to be pockets of unemployment and, on an actuarial basis, we must take that as an outside figure beyond which we do not think average unemployment will go under any circumstances over the next two years. We hope, and confidently expect, that it will be very much less.
  Mr. Silverman: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the average unemployment between the wars was 1,500,000, so that when he is contemplating even a maximum of 1,250,000 he is getting very near to the figure between the two wars?
  Mr. McCorquodale: The hon. Member suggests that I have contemplated a rate of unemployment of 8 per cent. If he would only listen to what I have endeavoured to say, he would realise that I never suggested such a thing.
  Mr. Silverman: That is how the hon. Gentleman worked out his figures.
  Mr. McCorquodale: I took 8 per cent. as the outside. We confidentely expect that the figure will be much below that, but we must obviously pay proper regard to financial principles when dealing with money which belongs to the Unemployment Fund.
  Mr. Bevan rose—
  Mr. McCorquodale: May I proceed with my argument, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]It'is directly in line with the point the hon. Gentleman wishes to make. We are in the position at the present time of having presented to the country a vast scheme for social insurance. It would hardly, I think, be wise to propose, in a small interim Measure of this sort, rates of unemployment benefit higher than those proposed
  1866
  in this Social Insurance scheme. I would remind hon. Members in all parts of the House that it was the unanimous demand of this House that the Government implement the Beveridge Scheme to the best of their ability, and this is an implementation of part of that. That was what was asked for by the House, and insistently by hon. Members opposite. Now, when we come down to give some small instalment of that, we hear nothing but criticism.
  Mr. Stephen: The Minister said that this was not an instalment of the social scheme.
  Mr. McCorquodale: The hon. Gentleman is quite right, and perhaps in my argument I used the wrong word. This is an amount which comes up to—shall I put it that way—the figure proposed in the social security scheme.
  We have had a Debate lasting for four and a half hours but there have been very few questions asked of the Government to which I might reply. There is one point which the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) raised about which I would like to say one word. He said, and I think other hon. Gentlemen said, that there is no plan for the change-over period, that the Government have no plan for proper reconversion back to civilian employment. On the contrary, the Government have been hard at work on the most careful and complete plans, to the very best of their ability, and with all the data at their disposal, so as to make this change-over, when it comes—and the time is not yet—as easy as possible so that it causes as little disturbance and unemployment as possible. I would like, quite seriously, to suggest to hon. Members that I believe it does not do any good constantly to suggest that the Government are making no plans for this at all; it merely creates unhappiness and anxiety in the minds of millions, unhappiness and anxiety which we confidently believe is quite unjustified. It merely makes them unhappy when there is no reason for them to be. I suggest to hon. Members, therefore, that they are not serving the best interests of the happiness and welfare of those who have done so well by their country by suggesting what simply is not true, that the Government are making no plans for such an obvious occasion.

  1867
  This, as I said, is a small interim Measure. We are asking the House to agree to a rise of approximately 20 per cent. in the benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act, with no increased contributions to pay. For this small but, I believe, valuable Measure which I believe will be welcomed throughout the country, I ask the overwhelming support of the House.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—[Captain McEwen.]
  Committee upon Friday.

  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (INCREASE OF BENEFIT) [MONEY]
  Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 69.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]
  Resolved:
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to increase the rates of benefit payable under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1935 to 1940, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any such increase in the sums so payable by virtue of Section ninety-six of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935, as amended by any subsequent enactment, order or regulation, as is attributable to the passing of the first-mentioned Act."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. Bevin.]
  Resolution to be reported upon Friday.

  EMERGENCY POWERS (DEFENCE) COAL (CHARGES)
  5.30 p.m.
  The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George): I beg to move,
  "That the Coal (Charges) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order, 1944, dated 27th July, 1944, made by the Treasury under Section 2 of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, a copy of which Order was presented on 1st August, be approved."
  I do not think it is necessary for me to go into a detailed explanation of the working of the Coal Charges Account. The House knows well that it is a machine by which certain war-time costs of the coal industry are spread equally throughout the industry as a whole. It is a levy on each ton of coal sold, and the resultant fund is apportioned by the Ministry as appropriate. The main payments made from the Coal Charges Ac-
  1868
  count are to meet wages, costs of compensation and additional costs of production, and it is important that the House should realise that as output goes down the cost of production tends to increase. As I have said, the account is only the means of spreading costs equally throughout the industry. The money for this purpose comes, of course, from the consumer, and on 1st August last, as the House will recollect, the price of coal was increased by 4s. a ton. That sum, with which this Order deals, will raise the levy from 8s. to 12s. per ton, and the purposes of that are twofold. Half the 4s. is to meet the additional cost of the wage award in March, plus the agreement come to in April, and the other 2s. is to repay the indebtedness of this fund to the Exchequer. As the House will appreciate, there is often a time lag between the actual making of an award and the imposing of the levy, and that means that money must be borrowed. That indebtedness at the moment is considerable, and 25. of the 45. is intended to repay that indebtedness at an early a date as possible. I am bound to point out to the House, however, that lower production during the latter months of the summer has led to an increased cost of production—
  Earl Winterton: My right hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that there are others in this House, besides those interested in the employers' and workers' sides of the industry, who are interested in this matter. They are interested from the consumers' point of view. In the South of England, where the price of coal is higher than elsewhere, will consumers have to pay an extra amount for coal?
  Major Lloyd George: That has already been done. This is purely a levy we have imposed. The price was increased by 4s. on 1st -August. This is not an addition.
  Earl Winterton: But there was no Debate on that matter; it was done by Order. I was submitting that some of us who are interested in this matter from the consumers' aspect would like to know, before the Minister goes into the question of the effect of the levy on wages, whether this will mean a spread of the hardship which has been caused in many cases to poorer consumers by the increased cost of coal.
  Major Lloyd George: Of course, I have considered that aspect of the matter. I, personally, would far rather put a figure before the consumer and see that he pays what is necessary rather than hide it by a subsidy or anything of that kind, of which we have had experience in the past. I would far rather say, "That is the price which has to be paid," and tell the consumer what it is for.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: The Minister said that 2s. of the levy was for repayment to the Exchequer. Can we have some indication of the amount to be repaid to the Exchequer and what period of time will be necessary in order to repay the indebtedness?
  Major Lloyd George: The indebtedness to the Exchequer is now in the neighbourhood of £20,000,000. It had been caused by the time lag and, of course, by the increased cost of production. I was hoping—and everybody interested in the industry would, I am sure, wish it to be so—that we should repay the whole sum by this levy by 1st January, 1946. Unfortunately, as I said just now, production has sagged badly, which has naturally increased the cost, and as things are at the moment I am bound to warn the House that nearly the whole of the 4s. will have to go to meet the ordinary running of the Account, which means at an early date having to find more money or putting off repayment, which I, personally, would deprecate very strongly. The House has approved this levy before, and all I have to do to-day is to explain why it has been increased from 8s. to 12s. As I have said, the purpose is twofold—2s. is to meet the cost of awards made in March and April and the other 2s. is to meet indebtedness towards the Exchequer.
  Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Does the rise of 4s. a ton to the consumer apply to the privileged coal that goes to miners and those who have free coal?
  Major Lloyd George: No, this does not apply to them at all.
  5.55 P.m.
  Mr. David Grenfell: I am sorry that we have been given such a very restricted survey of the ground covered by these charges as they affect both the consumer and the condition of the industry as a whole. The Minister made it clear that this sum, which has mounted by success-
  1870
  sive increments and additions to the consumers' price, has reached a level of 12s. a ton. All this began in December, 1940, when the House gave consent to the first Order to raise, if required, an amount of 1s. per ton by levy in order to help necessitous undertakings. I want to say straight away that I believe that that was an absolutely essential step, a step which has been pursued in order that the disparity in earning capacity between the good pit and the bad, and the poor district and the good district, should be fully utilised, not only for the purpose of maintaining the highest production but of keeping prices at the lowest possible level. The Minister knows—and the House should be informed of this—that the 12s. a ton is payable by a pit whether it is a good one or a bad one. It is not kept by the undertaking for its own account. It is made available for distribution throughout the industry and, therefore, this is a kind of equalisation plan by which all the highly diversified industrial conditions in the country may be met and production made possible at all pits for the duration of the war.
  In the absence of this plan, which has been itemised and set out in successive stages of application, the coal industry. would have broken down long ago. A large number of pits would have been made entirely unprofitable. There would have been no resources from which employers could have financed their production, and production would have broken down. In order that some kind of general basis should be made available for those responsible for the production, and in order that wage conditions could be approximated in all districts to a level which would satisfy the men for the work they do, this system of levy has been adopted and applied.
  I am very sorry that the Minister has not himself enlarged a little upon the effect of this levy upon production, because I believe the country is far more concerned with the state of production than even with the price. If this plan had not been adopted, customers in the South of England might be paying in some cases 10s. a ton more for the particular coal that they require than they are paying to-day. I am sure the House, when it comes to understand the application of this principle, will be very pleased that it has come into operation. I take great personal pride in it, I am

  1871
  the author of this plan. We started it with the consent of the House. No vote was taken, and I feel that to-day there will be no objection to its application.
  I should like the House to regard it not as a remedy for our coal troubles—not as a solution of the problem, not as a guarantee that production will be maintained at the level we require nor that wages shall be maintained, because the Minister has told us that there is a liability of some £20,000,000 which he hopes to meet by future charges upon the industry embodied in this Order and which he hopes to discharge by 1st January, 1946, but he knows, and the House should be informed, that, unless output is improved, that liability will tend to accumulate at a very heavy rate and something much more than this will have to be done before 1st January, 1946, unless changes in. the rate of production are achieved. What we are doing now is not endorsing payments already decided upon in (a), (b), (c) and (d). Those payments have already been endorsed. All we are doing is to secure the approval of the House for raising the figure from 8s. to 12s. We are setting forth the Order in this form in order that the 12s. may be fully accounted for, so that whether today or at some other time, the House shall be given an opportunity of discussing the effect of this Order in all its implications, and the condition of things portrayed by these figures.
  I am disappointed and the House will be very disturbed. I saw to-day a revelation of public interest at the highest level. I saw what I regard as the best leading article in "The Times" on the subject of coal production that I have seen since the war began. It was a measured statement and consideration of policy. The main lines of policy were set forth and the urgency of the situation was clearly put. I think it is a great abuse, in a way, of Parliamentary rights to allow a situation to develop so far as to give the opportunity, and apparently to cast the responsibility, for public discussion on the public Press rather than upon this House. I am convinced that this Order will not meet the real problem in the coal industry. There is a tremendous problem.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The hon. Gentleman must not go into the general problem. The question before the
  1872
  House is the simple one, whether the charge should be increased in accordance with the Order.
  Mr. Foster: Surely it is in Order to make reference to the contributory causes which make it necessary to increase the price of coal by 4s. a ton, and one cannot do that without referring to how the industry is run.
  Major Lloyd George: On that point of Order. I do not think it should be inferred that I do not want any discussion on the coal industry, but I think that this an extremely inappropriate moment to discuss the future of the industry. I do not suggest—and I do not think I gave the slightest indication that it was in my mind—that this increase in the levy could have no effect on the future of the coal industry. It is simply part of the machinery that has to be put into effect to empower me to carry out the scheme which has been agreed to. I am only too willing at the appropriate time, if time can be arranged through the usual channels, to have a 'discussion on the future of the industry, which goes far beyond anything we can discuss on this Order.
  Earl Winterton: May I point out, without saying anything unfriendly to those interested in the mining industry, that a good many of us have been anxious to have a discussion on the consumers' aspect of the matter, and if we are going into an eternal discussion as to who is to blame, the consumers will have the right to have their point of view put.
  Mr. Magnay: I have no doubt that you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, will rule that what the Minister has said is correct, namely, that we may not discuss the future of the industry on this Order, but I submit that we are entitled, and if we do our duty we are obliged, to inquire as to the past of the industry which alone can justify any increase.
  Mr. R. J. Taylor: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned the effect that reduced production would have on the levy to be placed on the coal industry. Therefore, I do not want to talk on the past or on the future, but surely it would be right to talk of the present and to put forward some reasons why production is down.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The question before the House is whether this particular

  1873
  Order should be made. It is a very narrow point and ought not to be enlarged upon.
  Mr. Grenfell: I do not want to challenge your Ruling, Sir. I am sure you are trying to advise the House how best to conduct itself in view of all the circumstances. We are now asked to approve an Order which imposes an additional 4s., making the total of 12s., on each ton of coal produced, a charge which has to be distributed according to a well known plan for the relief of various undertakings which are called on to bear a disproportionate portion of the expenses on production. These are not fixed charges, but variable charges. From time to time they go up without any likelihood of going down. The result is that the burden on the consumer will increase and the industry will find alleviation to a lesser and lesser extent as production, declines.
  The Minister has startled the country by his grave statements about the position of production. Will he give us an opportunity at an early date to discuss ways and means of avoiding an increase in charges upon the industry and increases in prices, and ways and means of effecting internal changes in organisation which will relieve him of the necessity of coming to the House for additional charges? It will make his position and the position of all those who are interested in the industry far happier than it is at present.
  Will the Minister give an undertaking that, if he gets the consent of the House to the imposition of these Orders, he will consult the House before this Session ends? There are two or three weeks to go. Will he give an undertaking that we shall have a full day—and nothing less than a full day would be justified—so that all points of view can he presented? I have a very definite point of view. I do not believe that these proposals are enough. I believe that drastic reorganisation of the industry is required and I and other hon. Members should be allowed to say what we think about that prospect. I am convinced that this House and the industry will come round to the view that reorganisation is vitally necessary and that the charges which are now proposed, rather than being a deterrent to reorganisation, are themselves a step by which that end can be reached. I make an appeal to the Minister for a promise
  6.11 p.m.
  Major Lloyd George: May I, with the permission of the House, answer that question? No doubt my hon. Friend appreciates that it is not in my hands to give an assurance as to a day's Debate. That matter must go through the usual channels. As I said just now, I am far from wishing to avoid a discussion, but perhaps I may remind the House that only in July we had a very full discussion of the industry. I appeal to the House to come to a decision on this matter. I suggest that at this time of day it is not an appropriate moment to go into the points which my hon. Friend wishes to discuss. So far as I am concerned, as the Minister responsible for this Department, I would be only too willing to have a discussion which would, in fact, do what my hon. Friend wishes to do. I only suggest that this is hardly the moment for it.
  6.12 p.m.
  Mr. Austin Hopkinson: I will detain the House for only a moment or two. The Minister was good enough to allow me to ask him a question in the course of his speech. I would like to draw the attention of the House and of the public outside to the fact that this arrangement will result in all consumers of coal paying 4s. per ton extra, except certain favoured individuals. Among those favoured individuals may be the miners themselves. As my right hon. and gallant Friend is well aware the miners have had a right to draw that coal. If there is any justice in the thing at all, a miner who has been paying nothing for his coal—
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. Glanville: On a point of Order. May I point out that there is not a miner in this country who gets free coal?
  Mr. Foster: It is in their contract as part of their wages.
  Mr. Hopkinson: I do not accept the statement of the hon. Gentleman on the Labour benches, because I believe that in actual fact miners in some districts do get free coal. [HON MEMBERS: "No."]At any rate, they get privileged coal, at special prices which are lower than those paid by the consuming public. I say that the gravest injustice is done if by Government action and the will of this House an

  1875
  additional burden is placed on the whole of the rest of the nation of 4s. a ton from which, heaven knows why, the people who are to the greatest extent responsible for the rise in price are relieved. I say that the public ought to know this, so that when they pay their 4s. a ton they will have the satisfaction of knowing that they are contributing to the supply of coal at special lower rates to the miners themselves.
  6.16 p.m.
  Mr. Foster: Before I say what I have to say in respect of this increase of 4s. a ton, I would like to say, in reply to the hon. Member who has just spoken of "miners' coal," that we on this side who have worked in the mining industry know how this coal is wrongly described as being free coal. It is wrong to say that it is free coal, because it is part of their contract, it is taken into consideration when day wage rates are fixed, and tonnage rates are fixed, and in many cases there is a token figure or nominal figure paid to the colliery company. Having cleared up that point—
  Mr. A. Hopkinson: I do not think the hon. Member has quite cleared it up.
  Mr. Speaker: I think we might leave this point.
  Mr. Foster: Coming to this increase of 4s. per ton on the levy I am a little disappointed that the Minister, in his opening statement, did not go a little further than he did in the reasons he gave for the increase. He made the statement that the fall in output was one of the factors which brought about the necessity for this increase. I thought we would have been permitted to go into the question of production, to have shown to this House, who I think are entitled to know, what has brought about the fall in production. Only yesterday Questions were put in this House on absenteeism in the mines, and because of that, and because of this increase in the price of coal, feeling is growing in the country once again against the miners, in view of the fact that they have had an increase in wages and the Minister has done his best to try to bring peace into the industry, and that despite all his efforts and these increases in wages and so on there is a fall in output. There is an answer to that and I was hoping tonight that we would have been given an
  1876
  opportunity of giving some explanation. I can only say that it is not right and correct for anyone, especially those who have not the knowledge of the working of the industry, to make this charge against the miners that they are responsible for this fall in output. I make that as a general statement. I would say that the coalowners—
  Mr. A. Hopkinson: On a point of Order. During your absence from the House, Mr. Speaker, we were given a very definite ruling from the Chair that anything of this sort was entirely out of Order in the present Debate. May we ask whether you confirm that Ruling?
  Mr. Magnay: On that point of Order. I hope you will be good enough, Mr. Speaker, to allow more than your usual latitude, if I may say so with respect. This is causing the utmost concern in the North of England.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay) knows very well that this is merely a Coal (Charges) Order, and that it is not an occasion on which we can debate the coal situation. I understood that the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Foster) was making a short reply to something that was said by the Minister, and, therefore, I allowed him to make that short statement without going into the whole situation.
  Mr. Foster: I am much obliged to you, Sir; that was just what I was attempting to do. If I had the time I could show conclusively that the coalowners are more responsible for the fall in output than the men are. It is a libel on the men to accuse them of responsibility for the fall in output. The Minister knows what I mean. I want to direct my remarks to two questions in connection with the administration of this Fund. In the first place, quite a large number of collieries are making claims against this Fund, and they are described as necessitous undertakings. They can claim from the Fund because they have a low output per man-shift. I have from time to time asked what control the Minister exercises over the managements of these collieries, to secure the best use of the man-power available. At these collieries, when the incentive to make profits has ceased, there is no incentive to increase output. As a result, all the labour available in these pits is used by the managements

  1877
  not in the interests of production but in the interests of the colliery companies. Despite the fact that the output on the coalface and the percentage of absenteeism remains the same, the output falls, although the number of men employed has increased. This is because there is no control, apparently, by the Ministry over the managements, with the result that the extra labour given to a colliery is not put on productive work: it is used for improving the pit in various ways.
  Every man who has worked in a pit for any length of time knows how a colliery company can absorb labour in the pit without putting it on productive employment. A pit is not like a factory, where practically all the work is productive. It is easy to absorb 100 men in a pit without increasing the output of coal by a single hundredweight. In my view, the managements of these necessitous collieries are taking advantage of new manpower, the Bevin boys and others, and there is no corresponding increase in output.
  This House believed, when it accepted the Bevin scheme, that it would result in increased output. We told the House it would not do so, and it has not done so, because the coalowners have taken advantage of that increased labour power to use it for their own advantage and not for producing more coal. I ask the Minister to tell me what machinery is set up, whether through the Regional Controllers or not, to check up on the use of man-power in these pits. The Minister will find, if he will go into it, that there is no check-up. My right hon. and gallant Friend may tell me that the Regional Controller, through his production officer and other assistants, can examine the management of collieries and is able to see whether man-power is being used or not. I shall watch the answer of the Minister on that point, because I am satisfied, in my own mind, that the answer cannot be that this check-up is exercised over these colliery companies to see that man-power is used to the best advantage.
  The other point I want to raise is in connection with the claims made by these necessitous undertakings against this Fund. I made a charge in this House a short time ago that colliery owners who are carrying on necessitous undertakings had for some time been exploiting this
  1878
  Fund in the interests of their particular collieries. I have no reason to withdraw that charge or mitigate it in any way whatever, because I am satisfied that it is being done continuously by these particular collieries. I want to ask the Minister what check his Department has on these claims made by necessitous undertakings. I understand that the procedure is that a colliery which is a necessitous undertaking has to fill in certain forms, and that there is a series of questions on these forms. When filled in the forms are sent to the coalowners' accountants—not the workmen's accountants, but the coalowners' accountants. In Lancashire, the coalowners' accountants check up these forms, and, if they are satisfactory, they pass them on to the Minister's finance department, and, if approved, the money is paid. When I raised this matter once before, the Minister informed me, and it was only by Question and answer at Question Time, that the workmen's accountants had the right to check up these claims and to go into the circumstances and the reasons for the claims being made. I have it on good authority that that is not the case.
  When I raised the matter in the House on the last occasion, I tried, in a supplementary question, to ascertain from the Minister whether any inquiry was made at the pit or whether there was any check on these claims made at the pit itself, because it is at the pit where the circumstances arise that necessitate the colliery making these claims. When they make claims on this Fund, they are making application for public money, just as much as a man applying for public assistance. In a word, the necessitous undertaking is, in one way, receiving public assistance. But there is no inquiry into the circumstances at the particular colliery. There is no means test, in the sense that there is inquiry into the circumstances of the claim, and I am satisfied that they are taking advantage of that. I would ask the Minister whether he considers that it is a proper thing to allow claims to be checked and passed by the coalowners' accountants, who act for the coalowners in other directions. I know that, in my county, the accountants, through whom these claims pass, are the accountants engaged in the ascertainments for the coalowners. It means that the making, fixing and payment of these claims right from beginning to end is in

