Sitting of 26 September 1944

Preamble
The House met, after the Adjournment on Thursday, 3rd August, for the Summer Recess.
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
DEATH OF A MEMBER
Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death, in action, of Captain George Charles Grey, Member for the County of Northumberland (Berwick-upon-Tweed Division), and I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the honourable Member.

SPEAKER'S WARRANTS FOR NEW WRITS
MR. SPEAKER acquainted the House that he had issued, during the Adjournment, Warrants for new Writs, namely:
For the Borough of Wolverhampton (Bilston Division), in the room of Ian Campbell Hannah, Esq., deceased.
For the County of Northumberland (Berwick-upon-Tweed Division), in the room of Captain George Charles Grey, killed in action.

MESSAGE FROM TURKISH GRAND NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
Mr. Speaker: I have the honour to communicate to the House the following message which the Grand National Assembly of Turkey decided, at its Session on August 2nd, 1944, to address to the British Parliament:
"The Grand National Assembly of Turkey deems itself happy to address to the British Parliament its friendly greetings at the moment when the Turkish nation, which is sincerely attached to the cause of the liberty and independence of peoples, and which since the beginning of the war has remained faithful to its alliance with Great Britain, has assumed a more effective position at the side of its Ally, by breaking off its economic and diplomatic relations with Germany.
ABDULHALIK RENDA,
President of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey."
A suitable reply has been sent.

MR. SPEAKER (VISIT TO NORMANDY FRONT)
Mr. Speaker: The House, I feel sure, would wish to be informed that during the Adjournment I accepted ark invitation from General Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied Army of Liberation, to visit his Headquarters in Normandy. Accordingly, on Wednesday, 16th August, I closed by air to Normandy and was received with great cordiality by General Eisenhower, who not only found time to give me a personal appreciation of the situation, as it then existed, but also gave me facilities for obtaining information through officers of his staff whom he placed at my disposal.

3
On the following day, through the courtesy of Air Chief Marshal Sir Trafford Leigh-Mallory and of Air Chief Marshal Sir Arthur Coningham, I availed myself of the opportunity of visiting some advance tactical airfields, and of witnessing operations conducted by British and Canadian squadrons.
In these visits I was accompanied by the Clerk of the House, the Serjeant at Arms and my Secretary.
I am glad to take this opportunity of informing the House officially of these graceful acts of courtesy offered to the Speaker, as the representative of the House of Commons, by these distinguished officers, in the name of the Allied and British Forces under their command.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Thorne: On a point of Order. May I draw the attention of hon. Members, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that there are 158 Questions on the Order Paper, and ask them to restrain themselves from putting too many supplementaries?
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Statutory Rules and Orders
    Mr. Hutchinsonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can explain the purpose of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Apparel and Textiles (Infants' and Girls' Wear) (S.R. & O., No. 771, of 1944), having regard to the fact that the explanatory note is unintelligible and the document involves reference to six earlier Orders.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): As stated in the explanatory note, the purpose of this Order is to substitute a new schedule of infants' and girls' utility specifications and prices for a previous one, and to make changes in the arrangements for the production of utility clothing for infants and girls.
    Mr. Hutchinson: Is my right hon. friend aware that the explanatory note itself
    4
    contains a reference to some other document? Will he take steps in future to see that explanatory notes are, as far as possible, made complete in themselves?
    Mr. Dalton: This explanatory note is quite clear. It indicates three relaxations of control suggested by the trade and agreed to by me.
    Commander Bowerasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is proposed to publish all the directions referred to in paragraph II of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Furniture Order (S.R. & O. No. 769, of 1944).
    Mr. Dalton: The only directions of general application that have been issued under Part II of this Order deal with the method of applying the utility mark. These directions have been published, and any other general directions will also be published.

    Film Industry (Report)
    Wing-Commander Jamesasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the importance and gravity of the position disclosed and the recommendations that it makes, he will publish the Palache Report upon the condition of the British Film Industry as a White Paper.
    Colonel Burtonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered a recent Report from the Cinematograph Films Council; and what action he proposes to take in connection with the recommendations in such Report.
    Mr. Dalton: This Report was published on 8th September by His Majesty's Stationery Office, and copies are available in the Vote Office. In accordance with the suggestion made to me by the Films Council, I have, in the first instance, invited the various sections of the film industry to let me have their views on the report.
    Wing-Commander James: In view of the disquiet which this Report must cause, can my right hon. Friend say when he expects the promised Debate?
    Mr. Dalton: That is a matter to be pursued through the usual channels. I think I had better get the observations of the industry first.

    Motor-Car Industry
    Mr. Quintin Hoggasked the President of the Board of Trade what assurance he

    5
    can give that those motor manufacturers who have been most successful in meeting service requirements other than for motor-cars will not be penalised in the reconstruction period at the expense of those who have continued to produce vehicles of a type similar to their peacetime production.
    Mr. Dalton: The Departments concerned will do their best to treat these firms fairly in arranging releases from war work; but, as my hon. and gallant Friend will, I am sure, agree, the Armed Forces must be supplied by the firms best able to meet their needs, and other considerations, such as the supply of labour in particular districts, will have to be taken into account.
    Mr. Hogg: Taking the long view, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the needs of the Armed Forces will be better assisted by rewarding those who have shown themselves forward in meeting them than in a pedantic adherence to the detailed requirements of the Services from day to day?
    Mr. Dalton: I think we must take the short view on many of these matters.

    Salt Deposits
    Mr. Wootton-Daviesasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he has any up-to-date estimate as to the accessible salt deposits in this country and by whom they are owned or controlled;
    (2) whether he is aware that recent advances in industrial chemistry make it possible to produce a large range of products based on coal, salt, lime and nitrogen; and whether, in these circumstances, he will take steps to ascertain what are the existing salt deposits in this country and to what extent they can be made freely available to new industries wishing to use these chemical processes.
    Mr. Dalton: The reserves of salt in this country are very large, and I am not aware of any difficulty experienced by industries in obtaining supplies. If my hon. Friend will send me details of any such cases, I shall be glad to look into, them. Full information about the deposits in this country is given in Memoir No. XVIII of the Geological Survey entitled "Rock-Salt and Brine."

    Rubber Teats
    Major C. S. Taylorasked the President of the Board of Trade whether,
    6
    in view of the increase in the birthrate, he is now prepared to release more rubber for the manufacture of teats and valves for infant feeding-bottles.
    Mr. Murrayasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the great shortage of babies' soothers and teats for babies' bottles; and whether, in the near future, he will be able to increase the supply of, he above articles and thus assist the mothers of young children.
    Sir Herbert Williamsasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to increase the supply of teats for feeding-bottles, having regard to the acute shortage in relation to the increased birthrate.
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. I am glad to say that, in agreement with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Production, a substantial increase has already been made in the allocation of rubber for teats and valves, and larger supplies are reaching the shops. I have now arranged for a further increase which will, I hope, meet the demand in full.
    Mr. Hynd: Is the Minister aware that chemists' shops in many districts are still without teats?
    Mr. Dalton: If the hon. Member will send me particulars I will look into them.
    Sir H. Williams: Is the Minister aware that no chemists' shops in Croydon have any?
    Mr. Wootton-Davies: Nor in Radcliffe.
    Mr. Dalton: I will look into that matter.
    Mr. Hogg: Does not the Minister think that the condition often attached to the purchase of teats, that a bottle should be bought at the same time, should be removed, in view of the increased supply?
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. I may inform the House that one of the difficulties is that synthetic rubber is not good for teats. It must be natural rubber.
    Mr. J. J. Lawson: Is the Minister arranging for a general distribution throughout the country of these articles as practically every area is without them? It is no good promising a particular area to arrange for a supply, because the whole country is practically in the same position.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Will there be adequate liaison in this matter with the Ministry of Health, in order to avoid inadequate allocation of rubber?
    Mr. Dalton: The Ministry of Production is the co-ordinating Department in this matter.
    Mr. Nicholson: Will there not be liaison with the Ministry of Health?
    Mr. Murray: Is the Minister aware that Spennymoor has not yet seen any of these articles on sale, and that is why Question 17 was put on the Paper?
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir, I quite appreciate This difficulty. I have given two reasons to the House why the difficulty has arisen and I have also told the House what active steps have been taken to correct it.

    War-time Regulations (Relaxation)
    Sir Douglas Hackingasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give a list of war-time regulations and restrictions affecting his Department which have already been rendered less onerous or totally abolished.
    Mr. Dalton: I am glad to say that, in recent months, although the labour and material available for civilian production have been strictly limited, I have been able to make a number of small relaxations. These include removing the austerity restrictions on men's suits and also the quota on furs, increasing the permitted supplies of cutlery, toys, toilet preparations and polishes, raising the steel content of perambulators, and restoring the utility furniture ration and extending the priority classes.
    Sir D. Hacking: Will my right hon. Friend add to that list as soon as possible, because it seems very inadequate?
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir, subject to the national interest and an increase in supplies.

    Retail Traders
    Mr. Manderasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of small traders now on his register who have closed down owing to the war; what approximate proportion this forms of the total; and whether arrangements will be made for the co-ordination of the granting of licences and the allocation of supplies after the war.
    Mr. Dalton: Just over 14,000 names are now on the register, but there is no record of the total number of shops closed during the war. If the need should arise, I shall be glad to consider arrangements such as my hon. Friend suggests.
    Mr. Mander: Will the Minister consider granting compensation in those cases?
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is some feeling among returning soldiers about the restrictions against being allowed to open up businesses which they had to close down when they went to the war?
    Mr. Dalton: There is a later Question on that subject.
    Mr. De La Bére: Is the Minister not aware that these people require safeguarding against the co-operatives?
    Mr. Harry Thorneyeroft: What will be the position of small traders who closed down their businesses and went into the Forces and who failed, from various causes, to register, when they return and wish to re-open their businesses?
    Mr. Dalton: They should register as. soon as possible. I have taken all the means open to me to promote publicity on this matter, and if the hon. Member can help me I shall be very grateful.

    Industrial Deconcentration
    II. Mr. Rostron Duckworthasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, when decontrol of any industry is sanctioned, it is proposed to carry this out piecemeal or as a whole.
    Colonel Lyonsasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the alarm felt in the established centres of the hosiery trade in consequence of the pronouncement that deconcentration is proposed in certain cases in Lanarkshire; whether he can make any further statement on the matter; and what proposals he has for the general equitable process of deconcentration in this industry.
    Mr. Dalton: In view of the heavy demands on our man-power and other resources for the war effort, full deconcentration is unlikely to be possible until after both Germany and Japan have been defeated. But, subject to the circumstances of each industry and in consulta-

    9
    tion with those concerned, I shall take every opportunity, as labour and materials become available, to make a start with re-opening closed firms. As regards the hosiery industry, I am in consultation with representatives of the industry on deconcentration problems.

    Disabled Ex-Service Men (Resettlement)
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Ian Fraserasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has any statement to make as to the settlement or resettlement of ex-Service men in general and of disabled ex-Service men in particular in small retail businesses.
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. I have decided that in future a disabled ex-Service man, who was formerly a retailer, shall be granted a licence to open a shop in any area or line of business, provided that the grant of a licence in an area, other than that in which he used to trade, would not prejudice the interests of others on the Board of Trade register. Disabled ex-Service men, who were not formerly retailers, will be treated in the same way, except that the licensing Committees will consider, with the advice of the Ministry of Labour, whether, in each individual case, retail trade affords good prospects for the applicant. I have also invited the British Legion to nominate a representative on each of these licensing committees. All ex-Service men on the Register, at the end of the war, will, on their return to civil life, be granted licences automatically to re-open their former businesses.

    Export Merchants Guarantee Company, Limited
    Commander Bowerasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the purpose of the Export Merchants Guarantee Company, Limited, registered on 15th July, 1944; who are the directors of this company; by whom were they selected; whether any of them have experience as merchants in the export trade; and whether the accounts of this company will be made available to the public.
    Mr. Dalton: As the answer to this Question contains much detail, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Commander Bower: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that this company is not being formed with the object of ousting existing exporters?
    Mr. Dalton: If my hon. and gallant Friend will read the answer, he will see that that is not so.
    Following is the information:
    The interests of the Export Merchants Guarantee Company are limited to Middle East markets. It was formed to deal with certain goods that may, from time to time, in present circumstances, become available for these markets, but which cannot conveniently be dealt with through normal trade channels, for example, because the quantities are not large enough to divide equitably amongst the merchants ordinarily engaged in the trade. The Company will share any profits derived from such transactions between its members, and membership is open to all general export merchants who have previously traded with the territories in question, or to any others who may be nominated for membership by a Government Department.
    The company was formed under the auspices of the National General Export Merchants Group, with the knowledge and approval of the Board of Trade. The directors were chosen by a general meeting of the National General Export Merchants group, and those so far appointed are:
    Mr. A. Hollam.—A director of John Batt and Company.
    Mr. R. Homsy.—A partner in Selim Homsy and Company.
    Mr. D. Bruce Scott
    (Managing Director):
    General Manager of De Clermont and Donner Limited.
    Mr A. S. Todd.—Chairman of the National General Export Merchants Group. A director of Gordon Woodruffe and Co. and of Biddle Sawyer and Co.
    Mr. E. H. Wenham.—Director of Mitchell Cotts (Middle East) Limited and of Temperley's Haslehurst and Co. Limited.
    The accounts of the company will be dealt with according to the ordinary rules of Company Law.

    Development Areas (New Industries)
    Miss Wardasked the President of the Board of Trade his proposals for ensuring new industries for the special development areas.
    Mr. Dalton: Plans are being prepared, and action is being taken, along the lines indicated in the White Paper on Employment Policy.
    Miss Ward: When are we to have a decision on these all-important matters? Plans have been prepared for ages.
    Mr. Dalton: A lot is going on.

    Locomotives
    Mr. Hewlettasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any plans are being evolved for the large scale production of British locomotives after the war, since replacements and additions are urgently needed in many parts of the British Empire.
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. When the present high output of locomotives for military use is no longer necessary, the industry will be ably to devote itself to meeting the large demands of Empire and other overseas countries.

    Cotton Industry
    Mr. Hewlettasked the President of the Board of Trade (I) having regard to the importance of the Lancashire cotton textile industry, particularly from the standpoint of maintaining British export trade, will he consider giving preference to applications from firms in this industry for permission to rent or acquire such premises as are of suitable shape and construction and situated where experienced personnel is readily available;
    (2) whether any of the Government buildings in Lancashire, which are likely to become available for industrial purposes after the war, are suitable to the technical requirements of firms in the cotton spinning and cotton weaving industries who might wish to instal the most up-to-date equipment.
    Mr. Dalton: I am most anxious that the fine modern factories built in Lancashire in connection with the war effort, which become surplus to Government requirements, shall be used for peace-time production. I should hope that some of these factories will be suitable for cotton spinning and weaving firms, who wish to instal modern equipment and to move from old and out-of-date premises. But, so far, out of the many applications received from industrialists for the post-war use of these Lancashire factories, very few have come from the cotton industry.
    Major Sir Edward Cadoganasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will circulate a White Paper on the results of the recent mission of Sir Frank Platt to the U.S.A.; and how soon will it be available to hon. Members.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Production (Mr. Garro Jones): In consultation with his colleagues concerned, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Production is arranging for publication of the report of the mission. The form in which the report will be published has still to be decided but it will be available very shortly.
    Mr. Molson: Is the Minister of Production responsible for matters connected with the cotton industry? If not, why has the Parliamentary Secretary answered the Question?
    Mr. Garro Jones: The cotton industry is the concern of more than one Minister, and the Minister of Production is responsible for co-ordination; and the answer deals with that.

    Civilian Goods
    Sir H. Williamsasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he proposes to take to increase the production of goods for civilian consumption, so as to ensure opportunities for employment to those demobilised from Civil Defence and other Services.
    Mr. Erskine-Hillasked the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements have been made to lift the restrictions on the production of civilian goods so as to counterbalance the reduction of orders for war material.
    Mr. Stokesasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the American decision to switch over 40 per cent. of total production to peace purposes on the conclusion of hostilities with Germany: and what corresponding action he proposes to take so as to ensure that maximum employment in this country is maintained and that our own industries are not disadvantaged in export markets.
    Mr. Dalton: I am keeping in close touch with my right hon. Friends the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Production in regard to releases of labour and capacity from war work in order to ensure

    13
    that every opportunity is taken to increase the production of civilian goods, both for home and export, as rapidly as the claims of war production and other essential work allow. My right hon. and gallant Friend, the Minister of Production, hopes to make a full statement on this subject shortly.
    Sir H. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are very large numbers of people in war factories up and down the country at this moment who are doing no work of any kind whatsoever?
    Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that great enterprise is being shown by the Americans in sending their travellers overseas now? Will his Department afford equal facilities for travellers from this country who want to do likewise?
    Mr. Dalton: My hon. Friend has personally applied for facilities to travel abroad and they have been granted.

    Paper Allocation (Books)
    Lieutenant-Colonel SIT Thomas Mooreasked the President of the Board of Trade what action he proposes to take in regard to the memorandum he has recently received from the Publishers' Association regarding the provision of books for Europe and the Dominions; and whether he has any plans in mind to ease the present shortage of labour, paper and cloth.
    Mr. Graham Whiteasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the shortage of all books of a non-tendentious character, and if, in view of the need for peoples in liberated territory to learn what Anglo-Saxons have written on the war and reconstruction, he will give directions for such an increase in the supply of paper and labour to the printing industry as is immediately possible.
    Mr. Dalton: I am glad to say that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Production has agreed, at my request, to increase the allocation of paper to publishers of books as from the end of next month to 42½ per cent. of their prewar usage. I hope that the publishers will do all they can to devote this extra paper to supplying liberated territories, as well as Empire and other oversea markets. My right hon. and gallant Friend has also increased by more than
    14
    one-third the allocation to my special Reserve, and has made a further additional allocation for certain classes of educational books. I am in touch with my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Labour, about the supply of labour for printing and binding.
    Sir T. Moore: My right hon. Friend will appreciate that labour is really at the bottom of this whole question, and as, presumably, the Nazis have destroyed all books of cultural value in occupied Europe, and we shall destroy all the Nazi books, there will be nothing left for Europe to read until this supply is given?
    Sir Austin Hudson: Does that answer apply to periodicals as well as books, or not?
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir.
    Mr. White: Am I right in assuming that the right hon. Gentleman's statement means that instead of an allocation of 22,000 tons of paper for books out of a total allocation of 447,000 tons the amount will now be increased to something like 40,000 tons?
    Mr. Dalton: I can give my hon. Friend the figures. They are a little more complicated but are substantially as he suggests.

    Hotels and Boarding Houses (Re-equipment)
    Sir Leonard Lyleasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the public need for rest and recreation after the close of the European war, he will arrange for the grant to hotels and boarding houses of priority of supply in respect of all articles needed for re-fitting and bringing up to date such establishments.
    Mr. Dalton: I will do all I can to help hotels and boarding-houses to re-equip themselves after the war. But, as my hon. Friend knows, many of the goods they will want, especially sheets and curtains, have been very scarce during the war, and private householders must also be able to meet their most pressing needs, as soon as supplies can be increased.
    Sir L. Lyle: Will the right hon. Gentleman not agree that there is a very pressing need in the case of hotels and boarding houses, to enable the people of Britain

    15
    to get the rest and recreation they deserve?
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir, there are very pressing needs in many parts of the community, and we are trying to meet them.

    Socks
    Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the justification for the regulations issued by his Department prohibiting the dispatch of socks by relatives in Great Britain of men serving in Gibraltar; and if he is aware that these men are urgently requesting socks and their relatives have parcels ready to send them.
    Mr. Dalton: No prohibition has been imposed by my Department on the dispatch of socks to men serving in Gibraltar.
    Mr. Stewart: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people desirous of sending such parcels are prevented from doing so on account of the unwillingness of his Department to issue the necessary certificate?
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. Perhaps the hon. Member would speak to me about the matter. There is no such prohibition.

    Sheets and Towels
    Lieut.-Commander Hutchisonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is yet able to reduce the coupon value of towels for household purposes or make them coupon free.
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir; not yet. But I hope it may not be long before. I can act on my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion.
    Mr. Lipsonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will increase the supply of sheets and towels at controlled prices in the Cheltenham area, as the present shortage is causing hardship, especially to expectant mothers.
    Mr. Dalton: The supply of sheets is at present very limited, but I am glad to say that I have recently been able to arrange for an increase, of which Cheltenham should get its fair share. I am now also switching to sheets material hitherto used for black-out. The production of towels is sufficient to meet the present demand under rationing, and I have called
    16
    for a special report on supplies in Cheltenham.
    Mr. Lipson: Does my right hon. Friend's answer imply that his policy henceforth will be one of expansion rather than of restriction?
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir; I am glad to say that we are now in a position to do that.

    Export Licence (Application)
    Mr. Higgsasked the President of the Board of Trade why a licence was refused, on 5th August, 1944, to S. O. Bowker, Limited, of 19, Warstone Lane, Birmingham 18, for the export of electrical accessories to Iran, the whole value being 10s., which were to be sent withcut charge, with a view to developing postwar business.
    Mr. Dalton: I have looked into this case, and have granted a licence.
    Mr. Higgs: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why, when responsible Ministers are continually harping on the necessity for increased exports, the Board of Trade seem to advance all sorts of difficulties to prevent exports being expanded?
    Mr. Dalton: My hon. Friend is mistaken. If he had mentioned the subject to me I could easily have adjusted it, without a Parliamentary Question being put.
    Mr. Higgs: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have letters from other firms containing similar complaints?

    Export Trade (Lend-Lease Agreement)
    Mr. Higgsasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the present Lend-Lease Agreement with the U.S.A. is the cause of widespread uneasiness, owing to its effect upon the export trade of the United Kingdom; and what action he is taking to rectify the matter.
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. As the House is aware, discussions have been proceeding with the United States authorities regarding the replacement of the White Paper of September, 1941. Recent changes in the war situation have altered the background against which these questions must now be viewed. I will make a further statement as soon as I am able to do so.
    Mr. Higgs: Is the House to understand that, in place of the present unilateral

    17
    method, reciprocal agreements will be made?
    Mr. Dalton: The possibility of that will be discussed.

    Commodity Price Control
    Sir Irving Alberyasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the delay in permitting increases in prices to cover increased costs due to wages awards, advances in cost of coal, etc., has in some cases caused serious losses; and if he will take action to expedite necessary adjustments.
    Mr. Dalton: To raise maximum prices automatically, whenever costs rise, would directly encourage inflation, and is contrary to the Government's policy. It is always open to any body of traders to make an application for an increase in prices, having regard to increases in costs. Such applications are dealt with as speedily as possible, in consultation with the Central Price Regulation Committee, but, as my hon. Friend will appreciate, requests of this kind must be very carefully examined and costings must be investigated, for increases in costs in some directions are not infrequently accompanied by decreases in others.
    Sir I. Albery: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my purpose in asking the Question is to find out whether he will endeavour to expedite the matter and avoid any unnecessary delay?
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir.

    Fiscal Policy
    Mr. Naylorasked the Prime Minister if he will give an assurance that the universal abolition of protective tariffs on imports, for which the post-war readjustments of production throughout the world presents a favourable opportunity, will be proposed or agreed to by the British Government in a future international conference as a basis of agreement on fiscal policy.
    Mr. Dalton: I have been asked to reply. There is no prospect whatever of securing international agreement on such a proposal.

    LIFEBOAT SERVICE
    Mr. Thorneasked the President of the Board of Trade how many times the lifeboats of the National Lifeboat Institution have been called out since the war
    18
    started; and how many lives the lifeboat-men have saved since the war started.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): I have been asked to reply. Since the outbreak of war, lifeboats of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution have been launched on 3,399 occasions, and 5,783 lives have been saved.

    SWEDEN(GERMAN SHIP CON STRUCTION)
    Commander Sir Archibald Southbyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare to what extent ships now being constructed in Swedish shipyards are being built to German orders.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dingle Foot): My information is that II ships are now being built in Swedish shipyards in pursuance of orders placed by or on behalf of German shipowners.
    Sir A. Southby: Can my hon. Friend say what proportion of the ships now being built in Swedish shipyards are being built for Swedish purposes, and what proportion to help the Allied cause?
    Mr. Foot: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put that Question down.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Children's Allowances
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for War if the review of allowances payable in respect of Service men's children living in the care of guardians is complete; and if he can now state whether the recent increases are to apply to such allowances.
    The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): When the soldier's home is being maintained, and the guardian is a full-time paid housekeeper, the full allowance as for a wife with children will be paid. Otherwise, the guardian will receive 8s. a week less than the wife with children, together with Ws. 6d. a week in respect of each child; for example, there will be paid in respect of the motherless children of a soldier below the rank of sergeant 27s. a week, including his qualifying allotment, plus 12s. 6d. for

    19
    each child. Where the soldier's home is not being maintained, 16s. for each child, exclusive of the soldier's qualifying allotment, will be paid.

    Spirits (Sales)
    Mr. Kendallasked the Secretary of State for War if he will take immediate steps to bring about the cancellation of the military rule that spirits, such as whisky, etc., may not be sold to any member of the Armed Forces below the rank of sergeant, in view of the feeling existing amongst the troops in Normandy and elsewhere that such a rule is in the nature of class distinction, interferes with their personal freedom in this respect, and is needless, seeing that such sales would be governed by a soldier's ability to purchase these spirits.
    Sir J. Grigg: The regulation, with which the hon. Member is, I think, familiar, prohibits the sale of spirits for consumption in canteens and restricts the sale for consumption elsewhere to officers and officers' and sergeants' messes. The regulation is necessary in the interests of discipline, and I regret that I cannot accept the hon. Member's suggestion.