  1879
  the hands of the coalowners. The only part that the workers' accountant plays is that he is permitted to know, in the ascertainments, the total receipts and payments, and that is all. He is not entitled to go to the colliery and make a test or go into the circumstances of any particular claim.
  I ask the Minister to explain, if it is permitted in this Debate, the procedure of his Department, having regard to what I have said, in order that we may have this matter cleared up once and for all and properly checked. I hope that he will deal with the first point I made with respect to the exploitation of man-power in the interests of the colliery company. I raise these two points because I feel that where public money is spent—and this is a principle which this House has already accepted—this House has a right to know on what it is being spent and if it is being spent properly, that it is not being taken either by the ordinary common people or by the employers or by anybody else wrongfully. I feel convinced—and I would not make the statement if I were not convinced—that this Fund is being exploited by coal owners in the interests of their boards of directors. Under the system which the Minister of Fuel and Power has at the moment, while he may think there is an adequate check, I feel convinced that the check is not adequate, and I hope that the Minister will say whether it is or not, and if not, that he will attend to the matters that I have raised.
  6.33 p.m.
  Major Thorneycroft: The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Foster) said that in matters of this kind we were entitled to inquiré how the money was being spent, and I believe that that is very true and right. At the same time, within the rules of Order which have been very properly laid down, it is necessary that we should not range too wide on that particular question. I hope that on another occasion we shall be able to do so. The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) reminded us that he was the author of this coal charges scheme and he is a parent who knows the limitations of his own child. While it performs a useful function, everybody will agree that it is not an answer to all the manifold problems of the coal industry. The effect of this Order is to increase the levy by 4s. up to
  1880
  a total of 12s. Before we part with the Order we ought to consider the position into which we are getting. Since 1940 or 1942, by successive stages, we have built up these levies to a figure of 12s.—not far off the total production cost per ton of coal before the war. The fact is that if we take the total turnover of the coal mining industry as some 300,000,000 a year, no less than approximately £100,000,000, or one-third of it, is raised by this artificial transfer that is going on within the industry itself.
  What in fact has happened is this: By this Coal Charges Fund, the rates of which we are increasing to-day, we have built up a screen in front of 'this industry and it is difficult at any time—and probably in this Debate out of Order-to inquire into just what is going on behind that screen. I do not want to go into the production side at all, but I do emphasise this, that when you have built up a screen of that kind, it is the responsibility of this House on appropriate occasions to look behind it and find out what is happening. I believe it was the Minister of Reconstruction the other day who pointed out that these arrangements for stabilisation and price-fixing and so forth may be all very well in their way, but they conceal any kind of inefficiency, and it is the duty of Members of Parliament to watch that that screen is not exploited.
  The hon. Member for Gower asked my right hon. and gallant Friend whether, at an early date, we could have a further Debate upon these matters. I would
  reinforce that request. We have had a Debate, it is perfectly true, fairly recently, but it is fair to point out that in that Debate, though a number of questions and suggestions were put from all sides of the House on matters of reorganisation, not one of those questions or suggestions was in any way answered by the Government. I hope that my right hon. Friend on the next occasion will be fortified by the advice of his colleagues, and will be able to come down to the House and put the Cabinet's constructive proposals in front of us. The hon. Member for Gower referred to the leading article in to-day's "Times," to which he paid what I believe was a well-merited tribute. Perhaps I may quote one sentence:
  "It is the highest possible output, efficiency, and enterprise that matter, not (in themselves) either public or 'private ownership."

  1881
  I believe, if the hon. Member for Gower and those he represents—and he carries great and well-merited weight in the mining industry—approach the matter in this way, and we on this side do the same, that my right hon. Friend will be able to do something which will assure us that this Order is being a useful thing and not just covering something which is leading to inevitable disaster.
  6.38 p.m.
  Mr. Sloan: We have all listened with the keenest interest to the speech from the hon. and gallant Member for Stafford (Major Thorneycroft). We are glad to see the interest lie takes in our industry. I would like to make a reference to the statement made by the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) in regard to the question of free coal. The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Foster) really dealt with the question and said that there was no such thing as free coal. I want to point this out, that out of the Coal Charges Fund where miners' wages are made up to the minimum wage of £5 per week, the first charge taken from the Fund is the price of house coal supplied to miners. In Durham there is a charge of 4s. per week, so that if a miner is made up to £5 out of the Coal Charges Fund, 4s. per week is deducted for house coal. It shows that that statement about free coal was stupid, reckless and dishonest.
  I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to the payments made under the guaranteed wage. When he looks at his statement month by month he must be alarmed at the amount of money being paid out to give this guaranteed wage to people for whom no employment can be found when they present themselves at the colliery. I do not know the exact amount that has been paid out just now but I know it is enormous, and much of this money is paid out—
  Mr. Speaker: I cannot see what that has to do with the Coal Charges Order.
  Mr. Sloan: But, Sir, surely this money is paid out of the Coal Charges Fund which we are discussing. The payments out of the Coal Charges Fund make up the guaranteed wage to people who cannot be given employment when they present themselves at the colliery. Surely that is in Order? If that is out of Order
  1882
  we will shut the shop and close up. I want to draw the Minister's attention—
  Mr. Speaker: That comes under the Porter award and last time the Order was discussed the Porter award was ruled out of Order.
  Mr. R. J. Taylor: On a point of Order. The Minister said the loss of production increases the charge of the levy that is necessary. Therefore my hon. Friend surely must be right in showing the effect on production by men not being allowed to work and getting the guaranteed wage under the Essential Work Order.
  Mr. GrenfellOne of the specified purposes of the Order is to provide the money paid out under the Essential Work Order to men who cannot be found employment.
  Mr. Sloan: It is difficult even for those of us who are in the mining industry to follow this. Anyone who looks at the accounts would have to be a mathematician out of the ordinary to understand them. The coalowners are taking advantage of the Fund. It is the easiest thing for the managers to say, "There is no work for you to-day." If they found work of some kind for the men the company would have to pay them. If they were not in coal production that particular day they could be making preparations for production on some other day. The managers do not use their intelligence to find work for them instead of paying them out of the guaranteed wage fund. I should like the Minister to give some attention to this aspect of the matter.
  6.46 p.m.
  Mr. Magnay: Before you came into the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I asked whether we could not go into the future working of the industry in this Debate. We must consider what the past was if we are to do our duty as the watch-dogs of public expenditure. We have heard a very interesting speech from the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Foster), who made the most serious charges about the neglect of duty of the Minister in respect of necessitous pits. If half of what he said is true, it is a matter of the utmost urgency and someone ought to be sacked right away. There is the utmost concern about these frequent increases in charges. Not long ago the price at the pit mouth in the North was

  1883
  12s. a ton. We have been warned by the Minister that we are going to have a very hard winter and very short commons in coal and, on top of that, that we are to have to pay its. a ton in charges. I say to constituents of mine who are miners, "What on earth are you doing? In spite of the Greene award and all kinds of awards, in spite of what Will Lawther and Ebby Edwards have said, that there would be an easement in this respect and that we might expect a better output, what are you doing? "It is not in our countrymen to shirk their work. They are honest working men. They are the very stock from which I come. But far too many people say, "We shall get no peace at all if some of the younger men stop off work, particularly on Saturdays, because of the Income Tax."
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is introducing quite another subject.
  Mr. Magnay: I will stop there. They accuse us of lack of courage and of being afraid of the votes of the miners. I suggest that we should have at the earliest possible moment a full Debate so that we shall know the truth on every side. The questions and the appeals made by the hon. Member for Wigan should be answered in full, and explicitly, so that we shall know that this is not a kind derelict community. We have to watch this kind of thing and it is about time it was stopped. Let us get down to brass tacks.
  6.49 p.m.
  Mr. R. J. Taylor: The hon. Member has spoken of the time when coal was 12s. at the pit head. He might have said that the miners had 6s. 9d. a day, and it was high time that people paid a price for coal which allowed the miners a decent wage. I am alarmed at the reports of men being sent home without doing any work at all, and being paid under the guaranteed wage. I believe the guaranteed wage is the finest thing the miners have got, and when they have got a fine thing, that is what the owners are going to attack. I believe that by deliberately abusing the guaranteed wage they are bringing a charge of absenteeism which cannot be substantiated. I have been in the pits more or less all my life, and I have rarely known, unless there was a big accident, of a time when work
  1884
  could not be found of a repair nature that would improve the output next day. Now men are being sent home without any reason at all. Surely the Minister ought to inquire into that. All the charges and reports that we are getting from different districts must have some substance in them. Who is going to investigate them? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has appointed chief production officers. These things are happening in the collieries where these officers are working. We should have somebody else to find the culprits.
  A good deal has been said against the miners, and I am in complete agreement with what has been said about a day to debate this matter. Charges of absenteeism and reduced output are being made against the miners. The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Foster) mentioned the case where 100 lads could be brought into a pit without having any effect on the production. How does the Minister base his loss of output on account of absenteeism? He takes a certain number of men as idle and the figure of output per man, and then multiplies it by the number who are absent. That does not show the real picture because the men may be idle and not an ounce of coal be produced. It would be better if we had a full day's Debate on this mater, because it is high time that the charges which are being made against the miners were inquired into. They have done a good job of work for five years and the country ought to be thankful to them. They have worked for five years when a large number of them would rather have been in the Forces.
  6.54 p.m.
  Major Braithwaite: I would like to ask the Minister one or two questions with regard to the administration of this Fund in relation to necessitous pits. I have recently taken an interest in such a pit and have had occasion to go into the way it has been dealt with. When Parliament allowed these Coal Charges Orders to be made, it was clearly understood that, as long as the necessitous pit brought their financial situation clearly before the committee dealing with it, and it was shown that the pit production was vital to the country, the committee would make up the losses in that pit. I think that the committee was ready to give the colliery about 4d. a ton. The necessitous pit to

  1885
  which I am referring is a Yorkshire pit which is associated with a coking company. The coking company has been successful and making substantial profits amounting to £30,000 odd a year. The colliery is necessitous and is losing money. When the profits of the coking company are brought in to build up the position of the mine, the colliery still shows a loss of £38,000. That is not what was intended when Parliament passed these Orders, and I am not at all satisfied with the conduct of the committees which are operating the necessitous mines fund. I want to see it administered by the Government Department and not by the people interested in collieries all round. It is public money and it has to be administered fairly. It is not administered in this particular case in a satisfactory way, and I want to see that altered.
  There is another curious anomaly. It will surprise the House. I want the House clearly to understand that I have a slight interest—nothing substantial—in this colliery, but I want it to be clearly understood that it is not from that angle that I am talking. I am only trying to give an example of what is going on. This colliery is situated in Yorkshire. The men are in the Derbyshire union. The price allowances for the Yorkshire pits, which are all round this colliery within half a mile, are 2s. 11d. more than are allowed for this colliery, because the men are in the Derbyshire union. How can that pit be anything but necessitous when a situation like that exists? It is a perfectly ridiculous anomaly and it is that sort of thing which I think this necessitous committee should try to clear up. It is all very well to dish out money right and left as a sort of dole to people, but we have to try to be constructive with this money. We need to bring in a better spirit, a spirit of team work in the industry. This sort of thing engenders suspicion among people all round, and it is that rotten suspicion that has got the industry into its present position.
  This may be an isolated cas—I do not know, but I would like that case investigated thoroughly. Then we can see what the anomalies are. I am sure that correct administration of this fund will do much to put stability into the mining industry. I am at one with my hon. Friends oppo-
  1886
  site in admiration for what the miners have done and are doing. They have had a darned hard job underground for five years, without that necessary recruitment of new blood which is so vital in any industry. We may complain, but I want to pay a tribute to the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary, for they have brought a better feeling into the industry during these past months than has existed there for a very long time. Let us try to build up this feeling and clear out the anomalies and so put the industry back where it belongs. I took this interest in this pit, although people said: "You have been getting coal out in the open," but now I have gone underground, and I know something about it, and shall be able to tell the House a little more about it in six months' time.
  6.58 p.m.
  Mr. George Griffiths: I would like to preface what I have to say by a few remarks to the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson). He has gone now. He will be putting questions next week about absenteeism. He is the greatest individualist in this House, and is the biggest opponent of trade unionism among the 615 Members who are elected to this House. I wanted to say that to his face. He tried to impress the House, and the public through the House, by saying that the miner got his coal free. The miner does not get coal free from one end of the British Isles to the other. Some of us—the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power, and the Parliamentary Secretary to. the Ministry of Pensions, along with myself—have made out scores of price lists, and in the making of them have had to consult as to the price of coal. I have argued for days on end about Id. or 1½d. per ton for the miner's own coal. He pays for his home coal before he gets it. The hon. Member for Mossley tries to make the nation believe that the miner has got his coal for nothing.
  I want to say one or two other things. The credit for following this matter up is due to the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Foster) and myself. We have been after the "Bevin shifts," as some of them are called, for over two years. We can substantiate the statements that we make repeatedly that men, since the Essential Work Order has been in operation, have been sent back from the pits when there

  1887
  has been work in those very pits for them. I cited a case and I will cite it again—my own brother was in this—where 17 men went down to a district. They were down there for work at six o'clock. At ten past six the deputy came out, and said, "There is no work for you chaps; off you go." They would never have been told anything like that, if there had not been an Essential Work Order in operation. When these 17 men left, and the deputy went to see his coal face and haulage hands, he was 12 men short and he had to bring men out of the coal face to help with the haulage. The 17 men who had gone were getting 17s. 10d. a shift for doing nothing.
  I will give another up-to-date case. I was in the branch room at my own branch a fortnight last night and the men raised this question. A lot of our chaps now come out of the pit with their lamp burnt out before they get to the coal face and they are paid under the Essential Work Order. They get there at 4.30, get a lamp out of the lamp hole and before they reach the coal face the lamp has burnt out and they have to come out. Whose fault is that? If these things are investigated as they ought to be—we have told the Minister of Fuel and Power repeatedly about such cases and we say that these are additional charges on this Coal Charges Order—if the Minister will look at the ascertainments for last month he will find where there is stated the amount of money paid out under the Essential Work Order for shifts that have not been worked, money which runs into thousands of pounds.
  I put a Question to. the Minister about two years ago asking the number of shifts that had been paid for at Monkton Colliery during the month, at Brodsworth Colliery during the month, and the number of shifts paid for at yet another big pit in the county during the month. I believe it was the Parliamentary Secretary who dealt with it. He said, "You had better come down below and see so and so." I went and saw the person mentioned. He said "I cannot give you the figures for these pits separately." What I wanted to get at was how the Essential Work Order was operating at these pits so that we could bring the matter up, and if too many unworked shifts were being paid for, we should
  1888
  want to know why. I am asking the Minister to look into these things. I have cited cases not in a general way. I have cited two definite cases about men coming out because there was supposed to be no work for them to do. There was plenty of work, but the attitude was "We can take it out of the pocket of Gwilym," out of the Coal Charges Order. I hope the Minister will answer these cases, or if he cannot, that he will get down to the pits and clear out the managers, if they cannot manage the pits better than they are doing.
  7.5 p.m.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: It has been said that this Coal Charges Fund is a screen across the industry, hiding what is taking place. To-night we have had from both sides of the House a slight tearing of this screen. If this House appreciated all that is taking place in the mining industry, and the threat it represents to the post-war prosperity of Britain, Members on that side would clamour even more than Members on this side for reorganisation of this industry. No one has complained about the necessity for a Coal Charges Account. It is highly necessary, to iron out some of the inequalities that exist in the geological conditions of the coalfields. But why has the Minister told us so little about the form of the expenditure under this Fund? One would have thought that with so large a sum of money, with such a grievous burden imposed on the consumer, we should have had a detailed report of the manner in which this money is spent. I know that we have had my right hon. and gallant Friend's digest; but here is a particular section of the industry, a particular sum of money imposed on the price the consumer has to pay, and so far we have had just a bare statement that it is wanted for wages and to pay the Exchequer. That is not the way to treat this subject. My right hon. and gallant Friend will only heighten the suspicions that already exist by treating it in that manner.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckrose (Major Braithwaite) talked about the necessitous pits, but he should remember that the mining industry since 1926 has been run upon this platform: that the lower the income into the actual mining industry, the lower the miners' wages, irrespective of what is made out-

  1889
  side, the higher the profit that can be made away from the pit by the owners. It is nothing new that the owners of the pit should lose money on the actual production of the coal to the pithead, and that they should go and make a profit outside the pityard. We had the alarming situation of a gas company as a subsidiary of a colliery company in South Wales. [Interruption.] I appreciate that I am treading on ground that I ought not to, and I am not entitled to take advantage of Mr. Speaker. The isolated instance that we have had from the other side of the House, from a very limited experience, ought to convince Members over there that this industry wants looking into very closely. Much of what has been said from this side has been regarded as propaganda, as sentiment, as being exaggerated; but when a Member on that side makes a statement from his personal experience—a very short experience—surely he ought to convince hon. Members on that side that behind the Coal Charges Account there is something which would warrant investigation. This Coal Charges Account covers the expenditure of the officials of the Ministry, I take it, and the expenses of the Ministry. It comes under the immediate supervision in the districts of the representatives of the Minister, and the Minister, in pursuance of his powers of control, has appointed, to look after production, district production directors. What happens? In South Wales the Minister appointed, as his district production directors, the colliery agents who were employed 13y the colliery companies. They work from the same offices, they use the cars provided by their old employers, they have all their own perquisites, their houses, their gardeners, their clothes, for which they do not pay. They have all these things, and they work in the same offices, with the same typists and the same clerks, and in the same region which they previously controlled for the colliery company, they are now called production directors, and this House pays their salaries—and we are told that that is control.
  I think nothing has caused more cynicism amongst the miners of South Wales than their being told that certain representatives of the employers are production directors of the Ministry of Fuel and Power. I want to submit that, if we are concerned about the future of this country, no matter on which side of the House we
  1890
  may be, and we are concerned about the prosperity of Britain, we must tear away this veil and examine this industry, or, I would suggest, the prosperity of Britain will be wrecked again in 1946 by this mining industry as it wrecked it in 1926, and that, perhaps, may be the last chance, to which my hon. Friend referred—the last chance of the coalowners, of the hon. Gentlemen who sit on the other side of the House and of the system they represent.
  7.12 p.m.
  Mr. Tom Brown: It was not my intention to enter into this discussion, but to wait to a subsequent day when we could debate this matter in its full form. As this discussion proceeded to-day, the veil of mystery and obscurity has slowly but surely begun to lift. I should not have risen had it not been for the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Buckrose (Major Braithwaite), who said, and rightly too, that there is suspicion prevailing in the minds of the miners, the consuming public and many hon. Members of this House who are interested in the future prosperity of the coal industry. It is quite true to say that an over-abundance of anything leads to extravagance, and an over-abundance of funds upon which the coalowners can draw has led to a certain amount of extravagance. Claims have been put forward by coalowners for payments from this Fund which could not be justified by any hon. Member of this House with an impartial mind, but it is there and we have got to deal with it.
  Why is it there? I put a question privately to the Minister of Fuel and Power, who, we all admit, has had a very sticky job. I do not envy the Minister his job. My desire, and I think the desire of every hon. Member of this House, is—and if it is not, it should be—to help him in every conceivable way to face the colossal task he has undertaken. I put a question to the Minister privately about how he checked up on the claims that were made to his Department under the Coal Charges Order Fund, and he told me that they were checked up by the auditors in the district and by his Department. But let us start at the source. What do we find prevailing in the district? That some of the auditors for the coalowners in the district are also the auditors for the men, and vice versa. That, to my mind, is a serious state of affairs.