    OVERSEAS SERVICE PERSONNEL (HOME LEAVE)
    Mr. John Dugdaleasked the Secretary of State for War (1) why an order has been issued by the G.O.C., Middle East, stating that all soldiers must complete five years' service overseas before obtaining home leave;
    (2) what percentage of men with four and a half to five, and five and over years' service abroad, respectively, have now had home leave.
    Mr. Quintin Hoggasked the Secretary of State for War (1) what progress has so far been made in posting home officers and men with over four and less than five years' overseas service;
    (2) what steps are now being taken to give home leave to troops in the Mediterranean and Far Eastern Commands on a scale comparable with the other Services and with the troops in the British Liberation Army.
    Sir Douglas Hackingasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can yet reduce the period of service of troops in the Far East and other distant theatres of war.
    Viscount Hinchin gbrookeasked the Secretary of State for War what progress has been made since 29th June in granting home leave to troops who have served in the East and Middle East for upwards of four and a half years; and whether he expects in the near future further to shorten the qualifying period.
    Sir H. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for War whether any change has been made as to the period of service overseas before men in the Army are re-posted to this country.
    Mr. Kirbyasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can make a statement as to arrangements for granting leave to members of the Armed Forces now serving on the Western Front.
    Captain Gammansasked the Secretary of State for War the approximate number of men in the Indian and South-East Asia Command who have been overseas for three years or more.
    Sir George Jonesasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the present military situation, he can, in the near future, grant leave of absence to men who have been serving two years or more in distant countries and unhealthy climates, so that they may come home to recuperate and again see their families.
    Mr. Reakesasked the Secretary of State for War what progress has been made with regard to the granting of leave to men with unbroken long overseas service with His Majesty's Forces.
    Sir J. Grigg: In view of the misunderstandings which, judgingfrom my mail bag, exist among the troops on those matters, I propose to circulate a full statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I shall try to secure wide circulation for this in the overseas theatres.
    Mr. Hogg: While desiring to await that circulation for detailed statistics, might I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the growing bitterness of all ranks serving in the East, when they see their own situation compared unfavourably, not merely with that of the other two Services—[Interruption].
    Following is the statement:
    There is at present no general system of ordinary leave for troops serving overseas, and by ordinary leave I mean facilities for visiting their homes, followed at the end of the period of leave by a return to the theatre from which they came. A number of complete formations have been brought to this country on their way to another theatre of war, but, apart from these operational moves, the main flow of troops from overseas to this country takes place under a repatriation scheme, by which officers and men of the longest uninterrupted service overseas can, if they wish, be transferred to the home establishment. On arrival in this country they are given a period of leave, after which they are liable to be sent overseas again, though every effort is made to avoid this for at least three months after their arrival. I may perhaps add that in any case we intend that a soldier who has once been repatriated on grounds of length of service shall not be sent to any operational theatre other than North-West Europe unless he volunteers to go further afield. Posting to the home establishment may, in addition, be granted at the discretion of the Commander-in-Chief concerned in a limited number of compassionate cases, but I am afraid that the standard of compassion has had to be a strict one.
    Whatever the ground for the repatriation, it will be obvious that all the men concerned are struck off the strength of their units abroad, and have to be replaced by reinforcements sent from this country. If we had unlimited shipping and unlimited reserves of man-power at the disposal of the Army, we could, and should, shorten materially the tour of overseas service and institute a regular system of leave from overseas theatres, subject only to the operational situation at any given moment. But, in this sixth year of war, the Army has neither the use of unlimited ships nor abundant reserves of trained men, and we have had to do the best we can with the resources available. This best, I repeat, is much less than we should have liked. It has consisted in a slight relaxation of the standards for posting to the home establishment on compassionate grounds and a gradual reduction of the maximum time for which soldiers have had to be kept overseas. At no time have we made hard and fast promises, and at no time will I make such promises unless I can be absolutely
    22
    certain of being able to carry them out. In particular, we have never conferred an absolute right of repatriation to soldiers with any given length of overseas service. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said on 29th June that we had repatriated most of those with five years or more of continuous overseas service, that we were making a start on those of less than five years' service, and that we hoped in time to get down to those of four and a half years' service, or even less. With a view to accelerating this process, I have, since the Foreign Secretary's statement, given directions that the provision of replacement drafts is to be given the highest priority, even though this is in some cases alt the expense of keeping up to strength our Armies engaged in active operations. Special consideration in these directions was given to troops serving in India and South-East Asia Command, in view of the particularly arduous conditions in the Far East.
    It is very difficult to forecast what the result of these directions will be, and, as I said earlier, I am particularly concerned not to make promises unless I am sure they can be carried out. One of the still unknown factors is the date of the termination of the war with Germany, as soon as possible after which the recently announced release plans will come into force, and, of course, a great many soldiers with long service overseas will fall into the earlier release groups. But, subject to fundamental reservations of this sort, I will say that I shall be very disappointed if by January next the maximum tour of service in India and Burma has not been reduced to four years—indeed, the target is a few months less. For troops serving elsewhere overseas, I hope that the tour will not in any case exceed 4¾ years, and that a considerable number of men with less than this period will have returned. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to be able to promise this or something better quite definitely. But I cannot, and, therefore, I will not. Similarly, in view of the uncertainties involved, I cannot yet make any sort of promise that ordinary leave from North-West Europe can be instituted, especially as, in my view, ordinary leave could not be granted to one theatre without making some parallel arrangements for other theatres. Finally, may I assure the House that I regard this question as one of the most important with which I have to

    23
    deal? There is, and can be, no justification for the growing habit of referring to troops in distant theatres as forgotten armies.

    DEMOBILISATION
    Sir I. Fraserasked the Prime Minister if he can now make a statement as to plans for demobilisation.
    Mr. Dribergasked the Prime Minister if he can now state the general principles of the Government's demobilisation scheme; and if, when it has been debated and approved by Parliament, he will instruct the Service Departments to do all that they can to make the scheme understood as widely as possible by all ranks before the end of hostilities.
    Mr. Turtonasked the Prime Minister whether he is now able to outline His Majesty's Government's policy for the demobilisation of the Armed Forces at the conclusion of hostilities.
    Captain Gammansasked the Prime Minister when it is expected that a statement can be made as to the Government's plan for military and industrial demobilisation; and if it is proposed to issue a White Paper on the subject.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): Hon. Members will now be aware of the Government's plans for release from the Armed Forces after the cessation of hostilities in Europe, which were set out in the White Paper published a few days ago. Special arrangements have been made to ensure that the details of the release scheme are fully explained to all members of the Forces with as little delay as possible. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is in consultation with representatives of employers and workers on plans for the re-allocation of men and women employed in civilian war work, and an announcement will be made as soon as possible.
    Sir I. Fraser: Will my right hon. Friend give the House an opportunity of debating this whole subject soon, and will he consider how far the Service Ministers can take counsel with the British Legion and other ex-Servicemen's bodies, who can render much help when the men come back, at the moment of their coming back, if their services are co-ordinated?
    The Prime Minister: I should think that that was certainly a matter which should be debated in the House.

    WAR CASUALTIES (PUBLICATION)
    Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the casualties suffered by American troops are officially published every month and appear regularly in our own Press, and will he in future follow the same practice to cover the casualties among the forces of the British Isles, bringing the total suffered from the outbreak of the present war up to date; and what is the practice in this connection in our Dominions.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. In future, the total casualties sustained by the Forces of the United Kingdom will be published quarterly. As regards the Dominions, I understand that Australian casualty figures are published quarterly. There are no arrangements for the regular publication of casualties in New Zealand or the Union of South Africa. No information is at present available as to Canadian practice, but inquiries are being made, and I will let hon. Members know as soon as a reply is received.

    WORLD PEACE AND SECURITY
    Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Prime Minister whether the proposals of His Majesty's Government, placed before the United Nations, for the establishment of an organisation for world peace after the war will be laid before this House; so that this House can make suggestions or amendments to those proposals before they are finally adopted.
    The Prime Minister: The policy of His Majesty's Government is to join with the Governments of the United States, the Soviet Union, and China in reaching agreement upon a set of proposals for the establishment of an organisation to maintain peace and security and to further social and economic co-operation among the peace-loving nations. The first steps are at present being taken in the conversations still in progress at Dumbarton Oaks, near Washington, between officials representing the four Governments. None of the Governments represented is committed at present. If, as I greatly hope, we succeed in framing such joint proposals they will be communicated to the other

    25
    Governments concerned, as the basis for discussion at a general conference of all the United Nations. I can assure the hon. Member that an appropriate opportunity will be given to the House to consider these proposals before anything is finally settled.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to give us an assurance that this House of Commons will be given facilities to discuss these problems similar to those provided for the Congress in Washington?
    The Prime Minister: I think I may safely promise that.

    AFRICA STAR AND 1939–44 STAR
    Sir A. Southbyasked the Prime Minister when he anticipates being able to make his promised statement regarding the regulations governing the award of the 1939–44 Star.
    Mr. Turtonasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to announce the amendments or additions to be made in the qualifications for the award of the Africa Star and 1939–43 Star.
    The Prime Minister: I have given this matter much thought since I last spoke to the House about it, and I hope before long to submit a further set of conclusions to the King. As soon as His Majesty's approval has been obtained, I will make a further statement to the House.
    Sir A. Southby: May I ask, if the matter is not finally decided, whether my right hon. Friend would take into consideration, since this ribbon commemorates a period in time, that it would be only just that everybody serving with the Colours should receive it?
    The Prime Minister: I think that is anticipating any statement I may make or any Debate the House may wish upon that statement.

    WARSAW (ALLIED ASSISTANCE)
    Mr. W. J. Brownasked the Prime Minister if he can make a statement in regard to the rising in Warsaw and the measures taken by the Allies to assist the Polish Forces.
    Commander Bowerasked the Prime Minister whether the scale of local assistance to be afforded to the rising of General
    26
    Bor's forces in Warsaw at the beginning of August was determined beforehand by the Allied staffs; and to what extent it has been found possible to implement such decisions.
    The Prime Minister: I welcome this opportunity of paying tribute to the heroism and tenacity of the Polish home army and population of Warsaw, who, after five years of oppression, have yet fought for nearly two months to contribute all in their power to the expulsion of the Germans from the capital of Poland.
    His Majesty's Government have always made it clear to all concerned that they were too far from the scene to undertake responsibility for ordering or supporting a general rising in Poland. At the same time, they have consistently used their good offices to promote co-operation and co-ordination of plans in regard to such matters between the Polish and Soviet authorities, and, despite the formidable practical difficulties, they have furnished military supplies by air to the Polish Home Army. As soon as His Majesty's Government learnt that the rising in Warsaw had begun, they expressed to the Soviet Government their hope that, although such co-ordination had not yet been achieved, they would nevertheless bring such aid to the Polish insurgents as lay in their power. The Soviet armies were at that time engaged in heavy fighting with strong German forces to the east and north-east of Warsaw, but when their operational plans permitted and direct contact had been established with the Polish Commander-in-Chief in Warsaw, they sent supplies to the Polish forces and provided them with air cover and antiaircraft support. This assistance has been gratefully acknowledged by the Polish Prime Minister and by the Polish Commander-in-Chief in Warsaw.
    Meanwhile, the Royal Air Force, despite the very great practical difficulties and in the face of heavy losses, themselves made the long flight from Mediterranean bases to Warsaw with supplies on all occasions when weather conditions permitted. In their statement issued on 13th September, the Polish Government published particulars and expressed appreciation of this assistance. On 18th September a large escorted force of United States heavy bombers carried out a successful operation, which was planned in co-operation with the Soviet High Command but which

    27
    was unavoidably postponed for several days because of bad weather. This force, after dropping a large quantity of supplies in Warsaw, the bulk of which came from British sources, flew on to bases in Soviet territory, escorted by Soviet aircraft.
    These successful combined operations have played an important part in sustaining the gallant resistance of the Polish forces and in enabling them to contribute so effectively to the liberation of their country's capital, which will not, I hope, be much longer delayed.

    DISTRESSED COASTAL AREAS
    Major C. S. Taylorasked the Prime Minister whether the Report of the Minister without Portfolio on the Distressed Coastal Areas has been considered by His Majesty's Government; and if he can make a statement.
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio has been watching the needs of the South-East Coast towns in relation to the Government's reconstruction plans. The results of this work will continue to be reflected in measures which the Government will announce from time to time, but I have no general statement to make to-day on the subject as a whole.
    Major Taylor: In view of the desperate financial and economic plight of these areas, due to evacuation at Government request, to the moratorium and to the ban on visitors, for the safety of the rest of England, could not some special steps be taken to assist these areas to rehabilitate themselves and get going again?
    Viscountess Astor: At least, these areas have not been bombed out.
    Major Taylor: Yes, they have.