  1891
  These auditors ought to be independent. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths), with his illustrations of the charges that have been made against the Fund, at least convinced me that what is taking place in Lancashire is also taking place in Yorkshire. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sloan) mentioned that certain things were taking place in the county that he represents. We must not run away from this, but be courageous and face it. We want the application of sterling honesty in this business and I think we can get it. It will not be by the expression of words but by deeds and actions that we shall get to the root of the problem of the mining industry. I have often said, and I say it again, that there has been a legacy handed down with which we have to deal, and I believe we can deal with it if we approach it in the right mind and at the right time and in the right attitude. We hope that there will be found time in the very near future for a full Debate, even if it is a day's Debate, on the importance of attempting to put the mining industry into its correct perspective not so much in the interests of the owners or miners, but in the interests of this House and the people of the country.
  7.17 p.m.
  Major Lloyd George: The hope has been expressed that we might have a day to discuss coal and, as I have said once before, I certainly would not object to that. We have had many discussions on coal—
  Mr. Ness Edwards: It is worse every time.
  Major Lloyd George: — and they are intended to be helpful when they start, and I hope hon. Members will forgive me when I say that far too many speeches start, as so many have started to-night, with "I would not have got on to my feet had it not been for a remark made by an hon. Gentleman on the other side." How many speeches in this short discussion have started with that sentence? This is one of the things I wish to avoid. Charges and counter-charges are easier to make in a Debate on this industry than on anything else I know, and they will not get us very far. To-night is not
  1892
  the occasion for a discussion of that character, but I must refer to one or two observations that have been made. I have been told by the hon. and gallant Member for Stafford (Major Thorneycroft) that there is a screen which covers this industry which I and others are hiding behind and are doing some very funny things. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards), I think, would be very unhappy if there was no screen he could look behind. But that is an extraordinary thing to say about the mining industry. Is there an industry in the country so exposed to examination in all its aspects as this one? Is there an industry in which information is available to the general public in any way comparable with this industry? Has there ever been so much discussion about the finances of any industry as there has been about this one? Can any hon. Member point to any industry of a heavy nature where there has been so much information supplied?
  What is this nonsense about a screen? There is no other industry in the country so exposed to the glare of public opinion. The idea that this Coal Charges Account is the screen or, shall I say, the dope which the Ministry of Fuel puts out to keep Members from discussing the future of the industry is really rather fantastic—
  Major Thorneycroft: May I interrupt? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is using words like dope and so forth which I have no recollection of having used myself. I spoke about a screen, and I would ask him to refer to the speech made by the Minister of Reconstruction only the other day pointing out that when there are stabilisation schemes and price-fixing schemes of this type, it is impossible really to see whether any particular section of the industry is being run efficiently or inefficiently. Therefore, when there is a scheme of that type, is it not indeed appropriate that Members of Parliament should inquire what is going on?
  Mr. Foster: Will the Minister agree that whilst there is a lot of inquiry about the mining industry, and a lot of Committees are set up to inquire into its running, that there is less known about the mining industry than any other because it is an underground industry?
  Major Lloyd Georg: I would agree with this, that there is less known, and therefore more remedies are proposed by all sorts of people. [An HON. MEMBER: "But they are not remedies."]The real trouble is that there is less known about the industry, and there is no industry about which so many things have been said to put it right. I took it as my duty to try to find out what it was to which my hon. Friend referred. It is an extremely complex industry and I am asking for the advice of everybody concerned in it. It is easy enough to say it wants reorganising and needs a comprehensive scheme, but first of all let us find out what is necessary. That is not going to be done in six weeks.
  Mr. Foster: Nationalisation.
  Major Lloyd Georg: I can assure the hon. Member that if he nationalises it tomorrow he will not get rid of the responsibility of doing something with this industry. [An HON. MEMBER: "Get rid of the owners."]With great respect to my hon. Friend, it does not matter who owns this industry. I make this prediction, that whoever stands at this Box, whether he is a Minister with a private enterprise or State-owned enterprise, he will have exactly the same problems as those with which I am faced. It is no good putting our heads in the sand about that. The industry has to be economically and efficiently run, whoever owns it. When I said that my hon. Friend behind me used the word "screen," I said that no industry in the country was so open to the glare of the public.
  Mr. Grenfell: I wanted to speak about some of the things which are now being brought forward by the Minister, and I was told that it would not be in Order to-night. Has not a screen been thrown round the activities of the industry during the last few days? The whole responsibility for the falling of output has been put upon the men and upon absenteeism. I should have liked to deal with that to-night. I think the time has come when we must discuss the larger problems. There will be no industry left soon unless we do tackle it. The Minister is now putting a screen across these matters by raising these side issues.
  Major Lloyd George: With great respect. I am not doing anything of the
  1894
  sort My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly said that I had not told the House anything about the reason for raising the levy from 8s. to 12s. But this Fund has been going on for a long time. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary gave a full explanation last time as to the reasons for raising the levy to 8s., and to-night I gave the reasons for raising it by another 4s. It is to meet the Porter award, and the agreement which was signed in April, and the indebtedness to the Exchequer which has been incurred. The vast proportion of this increase is directly due to wages. I share the view of hon. Members opposite who have said that the result of this has been to double the production costs of coal. But nobody would wish to see coal again raised at the price at which it used to be raised, at the expense of the men who raise it. As wages form the largest part of the costs of production of coal it can be said that if the price of coal has doubled then, roughly speaking, wages have doubled. The great proportion of this 12s. levy is to meet wages and other conditions, such as the guaranteed wage and so on.
  One or two points have been made in regard to the investigation of abuses of the Essential Work Order. I am most anxious that if there are any abuses they should be stopped. Investigation is made by the director at the regional office and accountants are sent to see what the cause is. Of this 12s., only 2d. or 1½d. goes in this way, but, as I have said, if there are abuses they should be checked, even although only a small sum of money is involved.
  Mr. R. J. Taylor: I want to be clear on this point. The important thing to us is that when men are sent home and paid under the Essential Work Order they have not produced any coal, so that output per man goes down.
  Major Lloyd George: There is, it is true, loss of output, and I am anxious to stop that as much as possible. When I get notice of cases I investigate them. I was asked what check there is on questions concerning necessitous undertakings. On the whole, I do not think the scheme is working too badly. From that side of the House it is suggested that they are paid too much and from this side it is suggested that they are paid too little, so, taking the matter as a whole, it is probably not working too badly. An hon. Member

  1895
  said it was unfair, but we have responsibilities and the undertaking as a whole must be looked at. It is true that a pit may in itself be losing but the undertaking as a whole may not be unprosperous, and so we are entitled to take that into account when we are disposing of money in this way. I do not think it is unfair. Investigation is by accountants. In all cases they act independently and are paid by the Ministry. Our own production people can have their technical inspections. The district committee to which recommendations go has the regional controller and regional production director sitting on it, and there is also the headquarters committee of which the chairman is a member of the Ministry. These committees have the right to impose financial and technical control upon any undertaking which gets this assistance.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: But the committees are not representative of both sides of the industry. They are committees of the owners.
  Major Lloyd George: A district committee consists of members nominated by the district executive board, with the regional controller of the Ministry and his production director. So there is, at any rate, my representative with his technical adviser on the committee.
  Mr. G. Griffiths: But no men's representative.
  Major Lloyd George: No, but investigation is by accountants paid by the Ministry, and there is such a thing as the pit production committee, if necessary.
  Mr. Foster: But the matter never reaches them.
  Major Lloyd George: But that committee can make up its mind about what is going on. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly is full of suspicion about group production directors. Where would he go for technical men outside the industry?
  Mr. Ness Edwards: I am suspicious. I would not do what the Minister has done —take a colliery company representative and let him work in the same office, have the same perquisites and control the same collieries as he did before, and pay him his salary. I should at least have the
  1896
  decency to transfer him to another part of the country, to collieries in which he did not have an interest previously and would not have an interest after the war.
  Major Lloyd George: In other words, the hon. Member would transfer a man who knows the district very well to a place in which he has never worked, and that would be for the benefit of coal production. There is a special problem with regard to South Wales that sixty per cent. of the coal is in the control of one undertaking. The purpose of this is to give the best technical advice and the best administration to collieries not so fortunately placed. [Interruption.] The hon. Member must really control himself. [Interruption.] In that case it is no good discussing it with him any further. He thinks it is a terrible thing that these men should sit in the same office. The whole purpose of it was that all the technical advantages which the more efficient undertakings have should be extended to others. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member does not want to be at cross purposes, he is giving an extremely good imitation of it. The fact that in his district there happens to be a large group does not alter the fact that in the rest of the country it is not so in every case. It is an advantage to a small undertaking to get it, and that is the purpose of the whole thing. Whatever the hon. Member says, the purpose is to extend technical knowledge to other undertakings. Whatever the future of the industry is, something of that sort will have to be done. This is an attempt to see how it will work. It is an experiment in the early stages. I am quite prepared to learn by the experience that we gain. If the hon. Member has cases of abuse of this necessitous undertakings grant, I should be grateful if he would bring them to my notice. I shall be very glad, if there are cases of abuse, to come across them, because the purpose of this is very serious—to keep pits producing coal for the national interest which may be losing money. If that is being abused, I shall be more than grateful to have cases brought to my notice and I will pursue them to the end.
  Mr. Foster: The Minister has asked me for individual cases. How is it possible for anybody to give individual cases of the working of a pit which is underground, where there may be seven miles

  1897
  of roadways, tunnels, half a dozen faces working, and so on? One cannot give individual cases of the absorption of labour on work other than production. I asked whether, through the Minister's regional controllers, there is any check of this kind on a necessitous colliery. It is impossible for me to bring individual cases.
  Major Lloyd George: We have the best check that is possible. My hon. Friend has said that there is abuse, and if he does not know of these workings under-ground—
  Mr. Foster: I know in a general sense.
  Major Lloyd George: But if my hon. Friend does not know of cases how does he know that there is abuse? If he has a case, we will investigate it. If he only suspects a case, it will be enough. The sole purpose of this necessitous undertaking grant is to see that coal is produced, and I am as anxious as anybody, if there is abuse, that it should be stopped.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved:
  "That the Coal (Charges) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order, 1944, dated 27th July, 1944, made by the Treasury under Section 2 of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, a copy of which Order was presented on 1st August, be approved"

  EIRE AND NORTHERN IRELAND
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pym.]
  7.37 p.m.
  Professor Savory: I am sorry to have to detain the House at this late hour, but I am sure hon. Members will realise that this is the only opportunity I have of raising this question. I certainly should not raise it if I did not feel that it was essential to do so. What we have to do here is to reply to an attack that has been made upon us during the last few weeks, and especially during the General Election which took place in Southern Ireland. We are never the aggressors. We always stand upon the defensive. When our very existence is at stake, when our whole constitutional position is being attacked, we must make use of all the opportunities this House provides us in order to reply. Otherwise, our silence would be mis-
  1898
  understood. We cannot treat these attacks with silent contempt because, if we did, we should lead the public to believe that there is some justification in them. It was only on Tuesday of last week that the following Question was put in the Parliament of Southern Ireland by a Deputy:
  "To ask the Minister for External Affairs if he is aware of the urgency of the question of partition and if he will now take steps to make a final approach to the British Government so that, in the event of their failing to give satisfaction to our claims in the matter, a case can be made and placed before the coming European Peace Conference."
  This was the reply of Mr. de Valera in his capacity as Prime Minister and Minister for External Affairs:
  "The need and urgency of restoring the unity of Ireland is ever before the Government. No opportunity for bringing home to those concerned the injustice of the present position and its bearing on the relations between Ireland and Britain has been, or will be, neglected."
  In other words, Mr. de Valera intends to bring before the Peace Conference a purely internal question which concerns the United Kingdom. I do not want to weary the House with quotations, but during the campaign that was carried on during the whole month of May previous to the General Election in Eire, speech after speech was made attacking us to the extreme limit. This is what Mr. de Valera said, speaking at Claremorris on Sunday, 28th May, 1944:
  "Not a single inch of the 26 counties is now occupied by any foreign Power."
  The "foreign Power" is, of course, Britain, and the 26 counties, that is Southern Ireland, have been freed. He went on:
  "We have got the 26 counties free and, please God, we will not be dead before we see the whole 32 counties free."
  He was including in the 32 counties the six counties of Northern Ireland. He added:
  "We are working for it, anyhow, and you know how we are working for it night and day."
  I would call the attention of the House to the fact that, in 1921, a most solemn Treaty was signed between Great Britain and Southern Ireland and the object of one of the principal Articles of that Treaty was to confirm the Act of 1920, under which the six North-Eastern counties of Ulster were given to Northern Ireland.

  1899
  This was subject to a Boundary Commission. The Boundary Commission was duly set up, and it sat in the year 1925. It was presided over by a very eminent South African judge, and it held the inquiry on the spot. It would have reported in December, 1925, but by an unfortunate indiscretion on the part of the "Morning Post" there was a leakage, and a map was published which was believed to be authentic, showing the proposed boundary. If that map was authentic—and there is every reason to believe that it was—it showed that it was the intention of the Boundary Commission, so far from handing over to Southern Ireland the two counties of Tyrone and Fermanagh, which Southern Ireland was claiming, to hand over part of East Donegal—a county in the Free State—to Northern Ireland. As regards the rest of the boundary, only slight rectifications of the frontier were intended.
  What happened? This was on 7th November, 1925. The Free State Government took fright when they saw what the Boundary Commission was going to propose, and Mr. Cosgrave applied to the British Government to come to an agreement on the subject. That was the origin of the famous Tripartite Agreement which was signed by Mr. Cosgrave and Kevin O'Higgins on behalf of the Free State, by our present Prime Minister, Mr. Winston Churchill, and Mr. Baldwin on behalf of Great Britain and by Lord Craigavon representing Northern Ireland. It was the most solemn Treaty that one could possibly imagine. It was ratified by all three Parliaments. It came before the Parliament of Southern Ireland at the end of December, 1925, when it was passed and approved by the Lower House by 55 votes to 14. The majority in the Upper House in Dublin was equally significant. That solemn Tripartite Agreement guaranteed, for ever, the six counties of Northern Ireland. I should add that there was a very adequate quid pro quo because in the next Clause of the Agreement it was decided to abandon Article 5 of the Treaty of 1921 under which the Free State had agreed to pay its fair and proportionate share of the British National Debt and the cost of pensions. Mr. Baldwin, the then Prime Minister, speaking in this House, estimated the liability at not less than £155,000,000.
  1900
  That was confirmed by Lord Birkenhead, Leader of the House of Lords.
  The Free State had this immense concession. This debt which was hanging over them had prevented them from launching loans either in New York or London. It was a financial liability, and by the great generosity of the British people the whole of this liability was wiped out. All that the Free State gave in return was to ratify definitely and permanently the six counties of Northern Ireland. It is often alleged by those who perhaps are not as familiar with the Statute of Westminster as they should be, that the Statute of Westminster allows this most solemn Agreement, which ratified the Treaty of 1921, to be wiped out. I would like the House to consider what was the Treaty of Westminster, and what was the advice given to this House when that Treaty of Westminster was passed. This is what Mr. Baldwin, then Lord President of the Council, said when he was moving the Second Reading of the Statute in this House:
  "I am advised by the Law Officers of the Government that the binding character of the Articles of Agreement will not be altered by one jot or tittle by the passing of the Statute. … The Treaty will be just as binding, so I am advised, after the passing of this Statute as before."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th November, 1931; Vol. 260, c. 344–5.]
  Then again, Sir Austen Chamberlain said:
  "I am satisfied with the public acknowledgment by the authorised spokesman of the Irish Free State Government that the Treaty is an agreement between the two nations, standing irrespective of statutory authority, upon their mutual faith, and only to be altered by their common consent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th November, 1931; Vol. 260, c. 313.]
  But perhaps the ablest speech made on that subject was that made by the right hon. and learned Member for Crewe (Sir D. Somervell), now the Attorney-General. It was a maiden speech, and may I be allowed to quote that famous verse of Corneille:
  Et pour son, coup d'essai c'était un coup de maître.
  In this speech he set forth, as clearly as anyone could, what was the bearing of the Statute of Westminster. He said:
  "The Irish Free State came into existence as the result of what is called a Treaty. Whatever legislation may be passed by this House or by the Irish Free State that Treaty remains

  1901
  a Treaty, and it remains an agreement binding the two parties who entered into it, unless it is modified by agreement or a subsequent Treaty. I submit that that is not a doubtful point because it is plain that if this Statute is passed it will be wholly wrong to Say that the Irish Free State would have power to repeal the Treaty it has entered into with this country.… The Treaty is the foundation of their own Constitution. It is a Treaty which they have entered into as a separate State, a Treaty which they have themselves registered as a Treaty at Geneva, rightly or wrongly, and contains contractual obligations which they, as a separate State, have undertaken towards this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th November, 1931; Vol. 260, c. 1224–6.]
  He was supported also by the then Solicitor-General, Sir Thomas Inskip, who said:
  "There can be no suggestion of the possibility of repeal of that Treaty. As far as I know, there is nobody in a responsible position, either in this country or in Ireland, today who intends to repeal that Treaty. … I assert that His Majesty's Government have no intention of condoning or excusing or permitting the repudiation or a breach of the Treaty."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th November, 1931; Vol. 260, C. 1249–51.]
  That being the case, if the Statute of Westminster in no case invalidated the Treaty, because the Treaty was a contractual obligation which the Free State had freely undertaken, the Treaty is as binding to-day as ever it was, and I very much regret that this Treaty should be broken in the way that it is being broken. We hear a good deal in Ireland about the broken Treaty of Limerick. I maintain that that Treaty of Limerick was never broken; but this Treaty of 1921, the Anglo-Irish Treaty, has been broken again and again. The Statute of Westminster, as I have shown, does not in any way invalidate the Treaty, nor can it be maintained that the Statute of Westminster allows the neutrality of Southern Ireland, in the sense that she, while being a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations, can harbour in Dublin the Legations of States with which His Majesty is at war.
  While I would be the very first to concede that Eire as a Dominion has a right to non-belligerency, because you cannot compel the Parliament of a Dominion to vote credits for a war, I absolutely deny —and no constitutional authority has ever put forward such a proposition—that, while His Majesty is at war, Eire has a right to harbour centres of espionage in Dublin. The great Prime Minister of Canada, Lord Bennett, who himself
  1902
  carried through the Dominion Parliament the Statute of Westminster, made a very important pronouncement on this subject, when speaking to the Royal Society of Arts, on 3rd June, 1942. He said:
  "If a member of the Commonwealth can declare its neutrality, logically it might, if engaged in a war make a separate treaty of peace with the enemy which would involve the Crown in maintaining war against an enemy with which the Crown was negotiating a treaty of peace—an obviously impossible and ridiculous situation. The enemy does not divide the British Commonwealth for the purposes of war but is engaged in hostilities against the Commonwealth as a whole."
  The Crown, through the Secretary of State far Foreign Affairs, on 3rd September, 1939, declared war against Germany; but the Crown, through the Eire Minister at Washington, who has been accredited by the Crown, protested against the landing of American troops in Northern Ireland, in 1942. Therefore, the Crown, having declared war, is protesting at the same time against help being given to it in the war which it has declared. That is what we used to call at school a reductio ad absurdum. It shows clearly the absolute impossibility of this so-called neutrality, from a constitutional point of view. I would just like to add that this neutrality is interpreted in a very extraordinary way. Twice Mr. de Valera has protested, on 2nd May, 1939, and in May, 1941, against the application of conscription to Northern Ireland, a matter with which he has no concern whatsoever. I have already referred to his protest against the landing of American troops in Northern Ireland. Neutrality is a one-edged sword in the hands of Mr. de Valera, directed solely against Northern Ireland, and its implications are very extraordinary.
  There is a complaint which I have here before me, by Deputy McEwen in the Dail, that the Kingstown Presbyterian Church was not allowed to use the word "Kingstown" because that introduced the name of the King, and the consequence was that it was compelled, in its advertisements of its services, to call itself the Dun Laoghaiire Presbyterian Church. I have here another complaint made by Sir John Esmonde in the Dail that, at the last election, a gentleman who was a candidate put after his name the letters "K.C." He was a member of the Inner Bar and was pleased and proud to call himself a K.C. But what did "Blue

  1903
  Pencil" do? He struck out "K.C." and put in the letters "S.C." and said he must not call himself a King's Counsellor but a State Counsellor.
  I want to allow time for my hon. Friend to reply, but I would like to say this. During the whole of the election, over and over again—read the Irish papers and you will see—it was stated, "Why not return Mr. de Valera to power, because he is the best man to represent us at the Peace Conference?" I prefer to make no comment. But I will conclude by saying that our Prime Minister made a very pregnant statement on 2nd August in that great speech, in which he said:
  "Nations must be judged by the part they play. Not only belligerents, but neutrals will find that their position in the world cannot remain entirely unaffected by the part they have chosen to play in the crisis of the war."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd August, 1944; Vol. 402,
  c. 1484.]
  President Roosevelt, speaking at Washington, on 29th September, 1944, quoted this declaration of the Prime Minister and said he subscribed to it whole-heartedly.
  7·58 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Emrys-Evans): It will only be necessary for me to reply shortly to my hon. Friend, for, as I pointed out when he raised this question as long ago as last March, the facts are not in dispute. Nevertheless, I fully sympathise with the desire of Northern Ireland in present circumstances, to reaffirm and underline the agreements which so closely concern them. These agreements are the basis upon which Northern Ireland exists as a separate entity. The Treaty of 1921 provided for the separation of Northern Ireland under a separate Parliament and under a separate Government, and, without such provision, no settlement could then have been arrived at. The agreement of 1925, as my hon. Friend pointed out, finally settled the border between Northern Ireland and the then Irish Free State, and was approved by Parliament in this country and in
  1904
  Dublin. Later on, in 1932, Mr. J. H. Thomas, then Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, said in this House that there could be no alteration of the present position except with the full consent of Northern Ireland. Whatever may be said elsewhere, this continues to be the policy of the United Kingdom Government.
  My hon. Friend raised the question of the Statute of Westminster and its relation to the agreements before it became law. In the view of the Government, the passage of the Statute of Westminster did not, and could not, have any effect on contractual obligations resulting from existing agreements. This was the view of the Government at the time and it was accepted by the House in the Debate on the Statute of Westminster Bill. No subsequent Government here has departed from this position in any way, and I think my hon. Friend can be satisfied on the point which he raised.
  I have told my hon. Friend on a previous occasion that, in the view of the Government, it is very undesirable that there should be any Axis representation in Dublin, and he knows that we have already made representation on this particular subject. It is a situation which is being very carefully watched, and I can give him an assurance that we shall continue to watch it with vigilance. We are all very much alive in this country to the importance of Northern Ireland during the war. The fact that it is part of the United Kingdom has been vital to us, and not only to us, but indeed to the whole cause of the United Nations. Without Northern Ireland, we should have been unable to protect our shipping and to bring safely to our shores those vast quantities of material, and those millions of men which have been carried safely across the seas. It is, I think I can say, universally recognised, that Northern Ireland has made a great and important contribution to victory.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at One Minute after Eight o'Clock.

  POLAND (WARSAW, FOOD SUPPLIES)
  POLAND (WARSAW, FOOD SUPPLIES)
  BAHAMAS (SECRET BALLOT)
  BAHAMAS (SECRET BALLOT)
  JAMAICA (OLD AGE PENSIONS)
  JAMAICA (OLD AGE PENSIONS)
  GOLD COAST (CONSTITUTION)
  GOLD COAST (CONSTITUTION)
  GERMAN PRISONERS OF WAR (LONDON CAMPS)
  GERMAN PRISONERS OF WAR (LONDON CAMPS)
  LIBERATED GREECE (SUPPLIES)
  LIBERATED GREECE (SUPPLIES)
MINISTRY OF INFORMATION
  Films Division
  Films Division
  Pamphlets (Paper Supplies)
  Pamphlets (Paper Supplies)
  Paris and Brussels (British Newspapers)
  Paris and Brussels (British Newspapers)
CIVIL DEFENCE
  Lighting Restrictions (Omnibuses)
  Lighting Restrictions (Omnibuses)
  Industrial Air-raid Shelters
  Industrial Air-raid Shelters
  Bombed Areas (Clearance)
  Bombed Areas (Clearance)
HOUSING
  Temporary Construction
  Temporary Construction
  Requisitioned Houses
  Requisitioned Houses
  BUILDING TRADE OPERATIVES (RELEASE FROM SERVICES)
  BUILDING TRADE OPERATIVES (RELEASE FROM SERVICES)
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (CHILDREN'S ALLOWANCES)
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (CHILDREN'S ALLOWANCES)
  DIVORCE (WIVES, OVERSEAS DOMICILE)
  DIVORCE (WIVES, OVERSEAS DOMICILE)
  KENYA (LAND, EUROPEAN SETTLEMENT)
  KENYA (LAND, EUROPEAN SETTLEMENT)
  WELFARE FOODS SCHEME (MILK)
  WELFARE FOODS SCHEME (MILK)
  EIRE (NAZI WAR CRIMINALS)
  EIRE (NAZI WAR CRIMINALS)
  BUSINESS JOURNEYS OVERSEAS (FACILITIES)
  BUSINESS JOURNEYS OVERSEAS (FACILITIES)
  EQUAL PAY (ROYAL COMMISSION)
  EQUAL PAY (ROYAL COMMISSION)
POST OFFICE
  Postal Charges, South-East Asia
  Postal Charges, South-East Asia
  Postmen-Drivers (Dust Coats)
  Postmen-Drivers (Dust Coats)
  Telegraph Poles
  Telegraph Poles
  RAILWAY TRAINS (HEATING)
  RAILWAY TRAINS (HEATING)
  POST-WAR ROAD SAFETY
  POST-WAR ROAD SAFETY
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Income Tax (Irish Workers)
  Income Tax (Irish Workers)
  Government Borrowings (Statistics)
  Government Borrowings (Statistics)
  War Damage Payments
  War Damage Payments
BRITISH ARMY
  Civilian Service Overseas
  Civilian Service Overseas
  Religious Films
  Religious Films
  Military Vehicles (Lighting)
  Military Vehicles (Lighting)
AGRICULTURE
  War Executive Committees (Land and Machinery, Post-War)
  War Executive Committees (Land and Machinery, Post-War)
  Smuggled Service Pets
  Smuggled Service Pets
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Packaging Regulations (Tinfoil)
  Packaging Regulations (Tinfoil)
  Posters and Showcards
  Posters and Showcards
  Bath Tubs
  Bath Tubs
  PUBLIC HEALTH (EMERGENCY HOSPITALS)
  PUBLIC HEALTH (EMERGENCY HOSPITALS)
  WAR CRIMES (FINNISH EX-POLICE CHIEF)
  WAR CRIMES (FINNISH EX-POLICE CHIEF)
  NATIONAL WAR EFFORT (MEDICAL STUDENT, DE-RESERVATION)
  NATIONAL WAR EFFORT (MEDICAL STUDENT, DE-RESERVATION)
  FRANCE (VISITS BY MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT)
  FRANCE (VISITS BY MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT)
  PRISONERS OF WAR (REPATRIATION)
  PRISONERS OF WAR (REPATRIATION)
  WORLD PEACE AND SECURITY (DUMBARTON OAKS CONFERENCE)
  WORLD PEACE AND SECURITY (DUMBARTON OAKS CONFERENCE)
  WAR REFUGEES (MAINTENANCE)
  WAR REFUGEES (MAINTENANCE)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  W.A.A.F. (South East Asia Command, Pay)
  W.A.A.F. (South East Asia Command, Pay)
  Transfers to Army
  Transfers to Army
  ARMED FORCES (MARRIED WOMEN, OVERSEAS SERVICE)
  ARMED FORCES (MARRIED WOMEN, OVERSEAS SERVICE)
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Preamble
The House met at two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD.
  The Right Honourable Sir Samuel John Gurney Hoare, Baronet, G.C.S.I., G.B.E., C.M.G., having been created Viscount Templewood of Chelsea in the County of Middlesex—was (in the usual manner; introduced.

WAR PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES.
2.12 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY rose to ask His Majesty's Government, whether it is their intention at the termination of hostilities to set up a Select Committee, as was done in 1919, to consider all questions relating to pensions and allowances with the object of ensuring fair and generous treatment the dependant; of those who have 'been incapacitated or who have lost their lives on active service during the present war; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I rather fear that you may consider that by the Motion which I am about to submit I am returning to a subject with which I have already occupied much of your Lordships' time and which you probably thought was closed for the present. That is not quite the case. I said on tae last occasion when this subject of pensions was being debated in this House that I did not propose to press the matter a: the present time because, presumably, there would be an inquiry after the war, as in 1919, into the whole matter of pensions and allowances. On second thoughts I decided it was not quite the thing to retire from an action because you presumed it was going as you had hoped, and that the best thing to do was to find out and get some assurance that you could retire with honour. The terms of reference to the Select Committee which
438
examined rules and regulations governing the Pensions Act, 1919, were that the Committee should inquire and report upon the past method of administering the Pension Acts and Warrants and what steps, if any, were necessary for the removal and prevention of legitimate grievances. To-day I am asking for an assurance that some such Committee will be set up after the present war, with similar terms of reference.
As a result of having brought up the question of pensions and allowances for widows and children of officers, I have received a considerable number of letters dealing with all aspects of the pension problem, not only from ranks and ratings but also from their relations and friends who think and believe that there are many cases in which people have been hardly used. This appears to me to be most undesirable and I feel that an assurance from the Government that it is intended to set up some such Committee would have a heartening effect upon a great number of people who are at present, feeling rather down and out. That there will always be some who consider themselves hardly used is quite certain, but their number would be much reduced if they knew that their case would be judged by a sympathetic and impartial tribunal instead of being, as in some cases they are, dismissed by the -arbitrary rule of the Minister against whose decision there does not happen to be an appeal. By the Pensions Appeal Tribunal Bill, which was passed in August, 1943, the Government set up independent tribunals to consider appeals against adverse decisions of the Ministry of Pensions in certain cases; for instance, cases where the cause of death or incapacity was due or attributable to service.
I hasten to say that I am not going to criticize these tribunals in any way. I believe the noble and learned Viscount who graces the Woolsack is to reply to this Motion. I know they are his children and I am not going to attack them. I do not want him to be loading his heavy guns, which have to be unloaded once they are loaded, and I do not want him to fire in my direction. In several instances these tribunals have reversed decisions that have been made. In all cases the applicants have had the satisfaction of having their hardships carefully examined and any disappointment has, in consequence, been reduced. I am now asking for a review

439
of the working of the various Acts and Warrants of this war and of the steps necessary to remedy legitimate grievances. It can only be harmful that there should be a volume of discontent amongst those who have suffered grievously and towards whom the nation as a whole certainly would not wish to be either unfair or ungenerous.
It is not my intention to occupy much of your Lordships' time and I am going to mention one case only which has come to my notice. It is a case which I think will be quite enough to convince your Lordships that an overhaul of these doubtful cases by an impartial authority is desirable. This case is in connexion with a subject which I happen to know most about and which your Lordships have discussed in connexion with the education allowances of children of officers who die on active service. It would be well to refresh your memory as to the regulations which govern these awards. The appropriate Royal Warrant says that an education allowance may, at the discretion of the Minister, be granted for each child five years old and over, provided that (1) the pecuniary circumstances of the family are such as to require it; (2) that the Minister is satisfied with the type of education in view or received, and that the child would have been likely, having regard to the ability of the child and the circumstances of the family, to receive an education of the same type had the father survived; and (3) that the amount of the education allowance shall be determined by the Minister and in no case shall it exceed £80 per annum.
I would remind your Lordships that it was owing to your interest in this matter that the maximum was raised from £50 to £80 last August; and incidentally I may say that in 1939 it was fixed at £35 ! Of course, there must be regulations governing these awards and I am not going to suggest that any exception should be taken to the Royal Warrant as it now stands, but everything depends on how the regulations are interpreted and in what spirit they are administered. Here I think some exception may be taken. Any ordinary person would interpret the regulations as meaning that where in necessitous cases the education proposed was of a sort, and carried out at a school, approved by the education authority, an
440
education allowance would be granted, although perhaps not up to the maximum amount allowed. I am quite sure the majority of young officers are under the impression that widows would receive some allowance, and I am equally sure that many have died comforted to some extent by the belief that by their sacrifice the education of their children is to some extent provided for.
This, however, does not seem exactly what is meant though it would appear to be the meaning read into the regulation by at least two Government spokesmen, the noble Viscount, Lord Clifden, who replied in December last, and the noble Viscount the Leader of the House who replied on March 14, for both of them mentioned education allowances when replying to suggestions that the provisions for widows and orphans of officers was not enough and should be increased. It is very natural that they should think so, for I am quite certainneither of those noble Lords would advocate an allowance of i36 per annum as sufficient for the child of an officer killed on service, which would be the amount unless some education allowance was added to it. I do not believe it would have occurred to any of your Lordships that the child of an officer killed on service would be entirely refused an education allowance because of the officer's poverty in 1939. This case was dealt with by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House—I am sorry he is not here at this moment—on August 2, and as far as I understood the purport of his remarks it was to the effect that the regulation had been properly carried out.
The case that I am going to bring before you as proof that some overhaul of the regulations is required is one which I have previously mentioned in your Lordships' House. The man who was killed in action was an Acting Captain. He had been promoted from the ranks, but he was not one of the young men who joined the Army and got a Commission. He was a soldier who had served his time and had been put into the Reserve. He rejoined the Colours when the war started. In a year he got his Commission and within two years he was serving as Acting Captain. He took his chance with both hands. I submit that his children should receive an education allowance and the same advantages as the children of any other officers of the same rank and that their position should not depend upon

441
what their father's circumstances happened to be in 1939, three years before he died and four years before his eldest child became eligible for an education allowance.
It is in the word "circumstances" that the regulation appears to have gone wrong, but if the word "circumstances" does not refer to the financial circumstances of the father to what does it refer? Does it mean social circumstances? Are those to be such as to satisfy the official of the Ministry of Pensions? Is not the fact that the man was killed on active service sufficient to justify the representatives of what the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, described yesterday as a great democratic Power in awarding L40 to the widow to bring up the child? After all, the education allowance is only for a limited number of years. Why should not the boy—in this case there are two boys—have the advantage of the father's service? I mention £40 specifically because £40 a year in the case I am now mentioning would have satisfied the claim. I had a letter only this morning from the widow telling me that a charitable organization had given her £25 to enable her to carry on until the Ministry of Pensions answers her question as to whether she can appeal against the decision. She has taken the £25 and provided the rest of money herself, and is keeping toe boy at school where he has made a good start.
On the other hand, I had a case in which the widow of a Wing Commander, a Regular officer, has been refused an educations allowance because, after deduction of taxes from her gross income, she has about £300 a year. It really does not seem that these education allowances are so easy to obtain as would appear at first sight. If there are anomalies in these cases surely there must be others under the heading which allows dependants to make an appeal for higher pensions or allowances. I could cite other examples, but I have received a hint that there is to be a full-dress debate later and so 3 must hurry. However, I do not think it necessary to offer other examples because I feel sure that many of your Lordships must know cases of hardship which you would like to see investigated. At any rate, where people are suffering under a sense of injustice I think we should desire to show kindness and give help and greater support in principle, and when
442
there is need for further consideration there should be a chance of appeal against an adverse decision.
It is not my object to make an attack on anyone who in connexion with this question of awards must be carrying out a thankless task. I know that task is being carried out under many difficulties of a war-time character. There must be a certain feeling of restraint in making awards when the money required for pensions is steadily mounting and the prospect of many casualties has to be faced, but that makes it all the more important that there should be a review of these things when we have reached the end of the road. Then we shall know how the country stands and in a calmer atmosphere, without haste, examination can be carried out which may result in readjustments which may remove legitimate hardships. There is all the difference in the world, for a young woman, between taking her case to an appeal tribunal which is bound by regulations and which has all the appearance of a court, with counsel and so forth, and having her grievance looked into by a Committee which is working with the one idea of removing legitimate grievances of people who deserve very well of their country. This may stem a matter of secondary interest among the many great and stirring questions which we are discussing at the present time; but it is a matter of great concern to a rather pathetic group of people who are looking forward to a bleak future. They are for the most part inarticulate, and they are unorganized. They have had no opportunity to state what it is they want. I beg your Lordships to bear this in mind when the Division comes and to support this Motion. I beg to move for Papers.
2.31 p.m.
LORD RUSHCLIFFE: My Lords, I should like to support the Motion which has been moved by the noble and gallant Admiral the Earl of Cork. He, I think, need make no apology at all for raising this matter in your Lordships' House, nor indeed need he be under the impression that it is regarded by anyone of us as a matter of secondary interest. He referred to the Select Committee of 1919. As it happened, I was a member of that Committee. I remember very well how after the last war the whole question of pensions was in a state of almost inextricable confusion. The then Minister of

443
Pensions, Sir Laming Worthington-Evans, set up a Committee and asked us to report urgently. The Committee was set up in the spring of 1919, and our first Report, to the best of my recollection, was issued in December of that year. As an indication of the complexity of the task with which we had to deal, may I recall that, in that comparatively short space of time, we held thirty-six sittings and heard witnesses from amongst all categories of people who were most qualified to help us, including the late Field-Marshal Earl Haig himself? I forget how many witnesses we heard altogether, but it was a great number. Now I am not suggesting for a moment that there is the same sort of confusion at the present time as there was then. Of course there is not, and, if I may say so, it was very largely due to the devoted work and the sympathetic and efficient administration of Major Tryon, who for far too short a time was a member of your Lordships' House, that order was evolved from chaos and chaos very largely disappeared.
But that was twenty-five years ago. What I am asking your Lordships to consider is this. Between that time and this, a great deal has happened and the situation now is very different from what it was then. I will just give one or two examples to illustrate what I mean. I offer them as reasons for consideration being given to the possibility of the whole question being considered by similar procedure after this war. I have before me the Royal Warrant of December, 1919, which followed almost exactly the recommendations we made, and which was issued within a very short time of our first Report. That Report, as I have said, was issued, I believe, at the beginning of December, 1919. One of the recommendations we made, and accepted in the Royal Warrant, was a recommendation referring to what was known as an alternative pension. An alternative pension was intended to help those whose disability seriously affected their earning capacity and whose standard of living was consequently reduced. The Royal Warrant set out that an alternative pension might be granted temporarily or permanently and set out the limit of the amount. My point is that this very important recommendation with regard to an alternative pension was accepted and carried into effect. So far as I know—I may be
444
wrong, and I speak subject to correction —the alternative pension has now disappeared altogether, and there is no such pension at the present time.
Another provision which was made for the return of peace was what was known as the civil liability scheme. This was a scheme with which I, as a member of another place, was brought into very close contact, as, no doubt, were many others of your Lordships. It was a scheme to set up in business and help a man when he returned from the Army. I am conscious that in some cases—I know of a number of them—there was abuse of the scheme. But I also know that in many cases that scheme was of the greatest possible help to a man leaving the Army. So far as I know, that scheme has also disappeared, and there is no civil liability scheme at the present time. There is, on the other hand, what is known as the war service grants scheme. This is designed to supplement Service allowances and it is based on needs and definite commitments. But it ceases as soon as a man leaves the Forces. Therefore, while I do not doubt for a moment that it is an admirable scheme, I would point out that it does not in the least cover the ground which was covered by the two schemes of which I have spoken—the civil liability scheme and the alternative pension scheme —because it ceases directly a man leaves the Forces. So far as I know there is now nothing to take the place of either the alternative pension scheme or the civil liability scheme.
There are one or two further points which I have extracted from among a great many and I offer them as reasons why the Motion put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Cork, should be accepted, and that another Select Committee should be set up to inquire into the whole of this question after the war is over. The next illustration I offer is this. At the present time there is no provision, as I understand it, for allowances while a man is undergoing institutional treatment, when he comes out of the Army, except for his wife and children. After the last war that allowance was also obtainable for a dependent mother. It is probably true to say that on the whole those serving in the present war are younger than those who served in the last war, because men are called up at eighteen years of age, while in the last war compulsion was not intro-