    EQUAL PAY (ROYAL COMMISSION)
    Mrs. Cazalet Keirasked the Prime Minister whether he can now state the names of the members of the Royal Commission on Equal Pay.
    Mrs. Tateasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement explaining the reasons for the delay there has been in appointing the Royal Commission on the question of equal pay.
    Mr. W. J. Brownasked the Prime Minister if he can now state the names of
    28
    the members of the Royal Commission on Equal Pay.
    The Prime Minister: I am glad to be able to announce that Mr. Justice Asquith will act as Chairman of the Royal Commission, and I hope to be able to give the names of members of the Commission in a short time. I might explain that the work of the Commission on Higher Education in the Colonies is nearing its close, and Mr. Justice Asquith's appointment as Chairman of the Royal Commission will not interfere with its completion, or delay in any way the work of the Royal Commission.
    Mrs. Keir: In view of the amazing difficulties the Government are having in setting up this Royal Commission, will the right hon. Gentleman consider accepting the recommendations of the Atkin Committee of 1919, and thus avoid further delay and trouble in this matter?
    The Prime Minister: I was not aware that the difficulties were amazing. In time of war, when so many people are occupied with other tasks, it is more difficult to pick exactly the right person for a task of this peculiar and special social responsibility, but the difficulties, amazing or otherwise, have been successfully overcome, or practically overcome, and I do not propose to adopt the suggestion of my hon. Friend.
    Mr. W. J. Brown: May I ask whether, in view of the very great, if not staggering delay, the Prime Minister will indicate to the Commission that we want a Report from them on this subject in a reasonable time?
    The Prime Minister: I shall certainly follow precedent in any address I might have to make to the Commission.
    Mrs. Tate: Question 60 is not in the least similar to Question 53, and no satisfactory reply has been made to it.
    Viscountess Astor: May I ask the Prime Minister why he thinks it very peculiar that people should get equal pay for equal work?
    The Prime Minister: I think I fully answered the Question; in fact, I answered it very fully, especially in reply to a supplementary question.
    Viscountess Astor: Fully, but not satisfactorily.

    RUSSIA (PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION)
    Mr. W. J. Brownasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider arranging to send a Parliamentary Delegation to Moscow to convey to the Russian Government and the Russian people the sense of admiration and gratitude felt by the British people for the magnificent contribution of our Russian Ally to the cause of the United Nations.
    The Prime Minister: His Majesty's Government have been in touch with the Soviet Government on this matter, and I hope to be able to make a statement in due course.

    HOUSING (MINISTRY)
    Mr. Erskine-Hillasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the urgency of the housing situation, he will set up a separate Ministry of Housing so as to accelerate the solution of the problem.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. Progress with this all important task would not be made any easier if a new Ministry were to be set up.
    Mr. Erskine-Hill: Does not the Prime Minister think that a considerable amount of delay is caused by the number of Ministries which are involved in this subject?
    The Prime Minister: I am certainly not anxious to multiply the number of Ministers in existence more than is absolutely necessary, and I am of opinion that the machinery which is now at work is discharging its functions with a very considerable degree of smoothness.
    Sir H. Williams: Would the Prime Minister not consider asking the Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade to take this job on, as he has no other occupation at present?
    Mr. Molson: Since the Minister of Reconstruction has been entrusted with the co-ordination of the work of the various Departments for the emergency sheltering of Londoners, will the Prime Minister consider entrusting him also with the coordination of all existing Departments dealing with the whole of the housing problem?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, housing matters become a matter of the very first urgency after the immediate needs of the war. We will take the best measures possible.

    EVACUATION (GOVERNMENT POLICY)
    Dr. Haden Guestasked the Prime Minister the Government's present policy in respect of the evacuation from London and Southern England of mothers with infant children, schoolchildren, aged and disabled persons and in-patients in hospitals.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Willink): I have been asked to reply. As announced on 7th September, the Government have decided to suspend further evacuation under the Government evacuation scheme from London and Southern England; and they have also suspended the evacuation of in-patients in hospitals. On the other hand, I have already said on several occasions that the Government's advice to those already evacuated from London and Southern England is—"Do not come back."
    Dr. Guest: May I ask the Minister whether he does not think that, in view of the conflicting statements made from the Committee of which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply was Chairman, his own Department and the Ministry of Home Security, which have very much confused and perplexed the population, it would not be desirable to have a more explicit, definite and more comprehensive statement than that which the Minister has just made?
    Mr. Willink: I doubt whether any statement could be more explicit than the four monosyllables "Do not come back."
    Dr. Guest: May I venture to say that this is a very important matter? In view of the fact that the people of this country have really been misinformed and misdirected in this matter, with very great inconvenience, and danger to the lives of women and children, is it not desirable that a further statement should be made of a more explicit kind?
    Dr. Edith Summerskill: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say why the statement was made before the danger was passed, giving the people of this country a sense of false security?
    Mr. Willink: If I was aware to which statement the hon. Lady was referring, I should be able to answer the question. I know of no statement which has been in conflict with the advice I have given.
    Mr. Buchanan: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply made a very definite statement to simple people, that the danger was over and that, therefore, they could come back? That statement is in conflict with his, and is it not desirable that the Government should issue a clear statement on the position?
    Mr. Willink: The statement I have made to-day is a statement which represents Government policy.

    POST-WAR INDUSTRIAL POLICY
    Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the Prime Minister, in view of President Roosevelt's declaration that some steps to liquidate war-time agencies and reconstruct the Government of the U.S.A. to its peace-time organisation might be taken when the fighting in Europe ends and, in view of the anxiety recently expressed by leaders of British industry as to the place Great Britain will occupy in the field of competitive foreign trade, if he will cause a statement of the Government's intentions regarding controls, raw materials, priorities and related matters affecting British industrial recovery after the European war, to be issued at the earliest possible moment.
    The Prime Minister: The Government have already made known their intentions regarding some of the numerous aspects of economic policy which are bound together in the switch-over of industry from war to peace as, for example, in the White Paper on Employment Policy and in the White Paper on the Re-allocation of Man Power between the end of the German war and the end of the war with Japan. The detailed administrative arrangements necessary for carrying into effect the broad principles of the Government's industrial policy in the transition will be made public as circumstances suggest and war conditions permit.
    Mr. Stewart: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the acute anxiety that exists in the minds of industrialists
    32
    throughout this country about the activities on the other side of the Atlantic and the uncertainty of the Government's intentions here? Our foreign trade after the war will be in a state of uncertainty, and I beg of my right hon. Friend to make a statement.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member himself is making a statement.

    WAR CRIMINALS (NEUTRAL COUNTRIES)
    Sir William Davisonasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a statement recently made by Sir Cecil Hurst, Chairman of the United Nations War Crime Commission, saying that if Hitler can manage to escape to a neutral country nothing can be done by the Allies in the matter; and what action is being taken by the Allies to prevent the possible evasion of justice by Nazi criminals in the way suggested.
    The Prime Minister: I understand that the remarks attributed to Sir Cecil Hurst in the newspaper report which my hon. Friend has in mind did not represent accurately what he said. This is one of those cases of taking out detached sentences from their context and not having proper regard to all the necessary limiting and guarding phrases and words which are proper to public Statements. His Majesty's Government are resolved to do their utmost to prevent Nazi criminals finding refuge in neutral territory from the consequences of their crimes.
    Sir W. Davison: Is the Prime Minister aware that Sir Cecil Hurst subsequently gave an explanation of what he said at his Press interview that, if existing extraditional machinery was inappropriate to the circumstances, some new arrangement might—note the word "might"—be insisted on to ensure surrender; and does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is essential for Great Britain, America and Russia to take immediate steps to warn neutrals that they will not be permitted to shelter Hitler and other Nazi criminals from receiving punishment at the end of hostilities?
    The Prime Minister: Odd as it may seem, the point has not entirely escaped the notice of the Government. I notice

    33
    that a number of neutrals have already made satisfactory statements upon the subject, but it is not our intention to allow the escape of these men to be effected without exerting almost every resource which civilised Powers can contemplate.
    Mr. Goldie: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the precedent in the case of Napoleon, who, after all, remained a British prisoner of war several years after the cessation of hostilities?
    The Prime Minister: I do not see that it occurs at all. Napoleon gave himself up, and threw himself upon the mercy of Britain, and he was kept for the rest of his life as a prisoner of State.
    Mr. John Dugdale: Does the right hon. Gentleman include Spain among those countries which have given satisfactory assurances?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think I have noticed any particular pronouncement on the subject.
    Mr. Lipson: May I ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the public concern over this matter, it will be possible for a full report of what Sir Cecil Hurst actually said to be made available to Members of the House?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir, what Sir Cecil Hurst says is compressed, superseded and, if necessary, over-ridden, by what is said on behalf of His Majesty's Government.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Monetary and Financial Policy
    Mr. Craven-Ellisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the interests of the British Commonwealth and Empire and sterling countries, the Government will prepare plans for the establishment of an Imperial or sterling bank as a clearing house of central banks of sterling countries.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): The existing relations between the Bank of England and central banks in other countries of the sterling area are already such as to achieve the purpose which my hon. Friend appears to have in mind and there is in my view no case for considering the establishment
    34
    of a new institution of the kind which he suggests.
    Mr. Craven-Ellis: May I ask my right hon. Friend if the Bretton Woods proposal for a world bank will supersede the method to which he has referred?
    Sir J. Anderson: Certainly not.
    Mr. Craven-Ellisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the desire of the public generally to know something concerning our monetary and financial mechanism, he will issue a White Paper giving a detailed explanation of how legal tender and cheque money comes into existence, the cost of creating same and what other monetary instruments are created and used in the finance of industry and government.
    Sir J. Anderson: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave him when he asked a similar question on 22nd June last.
    Mr. Craven-Ellis: If this matter has not had proper consideration, does not my right hon. Friend think that the people of this country should have some information as to what is the monetary and financial mechanism upon which they will have to rely in the future?
    Sir J. Anderson: I am all in favour of giving the people of this country the information necessary to enable them to form a sound and just appreciation of these matters, but I do not think that it is the function of a White Paper.

    Income Tax (Child Allowances)
    Mr. Goldieasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the financial sacrifices made by working-class parents with a view to fitting their children for post-war employment, he will extend the £50 allowance of income tax relief to cases where children over 16 years of age are being given full-time training in a recognised educational establishment for a period of 12 months instead of the existing period of two years.
    Sir J. Anderson: I assume that my hon. Friend has in mind the provisions of Section 20 of the Finance Act, 1938, which authorise the grant of the child allowance where a child is being trained for a trade, profession or vocation in such circumstances that he is required to devote the whole of his time to the training for a

    35
    period of not less than two years. I am afraid that I cannot see my way to propose a reduction of this qualifying period as my hon. Friend suggests.

    Excess Profits Tax
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many prosecutions have been instituted under Section 33 of the Finance Act; and how many were successful.
    Sir J. Anderson; Section 33 of the Finance Act, 1944, to which my hon. Friend refers does not authorise the institution of any prosecution. As I explained in my answer of 11th July to the hon. Member, Section 33 extends the provisions of Section 35 of the Finance Act, 1941, under which the Commissioners of Inland Revenue are enabled to make directions in the cases of avoidance of Excess Profits Tax.
    Sir W. Smithers: What is the difference between direction and prosecution?
    Sir J. Anderson: There is all the difference in the world.

    Gold Imports
    Mr. Stokesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much gold has been purchased on behalf of the Government from South Africa since the outbreak of war; how much is now held in the Exchange Equalisation Account; and for what purpose this gold is to be used.
    Mr. Martinasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much gold has been imported into this country since 3rd September, 1939; and what was its destination.
    Sir J. Anderson: The gold purchased from South Africa or from other sources by the Exchange Equalisation Fund forms part of our monetary reserves and is available to be used for this purpose in accordance with the Statutory provisions governing the Exchange Equalisation Account. The transactions of the Account and the assets which it holds must continue as at present to be treated as confidential. As the House is aware, the annual accounts of the Exchange Equalisation Account are submitted confidentially to the Public Accounts Committee.
    Mr. Stokes: Arising out of that most unsatisfactory reply, may I ask the Chan-
    36
    cellor whether it would be putting it at too high a figure to say that £400,000,000 in gold has been purchased for this purpose?
    Sir J. Anderson: I have just said that the figures must be regarded as confidential.
    Mr. Stokes: Will the Chancellor say why?
    Sir J. Anderson: I shall not, Sir, for obvious reasons.
    Sir Frank Sanderson: If the figure is as stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), is it not a highly desirable purchase?
    Sir J. Anderson: My hon. Friend does not think so.

    Mr. Morgenthau (Conversations)
    Viscount Hinchingbrookeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the nature of the discussions held with Mr. Morgenthau in mid-August; and what agreements were reached.
    Sir J. Anderson: When Mr. Morgenthau passed through this country on his way back from Normandy in August, I was very glad indeed to have the opportunity of conversations with him. Our conversations were informal and there was no set subject of discussion, nor any question of reaching agreements.

    Shipping Industry (Taxation)
    Miss Wardasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has yet come to a decision with regard to the immediate application of the proposed post-war industrial taxation 2 per cent. initial allowance to the shipping industry.
    Sir J. Anderson: I have had under consideration the issue raised by my hon. Friend in her Question of 1st August regarding orders placed for new ships as from 25th April, 1944. The proposed 20 per cent. initial allowance in respect of expenditure on plant and machinery forms part of the general proposals to afford taxation relief to industry in the post-war years when there will be large scale re-equipment of all branches of industry and these proposals are not concerned with the taxation of industrial profits during war time. There can therefore be no question of making the proposals in any way retrospective. I agree however that the circumstances of the shipping industry call

    37
    for special consideration as the replacement of ships lost by new ships to he operated during the war on Government account has the effect of making new ships available for use after the war and to this extent the process of re-equipment is in fact going on at the present time. Accordingly in the legislation which I propose to submit to Parliament in due course the initial allowance will apply to the ships referred to by my hon. Friend in her question of 1st August, 1944. I may add that it will also apply to ships offered by the Ministry of War Transport for postwar delivery. My proposal would, of course, be subject to the condition that effect cannot be given to the allowance at an earlier date than the date from which the allowance will come into force for industry generally, and that account will have to be taken of any depreciation already allowed.