445
duced for some time. It is fair to assume, therefore, that a very great number of young single men serving in the present war—probably far more than in the case of the last war—have dependent mothers. I do nut understand why the dependent mother should not get an allowance while the man is receiving institutional treatment, when such an allowance is given to wives and children.
I do not offer these examples as the most important instances which could be given, because I know that there are many others which could be quoted; I offer them merely as illustrations of the point which I am trying to make. The pensions of Subalterns and Captains were raised recently—I think last May—but for some reason which I do not in the least understand this provision dues not apply to comparable ranks who served in the last: wa7. I do not in the least understand why the widows of Subalterns and Captain: who died in the last war should not be treated in the same way as the widows of those who served in this war.
Some one or other at some time or other has to decide whether the war pensioner shall receive, in addition to his pension, the benefits proposed under the social insurance scheme. Under that scheme a man will receive what he is entitled to by reason of his contributions, but it is not unfair to suggest that a man who has suffered disability in this war is also entitled to his pension by reason of his disability and of the service which he has rendered. Whether the two pensions are to be cumulative, whether one is to be substituted for the other, or how to allocate the amount to be obtained under one scheme and the amount to be Obtained under the other, are questions which require soon to be decided.
There was recently passed the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, for which Mr. & Tin was responsible. Personally, I think that that is an admirable Act, and the Minister of Labour may well be congratulated on having secured its passage through Parliament. The only comment which I desire to make on that Act is that I hope that the centres for the training of men set up under that Act—centres for training them riot: merely for munition work during the war but for work after the vvar—will be put into operation at the earliest possible moment, because I believe that they will be a very great
446
contribution to the solution of the difficulties which will arise after the war with respect to these men.
I do not myself believe—and here I agree with my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery—that any appeal tribunal or any Departmental inquiry will be sufficient. These are real grievances or, if not grievances, real questions of controversy which ought to be settled; and it is not possible to settle them merely by appeals to an appeal tribunal or by Departmental inquiry. From some experience, extending now over many years, I believe that a Select Committee of Parliament—perhaps a Select Committee of both Houses—is the very best judge and the very best tribunal for going into and settling matters of this kind and making recommendations which are most likely to appeal to those concerned, and which will most readily do justice in a very complicated and difficult set of circumstances. For those reasons—I could speak at much greater length, but I do not want to take up more time—I most warmly support this Motion, and I hope that the Government will see their way to accept it.
2.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, I have nothing like the knowledge of my noble friends Lord Rushcliffe and Lord Cork and Orrery on this matter, and I shall take up your time only for a very few minutes; but I desire, for reasons which I am going to mention, very warmly to support this Motion and to express the earnest hope that the Government will see fit to comply with it. It merely asks for an inquiry, for a tribunal who will be able to deal with the matter in an unprejudiced way. All of us in this House look upon this subject as one with a background—the background of men who have been disabled in the service of their country, many of whom are quite unable to go on with the ordinary avocations of life, and of women who have lost their husbands and who are very often left with a child—sometimes only a baby—or two, and who are unable to support their children or to educate them in the way which would have been possible if their husband had not died in action or otherwise on active service.
I cannot help thinking, from a perusal of the Royal Warrant which has already been referred to, and also from a superficial

447
knowledge of how the Warrant is applied, that Whitehall too often deals with this matter as if it were a question of statistics, and as if the mere question of whether there is something in the Warrant which prevents acceding to a claim can be regarded as a matter of logic rather than of humanity. For my part, when I investigated a case which my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery put before me some time ago, I must admit that as an old and (some people would say) soured and cynical lawyer, I was shocked at the way in which the case was dealt with. It seemed to me absolutely devoid of common sense, and the Warrant seemed to me to be equally devoid of the sort of reason which should be applied in such a case. I quite agree that there have to be rules and regulations and there must be maximum amounts which can be paid. It is necessary, moreover, to be very careful that the sums involved are not such that the country cannot afford to pay them. That, however, is not the sort of thing with which we are dealing here at all. We are asking for an inquiry which will remove injustices and, in my view, if the inquiry is not granted there will be a number of lads—the children of those who have lost their lives in defence of their country—who will not be given the education which they would have received had their fathers survived.
Many of your Lordships, like myself, have attended very lengthy debates on the Education Bill, which has now become an Act. Those who have done so know very well that at the present moment and for some years to come the Government cannot give proper education to many people in this country. There are many local education authorities who are in charge of schools which have classes of fifty and over, and everybody who has spoken on this question of education knows perfectly well that with classes of that size a number of lads cannot obtain a proper education.
If your Lordships will bear with me for not more than three minutes, I should like to tell you of a case which astounded me. It is the case of a widow who was left with a child at school, where he was doing exceedingly well. One of the regulations in the Warrant to which I have referred put a limit on the amount of
448
expenditure involved at school by a boy whose mother was asking for an allowance under the scheme for allowances to widows for the purpose of the education of their children. It turned out that the amount being paid at this school was, if my memory serves me, £4 a year—it may have been £6, but that does not seem to me to matter very much—more than the figure laid down in the Royal Warrant, and her application was refused. The Warrant fixed the limit. It was said that she might take the boy away from that school, where, as I say, he was doing well, and send him to another school, where the amount to be paid was not greater than the amount mentioned in the Warrant. Can you imagine anything more ridiculous than to say that a poor widow in these circumstances should take her boy away from school, where he had been doing well for some time, to go to a school where the fees were such that they were within what I presume Whitehall thinks the maximum cost which the mother in the circumstances should spend to educate her poor child? I should have thought that any person with reasonable good sense would have said that in such a case the mother should be allowed a sum not exceeding the total mentioned in the Warrant; and if she was able by great hardship or by starving herself, as she would very often be willing to do, to find the extra money out of her own pocket, so that the maximum should not be exceeded so far as the Exchequer of this country was concerned, you would have thought that that was what the Warrant would say. Well, it does not. And that is only one example of the strange things you will find in this Warrant with regard to the allowances for children.
For my part, I cannot see that it can be right to leave the matter of these allowances to the discretion of the Minister without appeal. Why should you? Why should not a poor woman who is left with a child who will ultimately go to school, have some rights in respect to her child? Or at any rate, if it is left to the discretion of the Minister, who may have odd ideas of his own as to how a child should be educated, there should be an appeal. Those are the points which very strongly move me in this matter. I do not want to touch on any of the matters which Lord Rushclifte has so clearly described, but, speaking

449
only from the sort of knowledge I have acquired in this matter, it seems to me that it is impossible to say that the present position is altogether satisfactory, and if that is so, it is obvious that there should be some inquiry. I strongly urge upon the Government the necessity .for such an inquiry, and I hope they will concede the wish that has been put before them.
2.52 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, the Leader of the House has asked me to reply to the Motion of the noble and gallant Earl, for as the Order Paper shows, there is other business to-day, very important business, which has already filled Lord Cranborne's plate. I cannot, I am afraid, hope to speak with the same persuasiveness which he exercises over us all, and I confess I had thought that one of his most ad Hirable performances had been the way in which, after infinite trouble and patience, he had helped so much as he did in the matters relating to pensions raised by the noble and gallant Earl a month or two ago. Of course it is quite right to raise any further question at the proper time, but I cannot help reminding myself that the noble and gallant Earl, when he ,poke in August, after the effort which the Leader of the House had made, said this:
"I will express myself a3 feeling satisfaction at what has been said, and I do not propose to press this matter at the present time. Presumably there will be an inquiry after the war, as there was in 1919, into this whole question, and I think I may have to return to this mater and ask your Lordships' support again."
He, of course, is wholly entitled to do so, though I did not think in our debate in August that he would have chosen to bring this question before the House again so soon.
I hope I make myself entirely plain to everybody here. I am not taking up a position to-day of opposition to any of the complaints that have been made; and they have been put, of course, with conviction and force. Certainly my noble friend Lord Rushcliffe speaks with infinite knowledge of this subject, going back to the last war. But the question for the House, and it is the only question upon which any vote could be taken, is this: Is it reasonable, or is it unreasonable, for the Government to say it cannot now,
450
at this time, in what as far as I know may turn out to be far from the very end of the war, make a binding promise—binding it may be itself, it may be its successor—that after the termination of hostilities a Select Committee shall be set tip as was done in 1919? I am not saying there should be no Committee; I do not pronounce on that; I concede that the argument used to-day will, when the proper time comes, be a very powerful argument; but is it reasonable to ask the Government at this time to give that pledge, to repeat what happened in connexion with the previous war? If precedent is the point—and the question on the Paper suggests that it is—well, what is now demanded is not following precedent at all, as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Rushcliffe, observed incidentally. The previous Committee was set up not during the war at all, but after the end of the war, after the Armistice, after the whole of the fighting had ceased, after the financial situation of the country was beginning to be surveyed as an after-war problem. I would beg my noble friend Lord Rushcliffe, who is a most fair-minded man, to observe the difference. What he is supporting is a totally different proposal, a proposal that the Government now, in October 1944, should make this promise in advance, without any knowledge at all, of course, of what the ultimate circumstances may be.
The previous inquiry was, I may observe, a purely House of Commons action; the Select Committee was appointed by the House of Commons, and every member of it was a member of the House of Commons. There was no member of the House of Lords on it at all; and if you wish to repeat the Select Committee method, the Committee will be appointed by the House of Commons. That was how the Select Committee was appointed, and it was appointed after the war was over and as a portion of the post-war review.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I hope the noble and learned Viscount will forgive me. I do not like the notion that I have been supporting a Resolution which I was not supporting. I was not supporting a Motion asking for any kind of pledge, but asking the Government for a statement of intention. It would not bind a future Government. If they had the intention well and good, though it may be

451
that hereafter the circumstances may be such that it may not be advisable to carry it out.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am much obliged to my noble friend. Let us leave out the question of a future Government. I really think that no experienced Parliamentarian would imagine that if we say "Yes, that is the Government's intention" it would not be regarded as a pledge. I think there is no one who has been a Minister who would for a moment question that that is in fact the result of such an answer. I stand to be corrected by anyone with that experience. Of course I could not say that it is the Government's intention unless I mean that the Government are going to do it.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Rebus sic stantibus. I only interpose—things being as they are.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Things will not be as they are. A very great deal is going to happen before we come to the end of the war. There is a great deal that may happen in the realm of finance. There is a great deal that may happen in the realm of social reform. Therefore it really will not do for me, however much I want to please everybody here, to say, "Oh, yes, that is the Government's intention," and then go and report to the Prime Minister that I have not said anything which in the least committed the Government. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Cork desires the Government to be committed.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY indicated assent.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: He says so. Therefore, do not let anybody support him under the impression that that is not so. I am bound to say, with very great regret, that I do not think it is reasonable to ask the Government to give this pledge or, if you prefer it, this declaration of intention at this time. I do not to-day wish to challenge anything said, but at the same time it is asking more than is reasonable to ask from the Government such a declaration, in the very pinch of the war, which has still to be decided, that this post-war inquiry will be set up.
I must point out further that in the House of Commons, which is especially
452
concerned with these matters, the Prime Minister was asked the same question on April 15, 1943. His answer was this, and the House should know what it was. The Prime Minister said he should not be justified in placing upon that House and on his right honourable friend the Minister of Pensions the very heavy burden which would inevitably result from the appointment of a Select Committee unless the main principles of the war pensions system were the subject of serious controversy. That is the answer which has been given in the House of Commons on this subject, and I really cannot depart from that answer here.
My noble friend Lord Rushcliffe gave us a very interesting account of the work of the Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1919. I have indeed, though very briefly, informed myself of the work of that Committee, which issued three Reports—very valuable Reports—but, as he recognized, it is fallacious to argue, because that Committee found the pensions question at that time in a great state of muddle and confusion, that therefore that must be regarded as the situation now. That of course is not so at all. As a matter of fact, some most important changes have been made since 1919. I could give quite a number, but I content myself with mentioning two. First of all, the statutory right to pension. When the Committee of 1919 sat they pointed out that there was no statutory grant of pension at all, that the matter lay in the realm of administrative discretion. The whole of that has been altered, and the consequence is that the improvement in pensions, at any rate to a large extent, depends upon statutory provisions. Of course my noble friend Lord Maugham is quite right when he says that the Royal Warrant also plays a very important part.
Take the second question, which was not properly dealt with before 1919, and that is the provision for an appeal tribunal on entitlement. My noble friend Lord Cork said he did not wish to bring that particular matter into controversy to-day. It is true that I had something to do with attempting that reform, and it is a very considerable reform. The proportion of cases in which, on appeal, it has been found possible and right to alter the original decision is very considerable, and my own information is that, speaking generally, these appeal tribunals are

453
working well. It is a very difficult matter, because it is riot easy to get a large number of medical members and legal members at a time when 'there is such a demand for competent persons of that kind for other purposes; but that has been put pretty well right. I am not in the least claiming that there may not be other things to put right. I am not challenging in the very least anything which has been, said in the House about a particular case that has been brought to the notice Lord Maugham and on which he feels the decision was very wrong and even stocking. I am not to-day disputing any of that at all. It may very well be for all I know, that many changes have to be considered, recommended, contemplated and, it may be, enacted.
I am not challenging that in the very least, but I am bound to come back to the Resolution itself and to invite the House and every member of the House to consider really seriously if they are going to support the Resolution—not to sympathize with and support the speeches which have been made, but the Resolution—requiring the Government now, at this stage of the war, to make a declaration of intention. Every Parliamentarian knows that that is the same thing as making a promise, giving an assurance that they will take a particular course when the war ends, that they will take a particular method, the method of Select Committee I am not at all sure that it ought rot to be a Joint Committee. I do not see why it should be a Committee of the House of Commons.
LORD RUSHCLIFFE: I was careful to say a Committee of Parliament. I was myself thinking of a Joint Committee.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is not what happened in 1919, neither is it the language of the Resolution. The proposal of the Resolution is to set up a Select Committee as was done in 1919. There is no doubt what that means. It means a Select Committee of the House of Commons. Personally I should have thought it doubtful whether that was quite the procedure to follow. It might be the proper course was to have a Commission. I repeat that it is riot reasonable, however strongly one may feel on this subject, to ask the Government, in the intensity of the war, to give a pledge or an assurance
454
as to the particular method which will be adopted when the war is over, if it becomes necessary to return to this question. With great respect to your Lordships, and sincere respect to those who have spoken and whose opinions always impress me and are valuable, I most seriously and respectfully submit to your Lordships' House and to everyone here that it is not reasonable to ask the Government to make such a declaration in respect of action after the war.
3.9 P.m.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I am exceedingly sorry to intervene, and I am also sorry that I do not feel satisfied with the speech which the Lord Chancellor has made. If, as the Lord Chancellor said, it may be necessary, and will in fact be necessary, for various matters to be inquired into and for various adjustments to be made, I cannot see, myself, any harm in the Government expressing their intention—it would be a pledge certainly —to inquire into them. I cannot see that there is anything in that. Personally, seeing the case that has been put before us, and indeed in view of the admissions of the Lord Chancellor, I think this is really a very reasonable request, and I do not think it would matter a bit if the Government said, "We propose to inquire into these things." I cannot see there is any harm done by that. Therefore, although I am very averse from saying so, I feel convinced it is quite a reasonable request.
3.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I should like to draw the attention of my noble friend Lord Cork before he replies, and also of the leader of the Opposition, to a point which is really a constitutional one. Without entering in any degree into the case that has been made so powerfully by those who have taken part in this discussion, may I point out that the Resolution which this House is invited to adopt is to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is their intention at the termination of hostilities to set up a Select Committee as was done in 1919 to consider certain Acts? It is not a Government that sets up a Select Committee, it is a House of Parliament which sets up such a Committee, though it is true that usually, but not necessarily so, it is done on the Motion of the Government of the day.

455
Now this House could properly pass a Resolution, though I doubt its suitability at this moment, to the effect that this House should at some future date set up a Committee for a certain purpose. But that is not what the noble Earl invites us to resolve. He invites us to declare now the Government's intention to set up a Select Committee as in 1919—that is, a Committee of the House of Commons. That, surely, is a matter which should be debated rather in the House of Commons than here and, as this subject is mainly financial, it is not likely that the House of Commons would agree to the matter being dealt with simply by a Select Committee of the House of Lords. Nor would your Lordships, I imagine, propose that. No one has proposed it to-day. It should either be a Select Committee of the House of Commons as in 1919 (being a financial matter) or possibly, with the assent of that House, a Committee of the two Houses jointly. That being the case I question whether your Lordships would consider that this House was acting with propriety if it adopted a Resolution couched in the language now before it.
3.12 p.m.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I do not know whether I might be allowed to ask what exactly the position is? I am rather puzzled. This is a Notice asking for certain information as to the Government's intentions. There is no Resolution that that intention ought to be given. There is no Resolution that a Committee should be appointed. The only Resolution moved is one for Papers. I have not heard any argument yet which satisfies me there is any case for Papers. I venture to think that if my noble friend Lord Cork wants to raise this question specifically he ought to put down a Motion saying it is desirable that such and such a course be taken and then the House should decide. Otherwise I do not see that we should decide anything.
3.13 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I confess I feel rather in the air after all these words. I am not quite sure where I stand. The Lord Chancellor said that he hoped, after the great help Lord Cranborne had given, I had dropped the subject. But I am not now referring
456
to the same subject. I have not asked for an increase of money. I have not asked for any alteration of regulations. Those were the respects in which Lord Cranborne gave his valuable help. This is quite a different thing. I am not asking for an assurance. As for the words "Select Committee" I am not a Parliamentarian. I was not brought up to this kind of thing and I admit that I ought to have taken more advice. I ask for a Committee of Inquiry. It may, of course, be a clever debating point to emphasize that I mention a "Select Committee" but it is easy to get out of that, by saying that the House of Lords has no intention of dealing with that subject. A slight mistake has been made. As Lord Cecil has pointed out, I am moving for Papers. How do you know I am going to move for a Select Committee in the end?
As for the difficulty about the Government saying what they are going to do after the war, they spend a great deal of their time saying what they are going to to do after the war. We had a debate yesterday on what was going to be done after the war and we are going to have another to-day on what is to be done by the Government after the war. The Government have expressed their intentions in a White Paper and in other ways as to what they are going to do after the war. Why should they stop short in regard to these pensions? I should have thought that the Government had debated up to the hilt what they are to do after the war. The Government are promising to spend a large amount of money after the war and they do not know where they are going to get it. I do not feel satisfied with the answer that has been given. I think I am simply being fobbed off. I am moving for Papers, which I believe is quite right. What I am going to ask the House to do is to decide in principle that they want these things looked into, so that after all the stress and strain of war we shall ensure justice and generosity to people who deserve well of us. Noble Lords who desire to vote the other way will show that they do not desire justice and generosity for these people. I am going to ask the House to vote for a Committee to be set up after the war to ensure that these pensioners do get justice and generosity.
3.16 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT CRANBCRNE) (Lord Cecil): My Lords, I do not think the noble Earl, with all due deference to him, is treating the House quite fairly. He said he was no Parliamentarian. That may be the reason for the drafting of this Resolution, but it is not an excuse for the drafting of it. What in fact he asks the House in his Motion to do is to agree to press the Government to set up a Select Committee. He puts it down in black and white. But now he gets up, at the end of the debate, and says: "It is not what I want at all, I have expressed myself badly, I will be satisfied with something different." I want to suggest that that is not the way to treat your Lordships' House. I think if the noble Earl now has a different and more general proposition to put to the Government and the House his right course is to put it on the Paper and have it properly debated. But to put down a Motion asking the Government to agree to one specific course of action and then ask the House to vote on a quite different proposition, is not really a practical way of conducting our business.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: May I ask if it is not possible to omit the word "Select" and move for a Committee?
On Question, Motion for Papers negatived.

POST-WAR SECURITY.
3.18 p.m.
LORD WINSTER LORD WINSTER had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government whether they agree to this country joining with the British Dominions, the United States, the U.S.S.R., the Chinese Republic and other Allied Nations in establishing an effective international authority equipped with machinery for the peaceful and impartial settlement of all international disputes and with an International Police Force, under the control of the authority for the restraint of aggression and the maintenance of law and order; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion which I rise to introduce has an intimate connexion with the ideas which the late Lord Davies more than once
458
brought to the notice of your Lordships. It is to me particularly sad that the noble Lord should have died at a time when so much of what he proposed is coming into general discussion and in fact is obtaining a very large measure of acceptance. I wish very much that the noble Lord were here to take part in this debate to-day. A governing document in considering the subject of the Motion is the Moscow Declaration of October 13, 1943, when Britain, the United States, Russia and China recognized "the necessity of establishing at the earliest possible date a general international organization based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all peace-loving States, and open to membership by all such States, large and small, for the maintenance of international peace and security." This Declaration embodies an immense aspiration and one that can only be realized by public opinion in all countries exerting its influence upon rulers who, otherwise, I fear will produce only insincere and ineffective schemes.
We shall not get an active, vigorous public opinion in these matters unless the public is kept fully informed. Unfortunately, all the world over Governments are apt to be concerned to keep the public in ignorance on the big issues which affect peace and war. Witness the confession that the truth was once not told to the public at a General Election for fear that the General Election might be lost. In any case it is difficult to divert the public mind from those domestic issues whose implications press so closely upon us in peace-time. We all pay lip service to the word "peace," but we are taught that we must not only seek peace but ensue it. What are we prepared to do to ensue peace? What is really at issue in such conferences as that at Dumbarton Oaks is not questions of machinery and of organization but the question of what nations are prepared to sacrifice in order to try to secure peace. Are they prepared to sacrifice something of their sovereign rights? Are they prepared to agree not always to be judges in their own cause? Are they prepared to relinquish policies of territorial aggrandisement and imperialism? Are they prepared to renounce discrimination against races and peoples or the control of trade by trusts and monopolies? Are they prepared to oppose the alteration of frontiers at the instance of power politics?

459
All these are very hard questions and many to whom they are put will turn sorrowfully away. If the answer to them is "No," then the old causes which have drenched Europe and the world in blood over and over again will continue to operate and will once again produce war.
If the nations are determined to let their national interests alone determine their foreign policies then war will continue to be the instrument and the extension of those policies. Surely a great duty lies upon statesmen to explain to their peoples that only if the answer "Yes" is given to these questions can we hope for any real safeguard against war. These to my mind are inescapable facts. So long as the answer to the questions remains "No" then in my opinion organizations such as that envisaged by the Moscow Declaration will remain very largely academic. With this in mind, look at what has taken place at Dumbarton Oaks. We must not be disappointed that all the difficulties encountered at that Conference have not been solved. It will have been a great achievement if the difficulties have been fairly faced. What seems to be envisaged is an international organization with a Security Council of eleven members, consisting of representatives of Great Britain, America, Russia and China, and ultimately France, with the representatives of six other nations as non-permanent members to investigate disputes and decide on action. There is to be a General Assembly to consider general principles of security and to vote on the expulsion of States, but for practical purposes the Security Council of eleven members is the hub of the business. It seems to me that in practice this organization will be one for keeping small boys in order by prefects who themselves are exempt from the rules that they administer. It seems to me improbable that small nations will be greatly attracted by such an organization in which the great Powers will be judges in their own cause and will claim the right to enforce judgment on the small and weak. I fear that in many cases the decisions would not be either impartial or disinterested.
No conclusions were arrived at at Dumbarton Oaks on two vitally important matters. The Dumbarton Oaks Conference took place on the high official level and
460
these matters must now go to the Ministerial and Head of the State level. I am not surprised that decisions on these two important points were not arrived at by the officials. These two matters were the veto and the vote, and the report is incomplete on these two points. As regards the veto there was a very lively dispute as to whether the great Powers represented in the Security Council should have the power to veto the machinery of restraint being set in action against themselves. Here we come right up against it. Having evolved a body of law to preserve peace are the great Powers to be set above that law? If so, then either their function is reduced to one of conciliation or else you have enshrined the doctrine that might is right. If such a right of veto by great Powers against action in respect of themselves is to be made the working rule of the organization then it means that altruism will prevail up to the point where a nation's self interest is touched and no further. There altruism will end.
It was said that Russia desired this power of veto and that the United States and ourselves were prepared to renounce it. Russia has a long memory. Russia probably remembers those unpleasant words Cordon sanitaire and remembers the proceedings in the League of Nations in December, 1939. In any case Russia alone knows how far the foreign policies locked in her breast may bring her into conflict with other nations. The Head of the Russian State can make his own foreign policy while in greater or less degree the President of the United States and our Prime Minister must have regard to public opinion. For that reason perhaps the Russian delegate was able to enunciate a view more realist than that of his fellow delegates and was able to make a declaration savouring somewhat of power politics.
That question of veto is bound up with the equally important subject of the vote. Is the vote of a small nation to be of equal value with that of a great Power? In other words in matters of international ethics are small nations to have an equal voice with the great? They certainly seem to me to have an equal interest in the orderly and correct solution of such problems especially in these days of total war and Blitzkreig. The advent of the air weapon has peculiarly affected the position of the small nations. Time was when

461
a small country by virtue of its geographical position or the valour of its inhabitants could face up to its foes and preserve independence in the face of great odds. The aeroplane has changed all that. It is a very expensive weapon only available in larger umbers to a wealthy State and against it the small State is powerless. Neither geography nor valour, nor may I say neutrality, will avail the small country against the air weapon. In fact, the small nation can only balance matters now by means of intrigue with a great Power and we know that one of the likely causes of dispute arises from that. Very many people think that the small nations may have to group under the wing of an appropriate great Power, preserving their languages, their laws, their education, their religion; but not possessing armed forces or the right to direct foreign policy or having their own currencies or fiscal systems.
It is out of these ideas that arises the policy for preserving peace by a means of organization based on a regional system of States, each system maintaining peace in its own sphere but all of them functioning under the supreme authority of a world organization, that supreme organization being empowered to employ force when the peace of the world, as opposed to the peace of the region, is threatened. Well, those ideas, I do not need to say, are subject to a great deal of criticism. But what emerges from past experience is that equal voting at an international table does not put a small nation on an equal footing with a big nation for any very great practical purposes. The great Powers alone dispose of the armed forces, and of the money, and of the material resources which enable force to be employed. Consequently they expect to have the say-so in these matters, and are reluctant to concede equal voting power to their poor relations. This is a difficulty which is inherent in the fact that an international organizaton must consist of States varying very greatly indeed in status and resources. It is certainly difficult to argue that Greece should have an equal voice with Russia in a matter affecting Bulgaria, or that Panama and Haiti should count two votes against the United States in a matter concerning Japan.
But the problem goes rather deeper than that. By the order which is proposed by the Dumbarton Oaks Conference
462
the nations of the world will be segregated into two classes—the great Powers and the rest. If it is considered ridiculous to say that Greece shall rank with Russia in the superior class, then it is equally ridiculous to say that, in the lower class, Albania ranks equally with Brazil. It is for these reasons that I feel how loose and ambiguous the Moscow Declaration was when it spoke of the "sovereign equality of all peace-loving nations." The fact is that, from a nice point of view, there is really no solution of these and kindred difficulties when you are attempting to set up this international organization for the preservation of peace. If there is good will to perform the tasks which the international organization is called into being to perform, then the thing will work. If there is not good will then it will not work, however ingenious the adjustment of the machinery which you devise.
I see that The Times of September 20 said:
"The unity of the great Powers is, in the long run, the only basis on which the security of small nations can rest."
I am afraid the run might be very long, and if the security of small nations is to rest on the unity of the great Powers they may find themselves resting on a bed of Procrustes. Even to-day, in the throes of war, you will find that there is as between Britain and the United States on the one hand and Russia on the other, in regard to the treatment of a small nation—an Allied small nation—Poland, about whose independence the war began, a disunity of purpose which cannot be concealed. The Times goes on to speak of "the intimate and indestructible dependence of security on power." What happens when a great Power, member of an organization for the promotion of security and action against aggression, can veto its actions being inquired into when it is itself threatening security? I agree that it is possible to exaggerate the importance of this question of the vote. I, myself, have always regarded the ballot box as Pandora's Box, not as the Delphic Oracle. A community must agree fundamentally about many great principles before it can usefully also agree to let those matters about which it is in dispute go to the vote.
In an international organization for the maintenance of world security such as

463
we are contemplating, there must equally be a fundamental agreement about certain vital matters. If there was a dispute, such as I have spoken of, between the great Powers it would indicate such a cleavage of opinion on these fundamental matters that really it would matter very little whether you had a vote of not. If a great Power is not prepared to co-operate for peace at the expense of what she considers to be her self-interest then no machinery will avail, and whether you vote against her or not will make very little difference. In such circumstances you are confronted with two alternatives. Either you must allow her to go her own way, in which case you can add your new peace organization to the long list of its defunct predecessors, or else you can proceed against her. If you do the latter and succeed then you are getting somewhere in the struggle for peace. But are you really prepared to go that far? Are you prepared to go to the length of proceeding against a delinquent great Power? If you are not then do not set up your Potemkin village of an international organization, for by erecting what can only be a sham you will be doing the cause of peace very great harm indeed.
In fact, to wage war seems to me to be child's play compared with waging peace. I think that must be why the problems of peace have always attracted better brains than the problems of war. Even with a war on, it is difficult enough to maintain a Coalition for waging war. To get a Coalition for peace with a peace on is even harder. We are told that the hope of peace lies primarily in an enduring understanding between Great Britain, the United States and Russia. Well, I dare say such an understanding could be a very potent factor indeed in the cause of peace. But Congress dances and international relations are far more of a Paul Jones than a quadrille. The partners are continually changing. The Allies of today are the enemies of next year. Moreover, any grouping of Powers inevitably provokes a counter-grouping, sooner or later, and then war breaks out again.
I think it would be a mistake to place too much reliance for long-term plans for the future upon the inevitable continuance of a grouping of Powers which has come about for war purposes. It may be a very sad thing, but the only cement
464
which seems effective in international relations is either fear or mutual material interest. The greatest mutual interest should, of course, be peace, but, unfortunately, that idea does not seem to work. I suppose there are too many obstacles deep-rooted in human nature for that to be so. But if you are trying to effect peace by means of some international organization you must remember that this is certain: peace cannot be enjoyed unless Governments enter into binding agreements to fulfil obligations entered into in the cause of peace. Covenants which have escape clauses or emergency exits are worse than useless. It is one thing to construct a machine for the preservation of peace, but what matters is to be able to fill the tank with the petrol of honest intentions.
I am not at all sure that what has been proposed at Dumbarton Oaks does not contain something in the nature of escape clauses and emergency exits. Nations are to be asked to keep Air Forces in instant readiness for combined action, but these Air Forces will remain under their own control. The same proviso applies to the sea and land forces which eventually are to back up these Air Forces which are kept in instant readiness; they also will remain under the control of their national Governments. We are told that the Security Council will determine the size and the degree of readiness which these forces are to assume, and that a military staff will plan and direct the armed action and command the forces; but if these quota forces are to remain under the control of their own Governments, there can be no certainty that they will be available when required.
The machinery involves delay, and, once there is delay in such matters, shuffling begins. Machinery which does not operate instantly has a tendency to break down. The nation provoking a dispute will be acting under one supreme authority; the restraining forces will not. I think that a Hitler would certainly gamble on this security organization fumbling and failing to function. It can function effectively only if its action is swift and automatic; if the forces remain under the control of their own Governments there can be no guarantee that the action will be swift and automatic. The military staff of the Security Council,

465
who are to plan the armed action, will have to do so on the basis of forces which they cannot be entirely sure will be at their disposal when the day comes. The idea of an International Police Force has been set aside, but contrast how that would operate. An International Police Force would supply the security organization with an adequate force under its direct control, under a Commander-in-Chief able not only to go into action immediately but so to dispose of his forces in advance as to discourage though is of aggression. An International Police Force would provide for quick arid automatic action by overwhelming force; it would exercise a strong deterrent effect. Its armed forces would be centralized under one control, and a small nation would not find itself directly embroiled with a large and powerful neighbour, but would be acting through a more or less impartial organization. The International Police Force being freely enlisted, no nation would be able to protest against its nationals being sent to fight in an alien quarrel.
This idea of an International Police Force has sometimes been dismissed as an idea of cranks. I find, however, that in another place no fewer than ninety-eight Members of Parliament of all Parties have put their names to a declaration calling for an International Police Force. I can cite the support of the Prime Minister. Nobody in war-time would think for a moment that it would be fair to hold the Prim Minister to every word that he said as an independent Member of Parliament, now that he is not only Prime Minister but our negotiator with Heads of Stales during a war; but Mr. Churchill, who has a very vigorous intellect and is also extremely robust where British national interests are concerned, was President of the British Section of the New Commonwealth Society, which seeks to promote an International Police Force and an International Tribunal as a means of promoting International Law and order. He was very active in the work of the Society and of its Parliamentary Group, and addressed many meetings of that group on the subject, as I well remember. I only recall those facts to your Lordships' memory in support of my contention that, whether there are good arguments against the idea of an International Police Force or not, at any rate those ideas cannot be dismissed as the ideas of cranks, for they
466
have enlisted the support and encouragement of people who by no stretch of the imagination could be called cranks.
In conclusion, let me say this. I have spoken of a world organization for the preservation of peace and security, but any such organization must have something more dynamic about it than the mere employment of force to preserve order. To restrain aggression is a negative task; we have to think of constructive tasks as well, of raising world standards of living by fostering international trade and commerce. The two tasks are in fact complementary, and each promotes the accomplishment of the other. There is to be a section of this new organization which is to deal with social and economic matters. That is all to the good and is most important, for the preservation of peace and security must go hand in hand with the improvement of the standard of living throughout the world.
I may have dwelt unduly, perhaps, upon the difficulties which confront these Dumbarton Oaks proposals. I do so only because I feel that it is necessary to face the difficulties, and not be led away by an attractive idea without giving it sufficient thought and consideration and analysis. But, whatever the difficulties, the hope of enduring peace must be the torch which beckons us on. In a nutshell, the problem which confronts us is this: Can the United Nations apply to the organization of peace the ingenuity, the skill, the foresight, the effort, the sustained resolution which have enabled them to build up the most deadly and efficient war machine which the world has ever seen? Can they apply all that effort to the organization of peace? If not, I fear that the words of the philosopher will come true and we shall find that man's inability to control the machines which his brain enables him to construct will result in those machines destroying man. I beg to move for Papers.
3.5o p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Winster, placed on your Lordships' Order Paper some time ago this Motion for submission to-day. Yesterday there was published to the world the conclusions of the Dumbarton Oaks Conference, and the coincidence enables this House to be the first legislative assembly to express an early impression of the general scheme. We have to remember

467
that this is a draft and not an agreement, that it is the work of officials of the various Governments, and not of Ministers, and it represents the views of four great Powers, and not the opinions of the United Nations in general. Therefore, it would be premature for this House to arrive at definite conclusions, and I am sure that none of us would expect the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, when he replies on behalf of the Government, to go into further details or to make any additional declaration. Certainly that cannot properly be done before the other nations not represented at Dumbarton Oaks have expressed their views; and for the Government here to do so might indeed be considered disrespectful to our Allies.
But, accepting the scheme for what it is, I feel sure that your Lordships in general will give to it a cordial welcome. Certainly, speaking here on behalf of the Liberal Peers, I feel confident that I can promise for it their heartiest support, for the Liberal Party as a whole has already advocated, here and elsewhere and on many occasions, a policy closely analogous to that now presented. In particular, my noble friend Lord Perth who is beside me, and who will soon address your Lordships, must see with much gratification, remembering the fourteen years of his life which he devoted to the League of Nations as Secretary-General, and remembering, too, years in which it seemed that all that work might become futile and lost—my noble friend, I say, must see in these proposals that the general conception of the League of Nations is restored to prominence and widespread approval. However, learning by experience, the experience of the twenty years of the League's work, this new scheme presents many important differences from the Covenant of the League of Nations. On the other hand, it has far greater similarities. I share the feeling of regret, already expressed by Lord Winster, that we have not still with us Lord Davies, who for many years devoted his chief energy and many of his resources with persistency and enthusiasm to the advocacy of plans closely resembling these which now seem well on their way to realization. And within the last few day there has died a great citizen of the world, Mr. Wendell Willkie, a man farsighted and courageous, who wrote recently an
468
admirable book the essential message of which was conveyed in its title, One World, and whose essential purpose is embodied in the proposals now before us.
This plan far transcends, of course, all Party differences, and it far transcends all national frontiers, for all men everywhere, except in the spiritually blinded Axis countries, are saying universally, "Above all things we must do something to stop wars such as this which is devastating the world." What can we do except just such measures as these? Some say that they are inadequate, that what is needed is the formal constitution of an international federation. The term "federalism" is often loosely used to mean any form of permanent organized co-operation among nations; but, properly used, federation means a definite thing. Federal States, such as Switzerland, the United States of America, Brazil, Canada, Australia, all have one feature in common—namely, a central Legislature and Government which conducts their international relations and their measures for defence. Imagine such a principle applied in this case. Imagine a central Parliament and a central Government consisting of Americans, British, French, Belgians, Dutch, Poles, Russians and all the rest, dealing with the international relations of all of them, and their defence, and, in addition, with the taxation and expenditure necessary for purposes of defence; while at the same time this Parliament at Westminster would be in session, the Congress at Washington, the Chambers in Paris, and all the other State Legislatures, would be functioning, but none of them with any voice in, and presumably not even allowed to discuss, any questions of international relationships or of peace and war. I am quite convinced that such a system could not survive its first crisis. Perhaps some day in the future, whether near or distant, such a scheme of the federation of mankind may come into being, but I think that for us that must be left to future statesmen still in the nursery. The Governments to-day have wisely rejected this plan, and none more definitely than the United States through the voice of President Roosevelt.
As to the actual proposals which are before us, I should not dream of detaining your Lordships by attempting any general survey, but I would rather draw attention to some of the salient points. First of all,

469
the scheme is not all-inclusive. It proposes to embrace at the beginning the presens Allies, who have been known as the United Nations, and indeed it takes the term "United Nations" as its designation. It provides, of course, for the admission of all peace-loving States, but obviously could not now include countries with which we are at war. That limited scope of the scheme is inevitable and necessary. Secondly, it recognizes frankly the facts of the present world situation, and those facts are these, that mankind is divided into rather more than sixty separate States, which have their own histories, traditions, institutions and ways of life. That is a fact, and a fact not likely to be changed in the near future. But at the same time power, apart from Germany and Japan, is concentrated mainly in the hands of the great States, three of them at present, soon to become five. Now nothing could be worse than a system which left military power in one hand and placed political control in another.
And the main problem which has to be solved by those who are dealing with these matters is how to reconcile the fact of the sixty States being political entities, and the three, four or five great States having in their own hands overwhelming military power; end that problem has had to be faced when constituting the two bodies proposed to administer this great scheme, the Security Council and the General Assembly, and in dealing with the relations between them. It appears to me that this problem has had to be faced definitely and frankly, and I can conceive no better means of reconciling those two factors than are proposed in this scheme. A critical paragraph in the document is in Chapter V, Section (B), paragraph (1), which says:
"The General Assembly"—
that is, the body representing all the constituent States—.
"should not on its own initiative make recommendations on any matter relating to the maintenance of international peace and security which is being dealt with by the Security Council."
That is the smaller executive body representing eleven States, including the five principal ones. That reserves to the smaller body, the Executive, the right to withdraw any matter from the General Assembly on the ground that it is itself in process of dealing with it. It means that a very large measure of control over the whole machine will be vested in the
470
smaller body. That may well be justified on the ground that the power rests mainly with them and therefore, if they hold a view definitely on some particular matter, their view cannot be allowed to be overridden by the mere majority vote of a large number of smaller Powers who have less ability and less capacity to carry out any resolution that may be agreed upon. That particular paragraph appears to me to reserve effective control to the Executive, but no doubt the Executive will take into account the opinion prevalent amongst the general body.
The whole scheme has the virtue of elasticity. It does not attempt to foresee every eventuality, and no doubt matters such as these will be dealt with ambulando as they arise, and with the necessary tact and discretion. The right course is to plant a sapling and let it grow rather than compare it with a machine that is complete in all its parts at the outset and must work ever after in accordance with the mechanism that has been provided. With regard to the membership of the Council, a point to be welcomed is that France, although her Government has not been fully recognized, is to be one of the permanent members in due course. "In due course" naturally means as soon as she has been able to establish a constitutional representative Government. France is like a person who has been suffering from a grave illness and is convalescing. A person who is convalescing is often more sensitive, and is entitled to every consideration and active encouragement, and we may hope that long before the council table is set up, France will be ready to occupy the chair already reserved for her.
One important matter has been reserved for further consideration as agreement was not reached at Dumbarton Oaks, and that is the method of voting in the Council. In the League of Nations, as your Lordships will remember, the rule was that unanimity had to be achieved before any matter of importance could be dealt with by the Council. That is not to be continued here, but in many matters a two-thirds majority is required. It is understood that at Dumbarton Oaks the representative of Russia asked that the rule of unanimity should still apply in critical matters in which the four great Powers were themselves concerned. We