    Motor Vehicles (Taxation)
    Mr. Moelwyn Hughesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he proposes to take in the near future to facilitate the manufacture and sale in this country of motor vehicles suitable to secure a large and expanding market for them abroad.
    Sir J. Anderson: I assume that the hon. and learned Member has the taxation of motor vehicles in mind. If so, I would refer him to the remarks in my Budget speech on this subject to which I am not at the present moment in a position to add anything.
    Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the right method of encouraging export trade is to have a system of taxation which induces the manufacture of motor vehicles that are not saleable in the world market?
    Sir J. Anderson: It is because I am very anxious to be satisfied as to what is the right system of taxation that I have not been in a hurry to make a pronouncement.

    War Damage Act
    Sir John Mellorasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give a recent estimate of the expected net receipts of the Exchequer, and of the expected payments, under Part I. of the War Damage Act, 1943; and any previous estimates made by the Treasury under
    38
    Section 80 of that Act, or Section 22 of the War Damage Act, 1941.
    Sir J. Anderson:The presence of several incalculable factors, including the possibility of further damage such as that which the country has recently sustained, has made it impossible as yet to make any reliable estimate of the total expected payments. With regard to receipts, the estimate made when the original Act was introduced, namely, that the contribution prescribed would produce about £200 million, still holds good.

    Gift Parcels (Purchase Tax)
    Mr. Loverseedasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why Purchase Tax is imposed on gift parcels sent home by troops serving in the Middle East; and whether he is aware of the indignation caused among members of His Majesty's Forces in that command as a result.
    Sir J. Anderson: Purchase Tax on all imported chargeable goods was imposed by this year's Finance Act, but the Forces have been informed that as a concession tax will not be charged on parcels posted before 20th September last, and further that four parcels per annum of a total value of £8 will be admitted free of tax and Customs duty if the special labels supplied to them are used. Having regard to the heavy tax on home-produced goods, I fear I cannot allow unlimited supplies of competing foreign goods to come in tax free.

    Secret Service Personnel (Income Tax)
    Mr. Stokesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether lie is aware that persons working in the Department of the War Office designated as M.I. 9 and other similar organisations are exempt from income tax on the salary paid to them for their work in the Departments concerned; and, in view of the unfairness of this to other members of the community, what steps he proposes to take to put matters right.
    Sir J. Anderson: I must remind the hon. Member that Income Tax assessments are subject to conditions of secrecy, and I cannot therefore undertake to furnish any information regarding the liability to Income Tax of particular individuals. I can only say that the Income Tax law contains no exemption in favour of any particular class of Crown servants in any Government Department.
    Mr. Stokes: Is not the Chancellor aware that some of these people who are serving in Secret Service Departments who are very wealthy, and who have been taken on for service during the war, are being paid high salaries free of tax? That is well known throughout the Civil Service and greatly resented.
    Sir J. Anderson: I would only say, Mr. Speaker, that the less that is known about Secret Service matters the better.
    Mr. Stokes: Is the Chancellor aware that a great many people think that if more were known, it would be a very good thing? In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at an early opportunity.

STATE OF SAN PAULO, BRAZIL (BONDS)
Mr. Wootton-Daviesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the recent action of the State of San Paulo, Brazil, in permitting the Coffee Institute to buy its own bonds in London and elsewhere at a time when it was stated that a shortage of exchange precluded the payment of more than a negligible proportion of interest on these bonds; and whether he will consider introducing machinery to impose control on issuing houses in this country who are responsible for inducing British subjects to invest in loans of this kind.
Sir J. Anderson: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. While I agree that the action of the State of San Paulo is open to strong objection, I do not agree that it would be reasonable to criticise the issuing houses which issued the Loan in question in 1926.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I ask the Leader of the House if he has any statement to make about the course of Business this week and if, at the same time, he will indicate what will be the main business for next week?
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make a statement on the War and International
40
Situation on Thursday. The Government anticipated that the House would desire an opportunity for a Debate on the present situation, having regard to the momentous events which have occurred since we last met and, accordingly, we propose to set apart Thursday and Friday for the Debate.
The Business for to-day is unchanged —we desire to complete the Second Reading of the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Bill and to obtain the Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution, as well as the Committee and remaining stages of the Housing (Scotland) Bill.
To-morrow we propose an alteration of the Business in view of the War Debate, and in view of the urgency for passing the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Bill. We shall ask the House to take the Committee and remaining stages of that Bill as first Order, followed by the Committee stage of the Town and Country Planning Money Resolution. If there is time, we would like to proceed with the Second Readings of the India (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Bill, both of which have come to us from another place.
The Committee stage of the Town and Country Planning Bill will not be taken this week. It may be convenient if I inform the House now that we propose to allocate Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of next week for the Committee stage of the Bill.
Mr. Greenwood: I think it may be the desire of the House on Thursday that there should be an extension of time for the Debate and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will have that in mind. I would just raise this point with him now for his consideration: The Government are committed to some Debates on definite subjects which should take place before the end of the Session—I hope my right hon. Friend will have them in mind?
Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, certainly we will consider an extension of time; I think that might well be arranged. I have in mind what my right hon. Friend said on the other matter.
Mr. Stephen: On what Motion will the War Debate take place? On the Motion for the Adjournment?
Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, I think that is the present intention.
Mr. Molson: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he is aware that the Financial Resolution to be debated tomorrow is not yet on the Order Paper? Does he think it very reasonable to ask the House to take a Resolution which Members have only seen that morning on the Order Paper?
Mr. Eden: It will be available to hon. Members to see and study to-day.
Lieut.-Colonel Dower: May I ask the Leader of the House whether, if we have not reached an advanced stage of the Committee on the Town and Country Planning Bill next week, he will consider extending it to the following week? The Bill raises many points and I think there is likely to be a good deal of discussion in regard to it.
Mr. Eden: I am not sure that I follow my hon. and gallant Friend's reasons. We are giving three days to the Bill next week. If we do not finish in these three days, as I hope we may, we shall of course have to give more time.
Mr. Leach: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect that we shall be able to debate the White Paper on Social Security?
Mr. Eden: I think hon. Members will want time to read it thoroughly first.

DETAINED MEMBER (RELEASE)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I am taking this—the earliest—opportunity of informing the House of my decision to release from detention of the hon. and gallant Member for Peebles and Southern (Captain Ramsay), and of the reasons for that decision. By letter dated 23rd May, 1940, Mr. Speaker was informed by my predecessor in office that he had found it his duty, in the exercise of his powers under Defence Regulation 1813, to direct that the hon. and gallant Member be detained and that he had accordingly been taken into custody that morning and lodged in Brixton Prison. The essential features of this Regulation, which confers on the Executive drastic and arbitrary powers of arrest and detention without
42
trial, are, first, that its purpose is to protect the State and not to punish individuals, secondly, that the exercise of the powers can be justified only where there is reasonable cause to believe that the safety of the State may be in danger, and, thirdly, that detention should not be continued any longer than is necessary for that purpose. It follows that it is the duty of the Home Secretary to keep under continuing examination the cases of persons whose detention has been ordered in pursuance of this Regulation and to decide from time to time in the light of the circumstances and of the considerations affecting national security whether it is necessary to continue detention. The hon. and gallant Member was detained on the ground that there was reasonable cause to believe him to be a person who had been recently concerned in acts prejudicial to the public safety or the defence of the Realm or in the preparation or instigation of such acts and that, by reason thereof, it was necessary to exercise control over him.
Hitherto, I have not felt that I should be justified in ordering his release but the success of the arms of the United Nations, and the certainty that the forces of evil arrayed against us are doomed to complete overthrow, have created a situation in which I, as the Minister responsible for internal security, would be justified in taking risks which would not have been justifiable but for the improvement in our national fortunes.
Mr. Gallacher: It is the most shameful thing I have ever heard of.
Mr. Morrison: After weighing all the considerations which are relevant in the case of persons who have not been convicted of any criminal offence, I have come to the conclusion that the time has come when it would be legitimate to face any risk there may be that the hon. and gallant Member may be tempted again to engage in irresponsible and mischievous activities, and I am accordingly giving instructions for his release as soon as the necessary arrangements. can be made. I have considered whether the hon. and gallant Member should be subjected, as has been done in the case of other persons released from detention, to conditions imposing on him a measure of supervision. But a Member of Parliament must, if he is to perform his functions, be free to attend Parliament, to

43
move about the country, and to engage in all the activities of a Member. The imposition of any restrictive conditions would be incompatible with the exercise of the rights of a Member of Parliament and in this case, therefore, I have ordered that the release shall be unconditional. It would be appropriate on this occasion for me to make some further statement about my intention with regard to other persons detained under the Regulation. I do not propose to release en bloc all those who are at present detained on the ground of hostile origin or associations or of having been concerned in acts prejudicial to the safety of the Realm. The time has not come when that could safely be done. But a fresh review of these cases has recently been undertaken and of the 223 persons detained on 31st July release has been authorised in 70 cases. As regards persons detained on the ground of membership of the British Union, all have been released now with the exception of 14. The cases of those remaining in detention are undergoing a further review and to the extent that I am satisfied that no undue risk would be involved to security or the war effort in releasing the persons whose release has not yet been effected, release will be authorised subject to whatever conditions are deemed to be necessary.
Mr. Gallacher: I want to ask the Minister if he is aware that this man is a rabid anti-Semitic—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must remember that this is another Member of Parliament.
Mr. Gallacher: I want to ask the Minister whether he is aware that the hon. and gallant Member for Peebles and Southern (Captain Ramsay) is a rabid anti-Semitic—
Mr. Speaker: For Members to make such suggestions against one another is not in Order.
Mr. Gallacher: Surely I am entitled to draw attention to the fact that anti-Semitism is an incitement to murder. That has been proved in every country.
Hon. Members: Order.
Mr. Gallacher: I want to ask the Home Secretary this: If the mothers of this country, whose lads are being sacrificed now,
44
are to be informed by him that their sacrifices have enabled him to release this unspeakable blackguard—
Hon. Members: Order. Withdraw.
Mr. Gallacher: No, I will not withdraw.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not flout my Ruling in that way. He will please withdraw those last few words.
Mr. Gallacher: No, I will not withdraw.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must withdraw if I order him to do so.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19, relating to disorderly conduct, ordered MR. GALLACHER to withdraw immediately from the House during the remainder of this day's Sitting; and he withdrew accordingly.
Mr. Shinwell: On a point of Order. I recognise the difficult position in which you find yourself, Mr Speaker; hon. Members also find themselves in some difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman, the Home Secretary, has just announced that the hon. and gallant Member for Peebles and Southern (Captain Ramsay) has been incarcerated—and presumably he was incarcerated for some crime. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]Well, he was not incarcerated because of his innocence. In the opinion of my right hon. Friend his activities were prejudicial to the State and surely, in those circumstances, it is not altogether invidious for the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) to use language which indicates that in his judgment the hon. and gallant Member for Peebles and Southern is acting in a manner prejudicial to society. I am bound to say, with great respect, that it appears to me that the treatment to which the hon. Member for West Fife has been subjected was somewhat harsh.
Hon. Members: Order.
Mr. Shinwell: I will express my opinion, whether I am right or not.
Mr. Speaker: If once we start calling each other names there will be no end to it.
Mr. Pritt: On a point of Order. This is a matter which is difficult for the House, and I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to reconsider your Ruling. If

45
it was right and proper for the Home Secretary's predecessor, many months ago, to tell the House, on his own responsibility, that the conduct of the hon. and gallant Member for Peebles and Southern (Captain Ramsay) was such that he ought not even to be at liberty in this-country, although he remained a Member of this House, and if then, with some caution of language the right hon. Gentleman now says that the hon. and gallant Member, in his opinion—and his opinion governs the matter—can safely be let out, is it to be held that no Member of this House, by way of questioning the wisdom of that decision, is to call this gentleman what a great many people think he is? This House has entrusted to the Home Secretary powers which some think are very bad—the right of saying who shall be in under 18B and who shall not—and does this not make it impossible for hon. Members effectively to question and challenge in this House—where the Home Secretary says it ought to be challenged—the exercise of that right?
Mr. Speaker: If the matter were being discussed by the hon. and learned Member himself there would be probably no case in which I would disagree, but the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) did use un-Parliamentary language. That is what we ought not to allow.
Mr. Pritt: May I ask the Home Secretary whether he would, if necessary after consultation with the Service Ministers, tell us how many decent Englishmen have been unnecessarily brought to their deaths through the activities of the hon. and gallant Member for Peebles and Southern (Captain Ramsay)?
Mr. Morrison: I do not know, but may I add this for the benefit of the hon, and learned Member and other persons who are politically associated with him? He might perhaps have remembered all that in 1940.
Mr. Pritt: I have never forgotten it.
Mr. Tinker: By way of appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether you can exercise your tolerance and decide not to banish from the House the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher)? After all, he was carried away by his feelings and. this House is very tolerant. We know very well he does not altogether mean
46
what he said. I do ask you to try, if you can, not to exercise your powers in the way you have done.
Mr. Driberg: Further to that point, may I put to you, with respect—a fact that may not be generally known to hon. Members—that the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) lost his son, who was killed in action a few weeks ago and that that may perhaps, to some extent, excuse his use of un-Parliamentary language. May I also ask the Home Secretary whether we are to take it that the wording of his statement does mean that he regards the release of the hon. and gallant Member as taking a risk?
Mr. Morrison: I have indicated that all releases involve an element of risk, which it is for me to adjudge. I think the risk is one that in present circumstances can be taken. If things work out wrongly, there are remedies available to me, but I think it is a risk which in present circumstances can be properly taken.
Sir Hugh O'Neill: With regard to the language which the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) has used, namely, that he has called another Member of this House "an unspeakable blackguard," would it not render procedure in this House absolutely nugatory and impossible, if language of that sort were allowed without the hon. Member concerned withdrawing it?
Mr. Mack: Would my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary state, in view of his previous statement that he cannot restrict the liberties of the hon. and gallant Member for Peebles (Captain Ramsay) in his capacity as a Member of Parliament, what is to be the position if the hon. Member in question engages in the type of speech and propaganda associated with him in this House and thus causes great dissension in the country? Will the right hon. Gentleman, in those circumstances, take the necessary action?
Mr. Morrison: The conduct of a Member in this House is not a question for the Home Secretary. It is entirely a matter for you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Stokes: Can the Home Secretary say whether there are still detained under 18B persons whose release has been recommended by the Advisory Committee, and if so how many?
Mr. Morrison: I give monthly reports about that which are available to the hon. Member.
Mr. Stokes: But at the present moment? In view of the right hon. Gentleman's recent statement, does that, in fact, release all the people whose release has been recommended?
Mr. Morrison: That issue has been argued out repeatedly.
Mr. Stokes: What are the facts now?
Mr. Morrison: I do not propose to tell my hon. Friend. The responsibility is on me, and there it will remain. It always has been with me and must be to the end.
Mr. Stokes: There is no necessity for the Home Secretary to get irritable about this. I have asked a simple question about those now detained whose release has been recommended, and he can surely give a civil answer to a civil question.
Miss Rathbone: With regard to that part of the Home Secretary's statement which referred to his intended review of the cases of people of alien origin, whether enemy or allied, will he undertake that before he comes to an unfavourable decision he will give an opportunity to the few hundreds of people who are still detained at least to state their own case, since many have been detained for four or five years and never told the case against them, and nobody in close touch with them knows it either?
Mr. Morrison: I do not know whether there is any misunderstanding, but these cases are, of course, cases of British subjects, though many of them are of hostile origin or association. The procedure, in my judgment, has been very fair and very proper.
Miss Rathbone: Will the right hon. Gentleman not give similar reconsideration to the cases of those who are not British subjects?
Mr. Morrison: They are always being reconsidered and fairness is extended to them, in my judgment. In my judgment these difficult powers have been fairly administered by the Home Office from the beginning.
Mr. Graham White: In view of the fact that there are still a number of persons of foreign origin who have been incarcer-
48
ated for years, not on grounds of security but because they have committed some small offences against the law, will the right hon. Gentleman, in view of this new arrangement and of what he has said, reconsider their cases as well?
Mr. Morrison: They are steadily reviewed and quite a number have been released, but I venture to think that if foreigners come to this country, particularly as refugees, they should observe the principles of public order.
Mr. McEntee: In view of the speeches which have been made by the hon. and gallant Member whom he proposes to release, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will put some restriction upon him, or at least warn him in some way that language of a similar kind, which is inciting the people practically to murder, will be seriously viewed, and that he will not be permitted to make such speeches in the future?
Mr. Morrison: I must be careful about exercising any powers of saying "You shall not make particular speeches," and particularly is that so in the case of a Member of Parliament. In the view of many, in the case of a Member of Parliament either he is detained or is not detained, and if he is not detained I think it would be wrong for me to impose conditions.
Mr. McEntee: If there is a continuance of this kind of speech by the hon. and gallant Member can he again be detained?
Mr. Leach: Will the right hon. Gentleman take note that his courageous interpretation of and his rightful exercise of his powers under 18B satisfies many Members of this House?
Mr. Speaker: I have had one or two appeals put to me. I am the last person ever to be vindictive, and I also realise that the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) has lost a son, but, after all, the authority of the House must be maintained, and I must adhere to my Ruling that he must withdraw for this day.

NEW MEMBER SWORN
Lieut.-Colonel William Ernest Gibbons, O.B.E., for the Borough of Wolverhampton (Bilston Division).

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE (SECRECY OF HOURS OF SITTING)
Mr. Eden: I want to make one brief announcement to the House and to propose a Motion. The House will remember that some little time ago we considered it no longer necessary to have any secrecy about the days of sitting of the House. The Government now consider it no longer necessary to have any secrecy in regard to the times of the meeting and the rising of the House. I am advised that to get out of this position it is necessary for me to move a Motion which will, I trust, receive no strong opposition from the House. I beg to move,
"That the Resolutions of the House of 24th November, 1943, and 24th February and 31st March, 1944, be rescinded, and that the Orders made in Secret Session upon those dates be published in the Votes and Proceedings this day."
Question put, and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  HOUSING (TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION) BILL
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [1st August], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  Mr. Barnes: Before we resume proceedings on this Measure may I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether you can give some guidance to the House on a matter that I think is of general interest? You will recollect that on 1st August, when we began the Second Reading, hon. Members in all parts of the House were very much concerned over this problem, and during the Recess it has appeared to many Members that an entirely new situation has superimposed itself upon this Measure. I am referring to the extensive additional damage to property, and the step which the Government have taken in the appointment of the Chairman of the War Damage Commission to deal with the question of temporary accommodation. The finance involved and the standard of temporary accommodation which this new Government action contemplates seem to raise a problem related to this Bill, and I should like to know whether the Financial Resolution covers only what is known as the Portal house and does not cover the financial expenditure involved in this new temporary housing policy. May I ask whether Members can have a statement about that, or whether in this Second Reading Debate this related problem can be raised?
  Mr. Speaker: I think that is a matter for the Deputy Prime Minister rather than for me.
  The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I am not aware that the Financial Resolution is limited to any particular type of house. It does not say so. It deals with temporary accommodation. I think the hon. Member is mistaken.
  Mr. Barnes: We understood when we were discussing this that the Financial Resolution was held over because the £150,000,000 involved covered only the commitments for what is known as the Portal housing scheme. I wish to submit
  82
  that the Financial Resolution was held over for the purpose of meeting any additional expenditure which might be incurred through the excessive price of land. If it is necessary to alter the Financial Resolution to make provision for that it does appear that it would not cover the further expenditure which the Government now contemplate.
  Mr. Attlee: I think my hon. Friend is mistaken. There is no limitation to a particular type of house. I think my hon. Friend will find, when the Secretary of State for Scotland comes to speak, that the position is perfectly plain.
  Mr. Barnes: I understand that the other problem can be legitimately dealt with in Debate.
  Mr. Attlee: I do not know what my hon. Friend means by the other problem. This is dealing with temporary houses.
  Mr. Barnes: I am dealing with temporary houses in London.
  Mr. J. J. Lawson: May we take it from my right hon. Friend's answer that we shall be in a position to-day to discuss the London situation and the question of repairs as well as the general matter of temporary building?
  Mr. Molson: Is it not the case that there is a clear distinction to be drawn between the emergency provision of huts in London under the new scheme announced by the Government and the temporary housing provided for under the Bill?
  Sir Irving Albery: I could not hear clearly what the Deputy Prime Minister said but, as I understand it, the Financial Resolution provides only for the voting of money to the Ministry of Works. Would the other charges come under that Department? Would the expenditure be incurred by them?
  Mr. Speaker: A Second Reading Debate is always pretty wide. These are emergency houses. I presume that it would be quite in Order to discuss the question of the London situation. In regard to the Financial Resolution, that, I am afraid, has nothing to do with me. It is a matter for the Committee and a question can be asked of the Chairman of Ways and Means when it is moved.
  Dr. Haden Guest: Would it be possible to discuss the repair of houses in London on the Second Reading apart from the erection of temporary dwellings? That is the important point, and a most urgent one.
  Mr. Speaker: The question of repairs seems to me to be outside the scope of the Bill.
  Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): The reasons that led the Government to the conclusion that the programme of permanent houses must be supplemented by the provision of temporary houses were very fully stated by the Minister of Health when the Bill was discussed on 1st August. Since then we have had considerable discussions with representatives of local authorities and the need for the Bill has certainly not diminished with the passage of events. The Government have been anxiously considering how the additional accommodation that will be required after the war may be provided in the shortest possible space of time. They recognise the need for mobilising all the available resources to meet this urgent necessity. Our major difficulty will be the shortage of building trade operatives after the war.
  The inescapable facts of the last five years are apparent to us all. There was a cessation of intake of apprentices, there was an increasing average age of the men left in the industry, with a consequent effect of diminution of output, there has been a five years' wastage in the industry, there has been a dispersal of craftsmen to other occupations, and all this has led to a serious diminution in the available labour supply. As hon. Members have just indicated by their questions, the position has been made much more difficult by the demand for urgent repairs of damage from flying bomb attacks and from the necessary maintenance work. The Government have plans ready to increase the building industry as rapidly as possible to cope with the gigantic tasks lying ahead. The target programme, as has already been announced, is 300,000 permanent houses built or building at the end of the first two years. If the industry can give us more, well and good. We hope to standardise and mass produce internal fittings not only for temporary but also for permanent dwellings.
  84
  The need for standardisation in some of the component parts is generally accepted. The Minister of Works discovered that there were no fewer than 374 types of chimney cans being used. An attempt is being made to get this vast variety standardised down to, say, half a dozen. But even these 300,000 houses, howsoever we standardise and organise mass production, are not enough. Young men and women will be returning from the Forces in large numbers, desiring to be married and requiring homes. In to-day's "Times" there is a letter from Sir George Burt, chairman of the Burt Committee, who says that the experiment in permanent housing being made by the Ministry of Works at Northolt has succeeded in producing in 900 man-hours a permanent type of house of satisfactory construction.
  Sir Herbert Williams: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen that house?
  Mr. Johnston: I have seen the house but no one in my position would be able to check the accuracy of the 900 man-hours. For all these reasons the Government have decided to embark on a programme of temporary house building.
  Mr. Buchanan: There is one point that I should like someone to explain. We are told that these houses are temporary. Has my right hon. Friend any idea of how long they are to last?
  Sir Percy Harris (Bethnal Green, South-West): It is vital to know their possible life.
  Mr. Johnston: I propose to say something on that point later. These temporary houses will be in augmentation and not in substitution of permanent houses. The aim has therefore been to select methods of construction and materials for temporary building which make the least possible demand on the labour required for permanent houses. The Government have produced their proposals for a pressed steel bungalow with a limited superficial area suitable for a family consisting of a man, wife and two young children. The Minister of Health made it clear that this pressed steel bungalow, which has been exhibited at the Tate Gallery and in some of the larger cities in Scotland, is not the only temporary

  85
  house in which the Government is interested. We have been investigating other types and methods of construction since the spring, before the pressed steel bungalow was shown to the public at all. Three of these types have been approved by the Burt Committee, which advises the Government on alternative methods of house construction. They consider that the materials and methods of construction of these additional types of temporary houses satisfy the requirements of an emergency house with a life of at least 10 years.
  One of these types consists of a light steel frame with asbestos cement external walls. Another makes use of prefabricated units of wood covered with asbestos sheeting. The Government propose to enter into arrangements for the production of these types as soon as suitable terms can be arranged. They have also under consideration a type of house constructed of prefabricated concrete units which has also been approved in principle by the Burt Committee. [An HON. MEMBER: "Is that a permanent house?"]No, I am dealing with temporary houses. Other types of production may be brought into production if they can be devolped satisfactorily and if the price is right.
  Mr. Cocks: Which of the two types has been approved?
  Mr. Johnston: One is the type which consists of a light steel frame with asbestos cement external walls and the other makes use of prefabricated units of wood covered with asbestos sheeting.
  Mr. J. J. Lawson: What are the names of the firms?
  Mr. Johnston: I think one was called the Uniseco type.
  Captain Duncan: What are their names?
  Mr. Johnston: One is called the Uniseco and the other the Arcon. I cannot give the names of the firms. They are all of the same design.
  Mr. John Wilmot: Will each of the types approved be available for construction under the powers conferred by the Bill?
  Mr. Johnston: Certainly. It is hoped that when the types already approved are in full production some 2,500 a week will be available. The three types already approved are similar in size, standard of equipment of fittings and cost. The materials used are all such as the building industry has had experience in handling and the houses can all be erected by the industry. It is the intention to use that industry in the normal way to erect the houses. The manufacture will be costed in the factories and erection on the sites will all be arranged for by open tender. These are the arrangements at present being contemplated.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health and I have had discussions with associations of local authorities on the subject of temporary housing, and later we invited local authorities to indicate whether they wished to apply for any houses and, if so, in what numbers. A number of authorities have not yet replied, but the applications from those who have cover a total of 110,500 temporary houses. Of that total England and Wales have asked for 74,496 and Scotland 36,019. Local authorities have been informed that two of the other types of approved houses, and not only the steel ones, will be available, and they have been supplied with as full particulars as possible. Those who have not so far submitted any applications have been asked to decide immediately so that arrangements for production can he organised at once. Every endeavour will be made to meet the preferences expressed, if any, by the local authorities within the types already indicated.
  The most immediate consideration in the approach to a general resumption of new house building is the selecton, acquisition and preparation of sites. Sites in Great Britain already owned by local authorities are sufficient for some 290,000 houses, of which England and Wales have 234,000 and Scotland 56,000. Sites for many more houses are in process of selection and acquisition, and, needless to say, there are a considerable number of sites already serviced available in some of the great blitzed areas.
  Mr. Bossom: Could my right hon. Friend say if these sites are to be available for temporary houses or only