471
have no official information as yet on that point, and for my own part I should be disposed to await a fuller statement of the facts and the arguments pro and con before attempting to reach any conclusion.
For the rest, I would only refer to three other points very briefly. Chapter VIII, Section (A), is one of great importance, and I would remind your Lordships of what paragraphs (1) and (2) say. They deal with what has been usually known as the policy of peaceful change:
"The Security Council should be empowered to investigate any dispute, or any situation which may lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute, in order to determine whether its continuance is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security."
The next paragraph says:
"Any State, whether a member of the organization or not, may bring any such dispute or situation to the attention of the General Assembly or of the Security Council."
That is an exceedingly important provision. It will probably be agreed that the weakness of the League was its slowness to grapple with problems where some reform was necessary.
Frequently those engaged in the peace movement with its various developments have emphasized the need of maintaining law, of having proper declarations of what the law is, and proper enforcement of the law by some police force. Always the relation between States is compared with the relation between individuals, who are compelled to refer their quarrels to a tribunal instead of settling them themselves by methods of violence, by duel, or whatever it may be; but it is too frequently forgotten that the real causes of dispute are usually not legal disputes at all and are not governed by any existing law, but are questions of policy. Whether a particular frontier should be drawn with reference to strategic considerations or racial considerations, whether the principle involved is one of security or one of self-determination, and which should be given precedence in any particular case, is not a question of law to be settled by a tribunal or enforced as a matter of police. It is purely a question of policy that may be dealt with by other means. Here you have, perhaps, the embryo of something in the nature of an international legislative body, as apart from an executive or judicial body, which is able to effect
472
changes by consent which the conditions of the world make desirable.
Another provision in Chapter VIII is one for the encouragement of regional organization in various parts of the world. That is a matter of great importance. That section includes this sentence:
"The Security Council should encourage settlement of local disputes through such regional arrangements or by such regional agencies either on the initiative of the States concerned or by reference from the Security Council."
This contemplates that the work of such a great international authority should to a large extent be decentralized and, by so doing, its administration will become far more practicable.
The most important of all the new provisions is undoubtedly that now we are to have a definite force available to carry out the decisions of the governing bodies. I do not share here the regret of my noble friend Lord Winster, who seems to think it would have been better to have an International Army set up from the beginning rather than rely upon contingents to be sent by the various Governments. An International Army comprising units from a number of different States, under its own General Staff and commanders, and therefore a self-contained organization with its own discipline, would also give rise to very many difficulties, perhaps difficulties greater than those which my noble friend thinks will apply to the scheme now put forward. In a time of crisis various States might be more slow, and not more quick, to organize action by an International Army in which their own nationals were serving and might be called upon to lay down their lives than if they had some voice in sending the contingents which were ready and designated to be called upon.
Nor do I regret that there is not constituted, though many others but never I myself have advocated it, a standing International Air Police Force. In the first place an Air Force is of little value without bases. It must have bases either in or near the territory concerned, and the notion of some centralized International Police Force starting from Switzerland, or wherever it may be, and suddenly swooping down upon a recalcitrant State, doing destruction upon it and then darting back to its base, is one that I think few

473
strategists would greatly welcome. Nothing has proved more essential by experience of this war than the necessity of the closest co-operation between the forces of land and sea and air if effective measures are to be taken. But this scheme does provide that there shall be ready at hand contingents of the Air Forces of various nations already earmarked and ready to act when called upon, not indeed as a Police Force but rather as something in the nature of a Fire Guard Service, always ready and prepared to go to quench the beginning of a conflagration when it appears. Such spasmodic, temporary action might be organized by the Air Force alone, but the doing of anything effective to carry out the resolution of the Security Council must depend upon the co-operation of the three forces and not upon the air alone. It has been the great failing of democracy all through history, both in domestic affairs and in international affairs, that free Governments have been so intent upon liberty that they have neglected too much their own strength, fearing force as the agent of tyranny or aggression. They have undervalued the need of force for ensuring their own safety. Now for the first time that great defect is being remedied and the democratic nations of the world, the peace-loving nations, will have at their hand sufficient force to be a security for peace.
During, the present war three documents of fundamental importance have been made public. The first was the Atlantic Charter, the second was the Anglo-Russian Treaty of Alliance, and the third is this present plan of international organization for the maintenance of peace. And this third is to my mind the most momentous of the three. Its acceptance must impose upon the British people and Commonwealth extensive duties and obligations that may well prove to be very onerous, but I believe that the British people and Commonwealth are prepared to fulfil those duties and to undertake those obligations. I think this House should express its gratitude to our own Government and to the Governments of the United States of America, Russia and China for having formulated these proposals and, by so doing, having rightly interpreted what in our times is the predominant wish of mankind.
4.14 P.m.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, the debate in which we are engaged to-day is undoubtedly on a subject of the most vital importance not only for our own country but for the world. I hope myself that this is only a preliminary debate and that we shall have other opportunities of discussing in detail the actual proposals made at Dumbarton Oaks and of hearing in detail what we can scarcely expect to hear at present, the views that the Government hold on each of the proposals that were there made. The debate was initiated by a very interesting speech from my noble friend Lord Winster and, if he will pardon me, I do not propose to follow him in detail in his discussions of the general situation because he indulged a little too much, as it seemed to me, in generalities. I cannot help feeling that it would be a very good rule for those who wish to reform the world after the present war, if they were always asked to state their opinions in such definite form as was adopted by the Dumbarton Oaks Conference and others—a definite form which will take account of all the details and difficulties that will unquestionably be involved in any plan for the reorganization of the world and the maintenance of peace.
Therefore I will only say this about the general thesis or précis that my noble friend laid down. I agree most heartily with him on one proposition which I think is one that we must all regard as fundamental—namely, that it is no use constructing any organization of an international character unless it accords with the fundamental opinions of the nations who enter into that organization. That is the basis of anything you can do that will be useful. It is, indeed, the basis which I think was very largely followed in the efforts we made to establish peace by means of the League of Nations. Where I do not quite agree with my noble friend—at any rate I am not sure I agree with him—is in doubting whether such fundamental propositions exist. I am sure they do. I am quite sure that the fundamental opinion which is held practically by the whole of mankind, at any rate by the whole of civilized mankind, is that peace is essential and must be maintained, and that the only alternative is the destruction of everything that is of importance to human nature.

475
The second proposition which I think is also equally generally agreed is that peace cannot be maintained by the efforts of any one nation. It is too big a thing. The forces are too widely scattered and are too important for any one nation to deal with them all, apart from all other objections to that system. Therefore there must be some form of international organization if you are to do anything for the maintenance of peace. I believe those propositions are held with almost unanimity. I notice with great interest that in all the discussions that have been taking place and in all the propositions that have been put forward, the general form of the international organization is also substantially agreed. It is almost practically laid down that there must be two bodies in that international organization, one which represents all the members of the organization, the other which represents a restricted number of those members and which will therefore be able to act with greater promptitude and effect than the larger organization. So far there is nothing which controverts in any way the principles on which the League of Nations was established and which, on the whole worked, as I venture to think, with a marvellous degree of success. But it is said, and said with truth, that where it failed was not in wanting what is called peace but in that its coercive power was not sufficiently strong and sufficiently available.
I will just say in passing—I am not going into it—that as a matter of fact if you look at the powers entrusted to the League they were very considerable and if they had been put into force all might have been well. Very briefly, it may be said that a breach of the Covenant of the League was deemed to be an act of war with all the members of the League; it involved the blockade of the defaulting member and whenever armed force was necessary it was to be provided by the other members of the League. Again I know that ingenious criticisms have been made as to the wording by which that was enforced, but I have no doubt myself that that was what was originally intended and I have no doubt that any fair-minded man would admit that that was the substance of the coercive clauses of the League. The real difficulty—and do not let us forget it—was not that there were not sufficient powers but that when it
476
came to the point some of the most important Powers were unwilling to enforce them.
Really I think that is the problem we have to meet and on that point I find great satisfaction in the recent statement made by the Prime Minister which is very precise. He said quite definitely that this war could easily have been prevented if the League of Nations had been used with courage and loyalty by the Associated Nations. That is a very important statement from a gentleman who is not only Prime Minister but has a very large experience of the international difficulties that have affected the world, who has studied them very deeply and written various books on the subject quite apart from his position as Prime Minister. Therefore, the main problem it seems to me that we have to face as far as the maintenance of peace is concerned is how we can guarantee that the important national forces of the world will be used when the moment comes for the maintenance of peace. That is partly a question of public opinion. If there was a public opinion in all the nations as strong for the maintenance of peace as it is for the maintenance of the territorial and commercial interests of each country there would be no difficulty in suppressing aggression by appropriate machinery. Public opinion is very important, but it must be organized and it must be instructed. In my judgment publicity in this matter is of the last importance. I do not agree with everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, yesterday, but I do agree with him in the proposition that publicity is of the greatest possible importance in the maintenance of peace and for many other purposes in international matters.
It is said that in addition, and I accept the view, we must have a somewhat different organization from that attempted in the League in order to make it more effective. I think it is rightly felt that the essential condition to its being effective is that the five great Powers, or four, whatever their number may be, should have under their control the greater part of the international strength of the world, should realize their responsibility for peace, and should be prepared to act vigorously for the maintenance of peace when threatened by aggression. We must put fairly and squarely on the shoulders of these Powers the first responsibility—

477
not the only responsibility—for the maintenance of peace. That is done I think by the document now before us. I have said that I do not think this is the moment to go in great detail into the Dumbarton Oaks Conference but perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say a few words upon it. In the meantime may I insert this question? I hope the draft report is going to be printed and circulated as a Parliamentary Paper. It is very inconvenient that at the present moment you can only get it through the Press, though the Press publication has been admirable.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: It is to be laid as a White Paper.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I am very much obliged. What are the proposals to increase the availability of the forces of the world for the maintenance of peace? The first thing is the creation of a Security Council. That is a new conception, that there should be a special international organization whose primary duty should be the maintenance of peace. That was not so in the League. I can see great reasons why it was not so, but I think it is clear this will be a decisive improvement. Here there will be a body whose chief business is the maintenance of peace, who will be furnished with something in the nature of a Military Staff Committee—I do not feel sure that I quite grasp what is proposed —and they will have definite rules and no doubt a definite scheme which can be put forward at a moment's notice to deal with any danger to the peace of the world. I should have been glad if the Dumbarton Oaks scheme had gone a degree further, if it had been made a condition of membership of this Security Council that the Powers concerned should enter into a very definite and positive obligation that they would use the whole of their strength in order to suppress aggression. I think it is implied in the document, but I should be glad to see that expressly stated because I think it would be a great thing to get before the people of the world exactly what the thing means. If there was this very precise obligation people would see that there was this obligation to maintain peace expressly in addition to the general obligation of the members of the larger body, the Assembly, that is contemplated. Subject to that, I most heartily support the
478
idea of a Security Council and the general conception that there should be a distinct body whose business it is to keep the peace.
Then there is the question how this body, which as your Lordships have already heard is to consist of five permanent members and six elected members, is to decide on any question. There is talk about a two-thirds majority for important questions. I do not think that really covers the difficulty. It means you would have to have eight at least on one side and three on the other, and if the three consisted of important countries I think that would make a great difficulty in the working of the machine. If you are going to say, as has been suggested this afternoon, that at any rate the five principal Powers must be unanimous before anything can be done, then you are faced with the proposition that in this supreme question of the peace of the world any one of the great Powers can issue a veto and decline to have any action taken for the maintenance of peace and the suppression of aggression. If one of them happens to be the aggressor I feel quite certain that veto will be used. That, I must say, I think is a very great difficulty, and I think so all the more because quite evidently unless one of the great Powers is the aggressor, or sympathetic to the aggressor and prepared to support him, aggression cannot, in any circumstances, succeed. Aggression by one of the smaller Powers would not be a danger to the peace of the world unless it was going to bring in its train the support of one of the principal Powers. That matter, therefore, is one which will have to be faced and dealt with. Up to the present I have not been able to think of any machinery which would be quite efficient to do that unless you can go as far as my noble friend Lord Winster apparently wishes to go, and set up some form of international federation. But that I am afraid is really outside the region of practical politics at the present time.
In this condition, I venture to hope that the Government will think carefully whether, in the future meetings of this body or in future efforts to draft a scheme, it is not really better to consider the machinery which prevailed under the League in that respect. Under the League every member country was severally and individually bound to suppress

479
aggression. It was also bound to act with others in the general purposes of the League. But its actual obligation was to suppress aggression, whatever other members did. That of course was open to the objection that one of the smaller Powers at any rate, or indeed any other Power, could not act by itself effectively in the suppression of aggression. Therefore, by custom, if not by the express terms of the Covenant, there was a kind of understanding that they could not be expected to act unless they were going to be supported by a sufficient number of their colleagues. That is not a very satisfactory position, and I quite recognize that something more will have to be done. I hope very much that the Government will consider whether something of the sort which I suggest is not really the best way out—that is a special and individual obligation on each Power to maintain peace added to a general obligation on other Powers to support one another in that operation.
The necessary provision for this would need to be very carefully considered and drafted, but my impression is that something of that kind should be worked out. It might be the answer to the difficulties with which you are faced the moment you propose to use coercive power in any international matter. I know it is said outside, and I think my noble friend Lord Winster has said something to the same effect, that this scheme was really devised only to keep the smaller Powers in order, and that the larger Powers were left free to do what they pleased. I am quite sure that that was not the intention and I doubt whether it was the meaning. But I should like to see a rather more definite acknowledgment of the ultimate power of the Assembly. It exists, for the Security Council is directed to act on behalf of the Assembly, and, therefore, no doubt, to report to it what has been done. But I hope that that obligation, and that connexion between the two bodies, will be made more clear.
I do want to say here, with regard to observations which I have heard about the powers of the smaller countries in the League, that it was not the case that the smaller countries added to the difficulties of the League. It was the greater Powers that were always creating difficulties in actual practice, and the reason, I think, is that when the smaller Powers
480
met in the larger Assembly they were more amenable to the public opinion of the world and consequently more prepared to act for peace, which is the strongest feeling in world opinion, than the smaller and, to some extent, more secret body of the Council. I need not say anything to-day about the Military Staff Committee. That seems to me to be quite right and sound in principle. I hope that it will be more fortunate in efforts to get assistance from the military authorities than the League ever was during its existence.
There is only one other point which I think is important in considering this question of what coercive power the new body would have. That is the express power given to the Secretary-General to call attention to any situation which, in his judgment, threatened aggression or made aggression likely. That I think is a very valuable power, and I hope that it will be preserved in full force. As to the rest of the scheme for international organization, I note that there is to be a Social and Economic Committee. Everybody, I suppose, will say that that is quite right. It is to be a kind of focus of all the different social and economic activities of the new body. But there is one point on which I should be glad to have some information if the noble Leader of the House can give it either to-day or on some future occasion. What is his conception of what is to be done regarding the International Labour Office? I should be most bitterly sorry if anything was done to destroy that body, which has been extremely successful and has been a very remarkable instance of useful and effective international co-operation. I do not imagine that it is intended to destroy it, but I should very much like to know what is proposed with regard to it.
In that connexion, may I just ask a further question? The conception of the machinery, as I understand it, is first of all the Assembly which covers everything. Then there is the Security Committee which covers questions directly affecting peace. Next come a number of bodies—some of which are in existence and some of which are not—which are to be concentrated in the Social and Economic Committee which deals with all social and economic questions. I do not at present see in the document—perhaps because it is not yet complete—anything in the nature of the Security Council which is to deal

481
with political questions of a non-contentious character. For instance, a matter which the Council of the League spent an immense amount of time over was the organization of Danzig. I cannot say that it was a very successful effort, because all the people who lived in Danzig were of different opinions except on one point which was that they did not wish to have any interference from outside. But there are many other questions of a political character and no doubt they will have to be dealt with by some organization. But that is not stated here.
I am afraid I have gone even more into detail than I intended because I was anxious to start discussion and consideration of this question, which we really ought to be considering most deeply and fully. I entirely agree with what my noble friend Viscount Samuel said in support of this scheme. I think it is a good scheme. I think it is evident that there is a good deal more to be worked out in it. It is possible that some of the provisions will have to be modified. But, broadly speaking, I think that it conforms to the test which the Prime Minister put the other day. It is in accordance with the spirit and principles of the League clothed with the necessary authority. I think that that is a very good phrase, if I may say so without impertinence, which accurately describes what ought to he the objects of any new organization.
In conclusion, I want to repeat what I said at the beginning, that for this plan to succeed popular support is essential. That is the problem. I believe that there is no difficulty in getting that popular support. My experience, which was considerable at one time, of speaking to popular audiences on these subjects was that there was the deepest interest in them, and it was only when people began to lose courage and to think that the scheme was not going to work that they at all modified their enthusiasm on the subject or exhibited some doubts as to whether we were on the right lines. If, however, that support is to be created and made effective, the Government must do their part. The people must be told as much as possible—publicity is essential—and the Government must be prepared to make it clear that they are going to do their utmost to make this plan a success and that they will risk everything, or almost everything, in order to see that it is a success. A mere vague, colourless
482
statement by the Government or by their representative that they support the idea is not enough; they must make it clear that this is the essential feature of our foreign policy, and that we must stand or fall by its success or failure.
The Government have at their command an immense machinery for this purpose, not only national but international. They have representatives in every important country in the world. They ought to ask those representatives to make it clear that the British Empire, and the United Kingdom in particular, stand for international organization for peace. I have a melancholy recollection of many efforts made by myself and others to induce Governments in the last thirty years to take some action of that kind, and it never was successful. I believe that that failure was one among the many causes which made it difficult to use the League when the great storm arose. I can only conclude, therefore, by an earnest appeal to the Government to stretch to the very utmost their power of giving information and to tell us exactly what is going on and what is in their mind, as far as it is possible to do so. I also ask them to make it clear to the world at large and to the people of this country that they do intend to strain every nerve to make this a success. It is the last possibility that I can see of maintaining the peace of the world. If they do that, then I am sure that, either in this form or with some modification, the international organization of peace can be attempted, and attempted with success.
4.44 P.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, the two noble Viscounts, Lord Samuel and Lord Cecil of Chelwood, to whose speeches we have just listened, have dealt with the main question which is before your Lordships so exhaustively that it would be, I feel, a work of supererogation on my part if I were to attempt to add anything to what they have said. I should like, however, Ito state that I am in complete agreement with their views about the proposed new international organization. The Dumbarton Oaks agreement seems to me to be an admirable International White Paper, and the scheme, when it assumes its final form, will, I hope, be rounded off—it has certain rough edges to-day— and the gaps which exist will be filled in.

483
That is to be done through the international talks which are to be held in future. I believe that in these discussions the co-operation of the smaller Powers will be most valuable, and that they will give great assistance in this phase of polishing and expanding the scheme and balancing the various factors involved.
There are two observations with regard to the agreement which I should like to make, however, in view of the speeches which we have heard. First of all, I should like to suggest to my noble friend Lord Samuel that the sentence to which he referred in Chapter V:
"The General Assembly should not on its own initiative make recommendations on any matter relating to the maintenance of international peace and security which is being dealt with by the Security Council:"
may have been inserted in order to avoid a difficulty of double jurisdiction which, unfortunately, peccant Powers often tried to utilize during League meetings in order to get away with wrongdoing. I think that that is probably the main reason for the insertion of those words. Secondly, I think that perhaps my noble friend Lord Cecil of Chelwood overlooked a phrase in paragraph (8) of Chapter V, which provides that the General Assembly "should receive and consider annual and special reports from the Security Council." That obviously means that there will be both annual and special reports, and the relationship will therefore be closer than would otherwise be the case.
So much for that main question. I should now like to deal with one other point, which has hardly been raised so far—namely, the question of sovereignty. There is a section of public opinion in this country which holds that to belong to an international organization the purposes of which are the preservation of peace and the promotion of international prosperity and social progress among nations—and that is, I think, a fair summary of the purposes of the Dumbarton Oaks Conference—necessarily involves what is called "a sacrifice of sovereignty." The noble Lord, Lord Winster, himself spoke, I think, of "the sacrifice of sovereign rights." In one sense that is obviously true, but I think that the question requires a little closer examination. If a State were to decide that it would in no case consent to a sacrifice of sovereignty, it could not conclude a treaty of any kind
484
at all, since, in the sense to which I have referred, any treaty does imply some loss or sacrifice of sovereignty. In fact such a State could not even belong to the Universal Postal Union, because that body lays down, among other things, that only a given amount shall be charged on letters and telegrams sent to foreign countries, and that in itself is a definite limitation of fiscal and of postal authority. The same is true in the case of the Geneva Convention which deals with prisoners. There again there is a certain sacrifice (in the sense in which the word is used) of sovereignty, a limitation of sovereignty.
In fact, if a State said, "We are not going to sacrifice any fraction whatever of our sovereignty," that State could have no continuing international relations of any kind, and it could not conclude even an arbitration agreement or commercial treaty. I would, however, like to suggest that we should put to ourselves the question, "Does the conclusion of treaties really imply a sacrifice of sovereignty?" It seems to me that the answer largely depends on the meaning of that extremely elusive word, "sovereignty." I would be prepared to defend the thesis that the making of a treaty involves no loss or sacrifice of sovereignty, but rather that the act in itself constitutes an affirmation of sovereignty. It is simply a decision that in certain given cases a State will follow a given course of action. I think that is a much truer representation of the case. I wonder whether it would be contended that when this country in 1939 gave its famous pledge to Poland that it would come to the aid of that gallant country if it were attacked by Germany, that pledge involved a loss of sovereignty by this country? Surely it is exactly the contrary, and that our assurance resulted from a clear act of sovereignty on our part.
If the argument I have indicated is accepted — and I think it would be very difficult to refute it —then surely it applies equally to membership of an international organization, which after all only implies pledges to take certain action in certain given circumstances. I hold that it is the prerogative of a sovereign State to make any agreement that it chooses, and that in doing so there is no loss of sovereignty involved, since the conclusion of the agreement

485
is in itself a sovereign act. I must apologize for these rather incidental observations, which do, I know, touch only indirectly on the main Motion. But I have, found that this question of sovereignty is in the nature of a stumbling block to various persons with whom I have discussed this question of international organization. It is for this reason that I thought it well to make these few comments on what perhaps is mainly a question of political philosophy though it does arouse violent emotions occasionally from an excess of patriotic feeling.
4.54 p.m.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, the Motion to which the House has been addressing itself this afternoon has, I think, turned out to be, if I may so express it, unexpectedly topical. When the noble Lord, Lord Winster, tabled his Motion he was not, of course, aware of the impending publication of the conclusions of the Dumbarton Oaks Conference, with which the greater part of the debate has been concerned. His intention, as I understand it, was to promote a general discussion on the problems involved in setting up an international organization after the war, and to give an opportunity to this House to express their views on a matter which, as the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, said, is absolutely vital to us all. I thought, if I may say so, with all due deference, that the noble Lord, Lord Winster's own speech painted perhaps an unduly dark picture of the future. I do not think I ever heard such a jeremiad, and I must confess I thought it was a little strange to hear such scepticism as to the possibility of international co-operation from the Socialist Benches; but perhaps the noble Lord was speaking rather for himself than for his Party as a whole.
But at any rate, whatever one may feel about the noble Lord's own personal opinions, no one could possibly complain of the object which he had in view in tabling his Motion, and indeed it has led, I think, to a most valuable and important debate. I would quite agree with what he said that the more we discuss these difficult problems and the more we bring them before the minds of the British people the more probable it is that a sane and sound public opinion will be built up. And this is, moreover, I think, a subject which your Lordships' House
486
is particularly fitted to discuss, for we are lucky enough to have among our members some of the greatest living authorities on this subject. There is my noble relative Lord Cecil, who took a main part in framing the Covenant of the League of Nations, and there is the noble Earl, Lord Perth, who as the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, said, was the Secretary-General of that institution throughout all its greatest days, and I think himself played a very large part in its success. Those noble Lords speak, as I say, with unrivalled experience on these extremely difficult questions, and both of them have made very valuable and helpful contributions to the debate this afternoon. I thought it particularly satisfactory that both Lord Cecil and Lord Perth, and also the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, who was speaking for the Liberal Party and made such a penetrating speech—all those noble Lords, with their long experience, expressed a very great measure of approval of the results that have been achieved at Dumbarton Oaks.
That I believe to be a remarkable tribute to the wisdom and foresight of those who framed the Covenant twenty-five years ago. It is a notable fact that these new proposals should approximate so closely to those which were drawn up at that time after the last war. After so many years of hard experience it has not been found necessary to consider proceeding on any very different lines from those which had already been laid down in the Covenant. That, at any rate, is the view of the experts who assembled at the recent talks to devise new proposals for a world organization after the present struggle. There are, of course, variations, I might perhaps be bold to say improvements, on the original organization in several important respects. I am not to-day proposing to go into any detail on those points which were raised first by Lord Winster and later by other noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon. The House will, I am quite sure, understand that the moment would be premature for any unilateral declaration by any Government on this subject. But I think I might be allowed to make a few general comments. First, I would suggest that the peace system now envisaged in this document, which has been published, is both more flexible and in some respects less legalistic than the League on certain occasions

487
proved to be. As I think the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, said this afternoon, this should facilitate the making of peaceful adjustments in the light of changing conditions, and also—this is equally important—it should render it possible for the new organization to tackle international problems before they degenerate into open disputes.
At this point, perhaps, I might say one word as to a point which was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood. He asked what organs of the proposed organization would deal with what he called "non-contentious" political problems. He quoted a queer one, the question of Danzig, which in my experience at Geneva was the most contentious problem I ever came across. But I know there are other non-contentious political problems. The answer to him is this. No detailed plan has yet been specially devised to meet these cases. That might well be a matter to be discussed at the United Nations Conference when it comes along. As I understand it there is nothing to prevent the General Assembly dealing with them. It could set up ad hoc organs for dealing with any of these problems.
Now I go on to the second point which we should note with regard to the proposed organization—a point already made by my noble relative Lord Cecil. It places the responsibility for international security four-square on the shoulders of the nations best able to bear it. As he said, that is the main essential for any successful peace system, and I believe it should make for rapid and effective action in preventing war. The third point which I would underline is that the proposals allow for the supply to the organization of a really serviceable set of teeth—a thing that was not always available to the League as we knew it before the war. The military provisions which have been extremely carefully worked out, are intended to ensure that armed force can, if necessary, be brought to bear swiftly and effectively either to maintain or to restore peace. This, as we all know from very bitter experience, is absolutely essential if aggression is to be restrained. Indeed, the forces of International Law and order need to be so strong that aggressors will know they are bound to be beaten if they ever embark on a policy of violence. That
488
is the only way by which aggression will be not merely defeated but, what is more important, averted. I believe it is here, as has been said this afternoon, that the new Air arm will be of immense importance. The noble Lord, Lord Winster, was a little bit sceptical about these military proposals, but I am sure that the House as a whole will agree that, whether they are perfect or not, they represent a very real advance on anything we have known up to now.
Finally, I would refer your Lordships to the establishment of the Economic and Social Council. I believe that this should make it possible for the new organization, if it is adopted by the nations who will ultimately have to discuss it, to deal with vital social and economic questions even more effectively than the League was able to do. As your Lordships know, the League had no such central planning or co-ordinating organ in this particular sphere. Even so, its record of work was far from negligible. It did very valuable work, but it had not this particular central organ. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Winster, felt that he could support this particular provision. I would, however, remind him that these social and economic provisions are utterly valueless without a good security organization. He said in the course of his speech—or I understood him to say—that the restraint of aggression was a negative policy or a negative function.
LORD WINSTER: Alone—by itself.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I do not agree that it is a negative function at all, whether by itself or in combination with any other function. It seems to me that it is essential to have restraint from aggression in order to ensure the prosperity of the world. Whatever may be done in the economic sphere, I believe that the security sphere will remain the most important of all.
The Dumbarton Oaks talks are, of course, as has already been said, only the first step. The discussions as yet have not risen above the official level and, moreover, the conclusions only represent the views of the delegates of the four nations represented—the United Kingdom, the United States, Russia, and China. The purpose of the talks, which were themselves the result of very careful preparatory work in all the capitals concerned,

489
was merely to clear the ground for further discussions at an inter-governmental level, including all the United Nations; but I do think, and I am sure your Lordships will agree, that it is a matter of warm congratulation that so much progress has already been registered. We may well pay tribute to the patience and skill of the delegates who took pant in conversations which have led to agreement on a great many questions which were of an extremely complex, and might easily have been of very controversial, character. There were, of course—some of them have been mentioned this afternoon—several outstanding points on which it was impossible to reach agreement at the official level. As the Prime Minister said in another place on September 28, it is hoped that these outstanding issues will be the subject of further discussion between Heads of Governments before the end of the year with a view to submitting agreed proposals to a full conference of the United Nations. I say that particularly for the benefit of my noble friend Lord Addison who asked a question on this particular point in the war debate last week. That is clearly the right course, for I am sure your Lordships will agree that, in deliberating on matters of such great importance and delicacy, it is wise to proceed with very considerable discretion. I should have thought there never was a case in which it was truer to say, "More haste, less speed."
Lord Winster urged that the public should not be kept in ignorance with regard to these matters. As I said to your Lordships yesterday, I entirely agree. It is essential in the view of His Majesty's Government that there should be the fullest discussion of these proposals, both here in Parliament and at the proposed Conference of the United Nations. I would certainly share the view expressed this afternoon that machinery is not of the slightest use unless there is the will to use it. The people of the world, if they are to support this proposed organization, must be fully informed about it. Unless their support is gained, the organization will fail. At the same time, it will be generally agreed that it was thoroughly sensible that the representatives of the four Powers, on whom the main responsibility must fall for ensuring international peace and security, should have met together and should have produced
490
an agreed working draft before entering into the wider discussions with other nations. But there is no wish, as far as I know, in any quarter—certainly no wish on the part of His Majesty's Government, and I am certain the same is true of other Governments—to present the people of this country or the peoples of our Allies with anything in the nature of a fait accompli. Now that this draft has been produced, we wish to have it fully ventilated and fully discussed.
In particular, this is a matter where the United Kingdom Government must move hand in hand with the Dominion Governments. The general ideas involved have already been the subject of full discussion at the meeting of the Dominion Prime Ministers which took place this spring, and we have kept in close and constant touch with the Dominions since that time. Already, as probably some of your Lordships will have read in the newspapers this morning, Mr. Mackenzie King, in an extremely important statement, has warmly welcomed the wide measure of agreement reached and has promised that these proposals will receive serious and earnest study by the Canadian Government. I am quite certain that that will also be the attitude of the other Dominion Governments. The more closely we can work with them in this—as indeed in all other matters—the better for the world, for I am quite certain that it is on the close collaboration between the nations of the British Commonwealth, within the framework of a world order, that the fate of the proposed organization will largely depend.
This moulding of a new instrument for the preservation of peace and security is a great task. It is probably the greatest task that any of us shall ever have to face. Moreover, as Lord Cecil said this afternoon, it is in accordance with the general wish of mankind. The raw material of the instrument in fact already exists. It is at this very moment being tempered and strengthened in the furnace of war. It is for us and other peace-loving nations to see that we fashion it so well and use it so wisely that we preserve for our children those enduring blessings which we ourselves have never known.
5.11 p.m.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, it is with regret that I feel I must join the ranks of the Jeremiahs in

491
supporting my noble friend Lord Winster in his Motion and in many of his ideas. I think one idea will be in the minds of nearly all people after this war and that will be, how to prevent another war occurring. That obviously will be the predominant idea. Two world wars in a life-time are two world wars too many, and tremendous pressure is bound to be brought on to different Governments to try and erect some machinery to stop a future inundation which may well sweep away civilization as we know it. After the last war the League of Nations was set up with all the necessary machinery for examining disputes and quarrels, and with everything that should be needed, but it lacked force. It lacked, as Lord Cecil has said, the force to implement its decisions, and as a result when the interest of major Powers came into conflict at once the weakness of the League became exposed. The facade which had been so elaborately erected was seen to be only a facade and gradually the world drifted towards the present disaster.
In my following remarks I would like to emphasize that I am speaking for myself and not in any way for the Labour Party, on the subject of these proposals made at Dumbarton Oaks which we have been examining this afternoon. They are proposals to deal with the situation in connexion with possible disputes and possible wars that might arise; but as far as I can see, from what has necessarily been a brief examination of these proposals, what really is intended is that the victorious United Nations shall eventually control the world. They arc, my Lords, very ambitious and very realistic proposals. The Big Four have, at the moment, or will have on the defeat of Germany, complete power in their hands to control all the other nations and to tell them what they shall do and what they shall not do. In the proposals we see that the ultimate power is to reside in a Security Council. The Security Council decides what is a dispute, what actions can be taken by other nations, what are the dangers that might lead to aggression or war. They are to decide what behaviour is dangerous to peace, what disarmament or armament can be allowed in other nations; what is aggression, who is the aggressor and, finally, what steps shall be taken against the aggressor; and
492
actually they would order the start of military operations. The armed force, as I understand it, will be under the control of the Military Staff Committee which is supposed to advise and help the Security Council, and presumably this Military Staff Committee will actually command the forces in the field.
Who is to compose this Security Council? The Security Council is to consist, in the first place, of four and ultimately of five, of the United Nations; and six other nations which are elected in rotation by a General Assembly. Theoretically, the Big Four or the Big Five could be outvoted by the lesser six, if voting power was equal. This, of course, is the crucial question and the question apparently on which agreement could not be reached; because if voting power is so arranged that the Big Five can outvote any other combination then obviously there is no pretence of any international control. Even if voting is arranged to be equal so that each nation has one vote, the Big Five have only to get one vote of the six nations on their side and all decisions could be decided by them. I only stress this to show that what is actually being proposed is not a League of Nations to control world affairs and to stop aggression, but it is a proposal of the five victorious nations to control the other nations of the world: naturally, all in the interests of peace and they will try to get other friendly nations to give them their help and support in their actions.
For these proposals to work, I think your Lordships will agree with me that three things must happen. The first is that the Big Five must not quarrel amongst themselves; they must remain friendly and united. The second is that the Big Five must continue wholeheartedly to support each other, even when their own interests are not involved. (That is obviously essential for the working of the whole scheme.) The third is that the rest of the world must be willing to help to accept this control and especially not to combine against or actively oppose it. What are the chances of these three different things actually working? Here we reach very debatable ground. It is always unwise to prophesy. Here again I only express a personal opinion when I say that I think it is extremely unlikely that those three points

493
will continue to operate through a long course of years.
It is most unlikely that over a term of years, without a threat from an outside enemy, the Big Five should have no quarrel and no dispute. If they do quarrel who out of them is going to condemn the aggressor? And will all the other nations back up in supporting the members of the Big Five in their condemnation? In any case, whatever happens, peace is gone. It is unfortunately almost always the fact that Allies, after a big war, do fall out. During the pressure of this war we have already seen signs of stresses and strains, and there will be plenty of conflicts lurking in ambuscade for the victors. Furthermore, will war-weary populations rally to the support of these Big Five and be content to go and fight in distant hemispheres in disputes in which they will have apparently no interest? I very much doubt it. Will far-away nations pledge themselves to send their citizens to fight in support of this authority wherever they may be asked to go? I think it is highly improbable. Yet unless all these improbabilities actually work the whole scheme will fall down, another facade will have been erected and another generation will be sacrificed in a third world war. All the idealism and energy and enthusiasm which are genuinely desirous of making a permanent peace will, once again, have been thrown away.
What is the alternative? Is the only alternative to try the League as it was which unfortunately proved such a failure, or is the alternative to go back to the old system of alliances and balance of power which resulted in so many dreadful catastrophies? I suggest that the crux of the problem is this, that if nations really wish to prevent war they must pay the price, and the price they must pay is the surrender of their national sovereignty. I am sorry the noble Earl, Lord Perth, is no longer here, as I should have liked to dispute his definition of sovereignty. He, I think, suggested that a nation by signing a treaty or binding itself to a bargain was giving up sovereignty. I would suggest on the other hand that sovereignty is given up when you delegate your powers to someone else to do what they like. If His Majesty's Government make a bargain that they will deliver some dock
494
equipment to France that is not giving up sovereignty, that is a treaty. But if they delegated to a French Minister power to order what equipment he liked and when he liked, that is definitely giving away the power of choice and sovereignty. I do not want to go further into that point.
It is true that although primitive tribes have combined for war they have never managed to combine for peace. While robber barons maintained their private armies no peace could be established in the land. I maintain that so long as nations will acknowledge no authority greater than their own, and maintain their own war forces to assert their will over others, so long will international war continue. There is only one device which has been found efficacious in stopping war between communities and it is along that line that I suggest, though I may be in the minority of one, the possibilities should be explored. The only device which so far has worked is that of federation upon which the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has poured scorn this afternoon. It is not easy to establish; it is extremely difficult. We must remember that in the United States of America there was a very calamitous civil war before finally all the States of the Union settled down and federation was consolidated. But as a result there is no danger at all of war breaking out between those States. There is no prospect of war between Nevada and Idaho or between Massachusetts and Maine. The idea of it, to any American, would be ridiculous. In the same way wherever Slates have federated, or in other words, have given up their sovereignty, as in the case of the Soviet Socialist Republics, the Swiss Republic and the Commonwealth of Australia, or the United States of Mexico, the danger of war between those States has been eliminated. But you must have real union, and no closed frontiers; both people and goods must be able to pass freely: and supreme force must lie in the hands of the central Federal Government which must be representative of all the States.
By federation you remove the means of making war from each State and put it into the hands of a federal authority. You take away also most of the motive for making war, for there are no longer monopolies of raw material or labour

495
supply, no restriction on fields of investment. All those things have caused quarrels and disputes and ultimately led to international strife; but when labour and goods flow freely and money can be invested anywhere war is no longer necessary. I suggest that a start could be made by federating the countries of Europe. Never has a better opportunity presented itself than there will be after the collapse of Germany for federating the States of Europe. In modern days a division of Europe into a multitude of small States, with their arbitrary frontiers obstructing trade and development, engendering national hatred, is not only ridiculous but dangerous to peace. It is here than we can begin to solve this important problem. It is not the time at this late hour nor is this the occasion to discuss details of federation, but I hope that this country will be far-sighted enough to work for its establishment and will in time become a leading member of the federation. I should like your Lordships to remember that only between those countries which are federated has the danger of war been completely eliminated. The more you federate, the more groups become groups of federal countries, the more will that danger be done away with, and we may hope that one day the federation of the United States of the World will finally do away with the danger of world war or war in the world.
5.27 p.m.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I deeply appreciate the reply which the noble Viscount the Leader of the House was good enough to give me. I fully understand the narrow limits within which his reply had necessarily to be confined. I am glad that he approved of my intelligent anticipation of coming events in putting down my Motion but I was sorry to hear that what I said had caused him gloom and despondency. In what I said I spoke in no spirit of scepticism but only in a spirit of wishing to face up to the difficulties involved in these proposed arrangements, because it is to my mind very clear that the reasons which led to the failure of the League of Nations were to be found in the refusal of far too many people to face up to the difficulties involved in the League. Therefore I make no apology for trying to face up to the difficulties in the
496
proposals of Dumbarton Oaks. There is one thing I would like to mention. I happened to hear at first hand a personal tribute from an American who has just arrived in this country by air to the great work of Sir Alexander Cadogan at Dumbarton Oaks. He spoke in terms of the highest praise of Sir Alexander Cadogan, of his great competence and the intense seriousness and the practical nature of the work he did there. I thought your Lordships might be pleased to hear that tribute.
The debate on my Motion has really turned very largely upon the question of the forces which are to be at the disposal of the Security Council. I noticed that the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, opposed the idea of an International Police Force although the difficulties he mentioned have all been faced by the society which advocates that particular idea. I noticed that the noble Viscount in his speech repeatedly spoke about the forces which this Security Council will have at its disposal. The Security Council will have no forces at its command since the forces in question will remain under the command of their own national Governments. The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, pointed out in his speech that in his opinion one reason for the failure of the League was that nations would not face up to their undertakings and their obligations when the question of the use of force came up. Why are we to anticipate that the nations represented on the Security Council will be more forthcoming than the nations represented on the League of Nations? I fear very much that what he said on that point is all too true and that when it comes to a question of nations producing their forces and giving sanction to their employment we shall find all the shuffling and shilly-shallying which led to so much trouble in the past. Again I would like to express my thanks, in his absence, to the noble Leader of the House, and I beg to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

CONSTITUTION OF ALLIED FORCES.
5.30 p.m.
LORD RUSHCLIFFE: My Lords, I beg to ask the first question standing in my name on the Paper.

497
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government:

(a) What was the composition of the Chindit Force and the names of the units in that airborne operation; also can it be stated what distance they were flown;

(b) Whether there are British troops fighting under the Command of General Stilwell in N. Burma and if so what numerical proportion they bear to American and Chinese troops in that Command;

(c) Whether the Canadian 1st Army operating in France includes British and other Allied formations and if so can the names or, failing that, the proportion of British, Canadian and Allied Divisions in that Army be disclosed.]

THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD CROFT): My Lords, the Chindit Force was composed of British Imperial troops. The names of the following Regiments in that force have already been released: The Lancashire Fusiliers, the South Staffordshire Regiment, the Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire Regiment, the Black Watch, the Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders, the Cameronians, the King's Own Lancashire Regiment, the King's Liverpool Regiment, the York and Lancaster Regiment, 4th Gurkha Rifles, 6th Gurkha Rifles, 9th Gurkha Rifles, The Burma Regiment.
The United Kingdom is making a substantial contribution to the Allied Force under the command of General Stilwell.
The answer to the third part of the noble Lord's question is that formations from the United Kingdom and certain Allied countries are included in the 1st Canadian Army. This answer does not,
498
I fear, give the noble Lord all the particulars for which he asks and which I would gladly give him but for the fact that they would be of some definite value to the enemy and must be denied him.

AXIS PRISONERS IN AFRICA.
LORD RUSHCLIFFE: My Lords, I beg to ask the other question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government:

(a) What was the total of Axis prisoners captured by the British Imperial Armies in Africa, excluding those captured in the battle for Tunisia;

(b) What was the total of Axis prisoners captured by the Allies in the battle of Tunisia.]

LORD CROFT: The answer to the first part of the question is 265,600, and to the second part 252,300. But I would like to state that the figures given in reply to the first part of the noble Lord's question, dealing with operations in East Africa up to the Battle of Tunisia, do not include Italian native troops who were taken prisoner, and of whom there was also a very considerable number.
LORD RUSHCLIFFE: I am very much obliged to my noble friend for the most interesting information which he has given to the House.

INDIA (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with an Amendment; the said Amendment considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before six o'clock.