  87
  for permanent houses? We were told in the House that they were to be used only for permanent houses.
  Mr. Johnston: I have no knowledge of that intimation. Personally, I hope that serviced sites will be used as rapidly as possible for the erection of whatever houses are available.
  Mr. Bossom: Are not those sites intended for the permanent houses which the Minister of Health is to put up? I understood that the temporary houses were to be put on special sites.
  Mr. Johnston: My hon. Friend had better put that matter to the Minister of Health. I can assure him that the position at the moment is that the local authorities desire to use whatever sites they have available, and, when the sites are serviced, to have houses erected at the earliest possible moment. I propose to do everything I can, and so does the Minister of Health, to ensure that local authorities will add to the amount of land which they can have available for housing and that they will do their utmost to get these sites serviced at the earliest possible moment.
  Mr. A. Edwards: My right hon. Friend has given the number of sites available and of houses applied for. Will he say how many authorities have replied stating that in no circumstances do they want the Portal type of house?
  Mr. Johnston: I do not know whether there are any in England, but there are none in Scotland.
  Mr. Edwards: I will give the right hon. Gentleman the name of one.
  Mr. Johnston: As a matter of fact, there is no compulsion whatever on any local authority to take these houses. if any authority does not take them, it will mean that there will be more available for other authorities who are more anxious to have them.
  Mr. Cocks: Can the Minister say how the costs of the two other types compare with the cost of the Portal house?
  Mr. Johnston: I have already said that the costs are to be as nearly as possible similar. I explained as best I could that the bungalows are to be costed. No
  88
  orders have yet been placed, and they are to be costed at the place of manufacture. The cost of erection will be submitted to open tender. The most immediate consideration is the acquisition and preparation of sites, particularly the servicing of sites. We must do our best to secure that the sites are serviced, that water supplies are laid on, drainage put down, access roads made, and so on.
  The hon. Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George), in the earlier discussion on the Second Reading, asked that powers, in cases of necessity, should be given to enable land to be requisitioned for temporary houses. The Government have considered whether any further special action is required to obtain possession of sites without delay in order to ensure that the erection of bungalows will not be held up by any difficulties on this score. The need for avoiding delay is of special importance. The Government have decided to add a Clause to the Bill for sites required up to the end of 1945 which have been approved by the Health Minister and the planning authority as suitable for the erection of bungalows. The Clause, of which notice has been given, will be based on a principle accepted by Parliament in the Unemployment (Relief Works) Act, 1920, a temporary Act passed to meet an exceptional situation after the end of the last war. It will be to the effect that the local authority can in such cases serve a notice on the owner and occupier of the land informing them of their right to make representations to the Minister within 14 days. The Minister, after considering any representations made by any person on whom notice has been served or any other person interested in the land, will inform the local authority whether he authorises the proposed purchase, and, if approval is given, the authority will have the power to enter on the land forthwith. The authority will then be under an obligation to proceed to purchase the land.
  As to the financial arrangements between the Health Departments and the local authorities, these are not determined by the Bill itself but by arrangements to be made under Clause 3 of the Bill. In his opening statement, the Minister of Health indicated the broad basis of the arrangements proposed. Terms will be agreed between the Health Departments and the housing authorities

  89
  under which these authorities will be responsible for the letting, management and repair of the bungalows and will pay to the Health Departments a fixed sum per annum. He said that discussions with representatives of the local authorities had been opened and that it was intended to secure the local authorities against any excessive losses in connection with these operations. To enable effect to be given to this latter point, the Financial Resolution proposes to make provision for the possibility that in some cases, where land on which bungalows are to be erected is of exceptionally high value, not merely may no payment be due from the local authority to the Health Departments, but a payment may be due from the Health Departments to the local authority. An Amendment to Clause 3 of the Bill is being put down to cover this point. Both the general financial basis and the proposals for protecting local authorities against excessive losses have already been discussed with the local authorities' associations.
  Mr. J. J. Lawson: This is a very important matter and involves additions to the cost of the temporary houses. Do I take it that the discussions have been made with the representative associations of the local authorities and have the representatives of the associations spoken with authority for the local authorities?
  Mr. Johnston: I cannot answer that offhand without notice, but I do know that we have discussed these issues with the local authorities' associations in Scotland. There is the particular point of the augmentation and widening the basis of the financial arrangements to permit excessively blitzed areas or high-costed land areas to get exceptional treatment. That point has not been discussed with the areas in the far north where they have had no blitz and where the costs of land are not excessive. I understand, however, that it has been discussed with the London authorities and the other authorities concerned.
  Mr. J. J. Lawson: I take it then that the representatives of the Scottish local authorities have spoken with their authority, but that the right hon. Gentleman cannot say that of the English and Welsh authorities?
  Mr. Johnston: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health assures me that this
  90
  has been discussed in the usual way with the associations of local authorities, including the London County Council and the Metropolitan Boroughs.
  Mr. Cocks: Does the Minister mean that for the next 10 years the valuable centres of our cities will be covered with these rabbit hutches?
  Mr. Johnston: My hon. Friend will get his opportunity later on to call these houses rabbit hutches or tin huts.
  Mr. Cocks: That is not the point of the question.
  Mr. Johnston: It may not be, but it is the point of my answer. Some of the representatives of the local authorities hold that the whole cost of these houses should be borne by the Government. Others are prepared to accept the Government's view that the bungalows to be provided under this Bill should, like the houses under the Housing Act, be the subject of a financial partnership between the Government and the local authorities. The Government remain of the opinion that this is the appropriate basis, but they intend to take steps to protect the local authorities against excessive losses which might arise when it is necessary to erect bungalows on expensive sites or where the expenditure on development is likely to be largely wasted in future.
  Mr. Wilmot: Including the preparation of the sites?
  Mr. Johnston: I think so, but I will look at that point. In certain badly damaged areas there may be a higher proportion of bungalows, with a consequently heavier total call on the local authorities with diminished resources. At the moment most of these areas are receiving Government assistance to the extent necessary to keep their rates stable. When the general financial position of these authorities is considered after the war with a view to determining what Government assistance will be necessary to enable them to carry out their essential functions expenditure incurred in the execution of this scheme will be taken into account, with other factors. The Minister of Health will deal in detail with the protection to be afforded in this Bill on the Committee stage on Clause 3 which authorises the necessary arrangements between the health departments and the local

  91
  authorities. The Clause has been so drafted as to leave these arrangements to be negotiated between the local authorities and the Ministry.
  Mr. Wilmot: I am extremely sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend again. but I think he will appreciate that a very important point arises here. Is the Financial Resolution so drawn that effect can be given to the discussions in the Committee stage in which the Minister will indicate these proposals or has this whole thing got to be thrashed out on the discussion on the Financial Resolution in order to prevent it subsequently getting out of Order?
  Mr. Johnston: Of course, the Financial Resolution is not before us at this moment, but by paragraph (c) (ii) of the Financial Resolution, it is provided that the Bill may authorise
  "expenses incurred by the Minister of Health or the Secretary of State in making contributions towards expenses incurred by housing authorities where land provided by them for the erection of structures to be made available as aforesaid is land of exceptionally high value."
  So it is wide enough to enable the point put by my hon. Friend to be dealt with.
  Mr. Wilmot: Is it wide enough to cover grants to local authorities, not only in respect of the high original cost of the land, but the possible high cost of rendering it suitable to carry these bungalows, and the preparation of the site, a very important item in the local authorities' budget?
  Mr. Johnston: I think my hon. Friend had better await the Financial Resolution, and my right hon. and learned Friend, who has already been in close communication with the London County Council and the Metropolitain Boroughs on this very point, will be able to explain it in a way I can hardly do, by deputy. I may say that on the estimates which the Minister of Health has put forward in his discussions with local authorities in England and Wales, the average loss falling on the local authority will be £4 a year, plus site charges (Interruption)—the charges for land and servicing and so on. I am saying that the average loss falling on the local authority will be £4 a year, plus site charges [HON. MEMBERS: "Plus x"]. No, which are expected to average
  92
  about another £4 a year for each bungalow—I am speaking about England and Wales—for a period of ten years, and £45 a year for each bungalow for ten years falling on the Exchequer. But if, through the excessive cost of land or unavoidable waste in development, site charges will be excessive, the local authority will be asked to bear only 20 per cent. of that, if that exceeds the normal £4. And to cover any cases which may not be met by this concession it is proposed that in the agreement there should be a provision that if the local authority can show, in fact, that the rates have sustained, by reason of excessive or unremunerative costs of providing the site, a greater cost than normal the sum shall be adjusted further, and the wisest possible latitude is being given to temper the wind to the shorn lamb.
  Mr. Buchanan: My right hon. Friend said a short time ago that he could not tell us the cost because this would be subject to a costing system. Now he tells us that the State is to lose £45 a year, plus the figure of the local authority's £4, plus site charges. How can he tell that if he does not know the cost?
  Mr. Johnston: What we assume is this: on the basis that the local authority contribution shall be fixed, the Government shall then meet the balance—
  Mr. Marshall: Does it mean, if the local authorities' subsidy to the Portal bungalow is £8, and I understand my right hon. Friend to say that the State will make a contribution of £8 to the subsidy, that each one of these bungalows is being subsidised to the extent of £16 per annum?
  Mr. Johnston: No. I am sorry if I am not making myself clear. What I am saying is that the average loss—not necessarily the loss in every case which will fall on local authorities—will be £4. The local rate contribution is expected to be £4, and it is expected that the average or normal site charge will be about £4 in England and Wales. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Scotland?"]I am coming to that as fast as I can get clear of the English position. That is £8. The Government will bear the rest, except to the extent of 20 per cent. If the local authorities' site charge alone is more than the £4 the local authority will then be asked to bear 20 per cent, of that surplus over the £4. Further, as I say, if

  93
  there should be any excessive losses in any areas where land charges are exceedingly high, power is given to the Minister—
  Mr. MacLaren: To give the landlords more.
  Mr. Johnston: Not the landlords at all, the local authorities. Power is taken to give the local authority additional remuneration—
  Mr. Cocks: Above the 80 per cent.?
  Mr. Johnston: I will say something about the Scottish position, which is complicated further by our landlords' taxes system, by landlords' rates, which do not apply in England and Wales. The arrangement is that in Scotland the Government, owning the houses, will pay owners' rates to the local authority. It has also been agreed with the local authorities that they will pay a contribution of £6 per house, plus a site charge, which they assume is about £3 in Scotland. That makes £9 expenditure by the local authorities, and against that they get owners' rates.
  Several hon. Members have expressed the anxiety that the temporary houses should not outlive their need, and they have feared that they might remain in occupation for far more than ten years, and become in effect not temporary but permanent houses. I can emphatically say that the last thing in the mind of the Government is to offer the people of this country a quasi-permament house in the guise of a temporary one. The Government aim is that some 4,000,000 permanent houses should be built within ten to twelve years after the building of houses is generally resumed. To ensure ar far as possible that a programme of such unprecedented magnitude can be carried through, the intention of the Government, as I have already stated, is by special measures, including the admission of adults after intensive training, to build up a labour force in the building industry. There is therefore solid ground for hoping that in ten to twelve years time the provision of permanent houses will overtake the need, and make it generally possible to remove the temporary habitations which the needs, the necessities, of the immediate future render, in our opinion, absolutely necessary. The Government, however,
  94
  appreciate the anxiety which has been expressed on this score, and are anxious to allay it. The Bill as it at present stands merely proposes to give the Minister of Health power to remove the temporary bungalow. The Government will therefore move an Amendment to Clause 2 of the Bill in the Committee stage to provide that the Minister of Health, or the Secretary of State as the case may be, may, or if requested after ten years by the local authority shall, remove the temporary bungalows, unless housing conditions require their continuance.
  May I say one word about the furniture and equipment in these houses? I think it is vital. These houses, all of them, will provide standardised fitments to the estimated retail cost of about £80 to £100. These include wardrobes, cupboards, book-case, immersion heater and gas or electric cooker. The Board of Trade have estimated that additional Utility furniture required to furnish these houses with the bare essentials of accommodation will cost about £45, providing in the living room a dining table, four chairs and two armchairs; in the first bedroom a double bed, dressing chest with mirror and a small chair; in the second bedroom a single bed with a small chair. In addition to that the local authorities have power now, indeed they have had it since 1925, to provide essential furniture to fit out, furnish and supply any house provided by them with all the requisite furniture, fittings and conveniences, and the power to do so at cost price.
  One of the serious matters of great moment to young couples entering these emergency homes, or indeed any homes, is the hire purchase system by which they have hitherto been compelled to provide their common fittings and furniture. I have been assured that 150 per cent. is added to the manufacturers' costs in hire purchase transactions. Anything and everything that we can do, whether by providing essential fittings as we are trying to do in these dwellings, or by arranging utility furniture schemes, or by urging local authorities to provide essential fittings and furnishings at cost price, will ease the position very materially indeed for hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens. The need for a Bill for temporary housing is great, and its passage into law is urgent. I, therefore, commend this Bill to the House.
  Mr. Buchanan: I was rather disappointed with the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman. At times I found difficulty in following his figures of the cost to the local authorities, the cost to the Government and the cost of building. There is a very important issue at stake in these matters. I noticed at the week-end that the Scottish Labour Party conference had been discussing it. Some people were saying: "What matters the cost?" That is not a bad philosophy, but if people start with it they should finish it. It is horrible if they do not carry it through. I want to say a word or two here about the financial side of these proposals, but first I would give a piece of kindly advice to the right hon. Gentleman and to other Cabinet Ministers. Every time we interrupted the right hon. Gentleman he seemed to get irritated; but Ministers must remember that when introducing these complex matters they must not resent interruptions by Members of Parliament. We are only trying to reason with them, so they must not screw up their faces as though we were doing something unholy in this place, when we ask for information.
  I cannot altogether follow the figures in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman says: "We cannot tell you the cost of these bungalows, because they have to be the subject of a costings system, which will then tell us the cost." In the same breath, almost, he tells us that local authorities have to pay a subsidy and that the Government have to pay £45. How do they arrive at the figure of £45, if they do not know the cost? Where does that figure come from? Surely if the Government can fix that figure they can fix approximately the total cost. I do not know whether I am different from other people, but I believe that one of the things constantly in people's minds in connection with this question is the amount of rent they will have to pay. We can talk as we like, but we cannot get people away from the fact of the rent that they will have to pay. People might accept the Portal house if they knew what it was going to cost them in rent, but they know nothing at all of that side of the matter. It is no use the right hon. Gentleman coming here and talking about the new Portal house for 300,000 people if he afterwards fixes a rent which the 300,000 find impossible to pay. We ought to know much more than we do about
  96
  this aspect of the matter. I hope the Government can tell us approximately the kind of rent likely to be charged to a working-class family.
  Now about the Portal house. Unlike the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, I am not opposed to steel houses. Until he took office he was opposed to anything of that nature, but since he has been in office he has changed his views, because of the changed circumstances. I have always been ready to accept the steel house and the temporary house and have never taken the view that the brick house was the only possible type that could be built. Just as science has changed the face of many other things, so it can alter the custom of the stone or the brick house. Nor have I ever taken the view that my hon. Friend had, that only one or two skilled tradesmen could do that kind of work. I am glad to know that his views in that respect also have been modified since he went into office, and I welcome him in that respect as a new recruit to those who have always taken a somewhat different view.
  However, I must enter a caveat, in the form of a protest against an attitude of mind which is becoming rather too common. It was expressed in a recent statement by a Member of this House, who said that as people would take these Portal houses the House of Commons should provide them. In present conditions, people would take caravans, but that is no reason why that should be the standard or the criterion that we have to adopt here. The only defence for proposing these alternative houses is that they are better than nothing, but the duty of the House of Commons is to give people the best that is available, and not to approach the matter in the spirit of giving people whatever they are willing to accept when they are in such a state that they will take almost anything. I am glad to see the Minister of Production with us. Hitherto he has taken part only in Debates upon war problems, and I am glad to see him now taking part in a Debate on a human, domestic problem. At the beginning of the war, our troops would have taken almost anything, but that was not the way the Government approached the problem of war production. They looked for the way in which to give the troops the best.

  97
  I wish the Secretary of State for Scotland would not talk about these houses being up for only 10 or 12 years. He knows, I know, the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) and the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), as well as most of us here, know that the situation in Scotland is so grave that once these houses go up they will be there for more than 10 or 12 years. It is such nonsense to talk as though these were not permanent houses for Scotland. It is no use the Minister misleading the House of Commons on the matter—because that is what he is doing. To put these houses before Scotland as temporary houses is totally wrong; they are permanent. He talks about public opinion; we did not have sufficient strength of public opinion, up to 1939, to clear away the horrible houses we then had, infested with lice and bugs, in many parts of our cities. We are therefore not likely to clear away this temporary house merely by the force of public opinion.
  There is a tendency that irritates me; let me tell the House what it is. Before we went into the war, we were always haggling about little bits of subsidies, costs of sites and things of that kind, but when we entered the war and were fighting a foreign enemy such considerations never crossed our minds or entered into our calculations. Now we are getting back to our home life again, and are facing one of the most dreadful fights that this country ever entered, the fight against bad housing. That fight is no less important than fighting a foreign foe, because it aims at giving people decent homes. It is as honourable a fight as we could ever undertake. How do the Government approach it? By long conferences with local authorities, with haggling about £4 for this and that, and high costs of sites here and there, negotiating about this and that, and amending laws and little clauses here and there. That is how the Government are approaching the greatest human problem we have yet to settle. They would not approach a war like that. It is shocking. It is a wrong approach. I would remind the Government that the great bulk of local authorities are afraid of one thing, and that is the rating position. Once the Government start to satisfy the people's housing needs, they are in danger of their
  98
  schemes becoming subject to existing rating conditions. The position should be reversed; housing needs should be first and the rating position second.
  I say seriously and earnestly that the Government should reconsider their attitude in this matter. One of the weapons of the blackmailer is always to remind the victim to consider his position. The Government are very much in the same position to-day. People are under a terrible strain. People want houses: they do not care what kind. Anybody who opposes the building of a house, for no matter what reason, is in an awkward position. The Government know that they can give us almost anything. I have visited the Portal house, here and in Edinburgh, and have gone round it. I say, quite frankly, that it is a good house for a married couple with no children, or if there is one child who has been born in it and trained to it. The Portal house would be all right if you proposed to regulate families to two, by circulating birth control information. But, so far, no Government has been ready to do that, and I hope that no Government will. Now people will knock at the Government's door to get these houses, but in five years they will be cursing the Government for providing them. Whatever you say, it is not a children's house. Our tenements in Glasgow are bad, but from the point of view of the children I think that this house is not the thing at all.
  I am a believer in using everything to build a house. I want to say to the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary, as a fellow craftsman in the building trade, that the country has diluted the great skilled crafts for the purposes of the war. The building trade will have to face for the housing of the population what the other trades have had to face for the purposes of the war. We have to look for other methods of production. I am not sure that if the Government put the same will and determination into it as they have put into guns they could not get a permanent house of concrete built easily and better than they can get with this metal. It might involve a heavy initial capital cost, it might mean certain other difficulties to begin with, but, from the practical production point of view, I am certain that, at least, it would give us a much better house, and a house of a much more lasting character. I admit that the terrible blitz in London

  99
  has made the position worse. But does anybody seriously think that you can get the Portal houses in large numbers over the blitzed areas? I do not believe it. Blitzed sites ought to be used economically, to get the best out of them. I am certain that the Portal house does not use them economically. Does the Portal house in Glasgow really get the best use of land and sewage services? I am not sure that it does. Even before the blitz, I represented a district of shocking, horrible housing. I was born amongst it, and never experienced anything else all my life. I want something better. I am not against the steel house. I went to see the Lord Weir house, and if I had to choose between a Lord Weir steel house and most of the stone and brick houses I have seen in Scotland, I would choose the Lord Weir steel house. But I am not sure that the Government have entered into this matter with the same resolution and energy as they entered into the problems of the war. There is glory in winning a war, and there is fame in winning a war. There may not be the same fame and glory in solving the housing problem, but the Government and people who do it will have earned the undying gratitude of millions of people in this land.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot (Glasgow, Kelvingrove): The discussion to-day is not only on the general question of whether or not steel houses should be built, but whether we are to give the Government authority to build them with the utmost possible expedition. I am sure that it is the will of the country that we should do so, and it ought to be the will of the House of Commons. My hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has delivered, as is his custom, a most eloquent speech; but it boils down to "Go ahead with steel houses; dilute the building trade." These are his two words to the Secretary of State for Scotland and to the Minister of Health. In addition, he said, "Be sure that you are doing the best you can with the resources of this country to produce the most satisfactory houses." Certainly. But the danger is that the best is the enemy of the good. We must think that the Government have examined these problems, and that the Government are going to do their utmost to go ahead with the most satisfactory house in present
  100
  conditions. I do not suppose for a moment that this is their last word in steel houses. I should hope not. Like my hon. Friend, I much prefer the Lord Weir house to the Portal house, but we have been told that the Glasgow Corporation—our Corporation—whose housing conditions are a disgrace to the world and to any local authority, have tinkered about with houses until they come to Lord Weir and say, "We should like some houses! The output has been allocated, and there are only a few hundred left." That is what happens if we spend too much time discussing what is the absolute best that we can produce in the circumstances of the day.
  Mr. Johnston: I am sure my right hon. and gallant Friend would not like a misunderstanding to be reported in the Scottish Press as to the position about the Weir steel house. The Weir steel house has been given an allocation of only 100, and these 100 are, for experimental purposes, dotted all over the country. The actual mass production of the Weir steel house has not yet been allocated.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: If that is so, I am only too glad.
  Mr. George Griffiths: Are we discussing the Portal house, or is this a Scottish Debate?
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: The hon. Member will recall that on the last occasion when we discussed the Second Reading of this Bill the Debate was confined to English Members, and, naturally, we Scottish Members want a little time.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): This is a Second Reading Debate on the Bill.
  Mr. Buchanan: Am I to understand that I am still a Member of this House, and that I can speak here without the consent of the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths)?
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We are accustomed to my friend George intervening from time to time, but we are discussing not only the Portal house, but the programme of temporary houses as a reinforcement to the housing position of Great Britain, not only in the Northern portion of Great Britain but all over. Our remarks, I hope, will apply to all portions of the United Kingdom, but with special

  101
  reference naturally to the areas with which we are best acquainted. What has been said about the best use of services and land affects particularly the great boroughs of London. In many of the burghs of Scotland, there is a good deal of land available for houses, and the difficulty is rather to get houses to put on the land than to get land on which to put the houses, whereas the difficulty in Central London is to find land to put the houses on rather than to find the houses to put on the land. The situation has been greatly accentuated by the conditions of the war, and, if possible, means must be found to fill up the deficiency at the earliest possible moment. It has been suggested that the producers of steel and the workers in steel can supply a very useful trace-horse to get the cart up the hill. What we are discussing is whether that trace-horse should be used or not. It surely goes without saying that that trace-horse should be used. Every potential should be employed at the earliest possible moment.
  Mr. Cocks: Should the trace-horse do the bulk of the work? That is the point.
  Lieut-Colonel Elliot: Not at all. The programme which has been put forward by the Secretary of State of four million houses in 10-12 years infinitely transcends the programme that we are discussing today. Everybody knows that the great programme must be met in the main by the ordinary tried methods of house-building in this country. What I and my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals and other Members fear is that those methods will not be quick enough. We fear the dangers of delay in these matters. It is all very well to tell a woman living under a tarpaulin in London, or in a house in Scotland where the sewage runs from the house above, over her ceiling and turns it yellow and makes the place stink, that there is a programme to be completed in the next 10 years. Ten years is too long to wait under such conditions. It has been a universal experience that by using some new potential we can greatly reinforce these existing programmes, however good these programmes are.
  It has been said that the Portal house does not make the best use of the steel, that it does not make the best use of the site, and that in some cases its appearance is unsatisfactory. My hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals has brought in the
  102
  point that for three or more children it is unsatisfactory. But the first question is, are we to ask the Government to embark with the utmost expedition on an alternative housing programme or not? Our word to the Government should be to proceed, and to do so with the utmost expedition, and then, while this programme is being carried out, to work out all the improvements that we all desire to see; the improvement in the appearance of the house, the improvement in the house which may be necessary for the larger families. That is so long as we cannot get the brick and mortar and the stone and lime houses which everybody desires.
  That was not the argument used in the Debate in August. Then, the old vested interests came to the floor of the House and said "Wait." The hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Sir J. Walker-Smith) said "Wait"; the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) said "Wait," and that was the message from a Labour Party spokesman at that time. It was said that the use of the steel of this country was of vital importance for the production of motor-cars. The vital importance to this country of the production of motor-cars is all very well, but this transcends altogether the necessity of the use of steel for any other purpose to which sheet steel can be put at this moment. The people of his country are living in conditions which beggar description, and every measure that can be taken to deal with it must be taken and taken now.
  In 1936, we debated in this House, on the Motion for the Christmas Adjournment, a speech by the hon. Member for Gorbals. I remember the speech very well and I had to point out at that time that, in Glasgow alone, there were 30,000 families with one water closet, not shared between two or three families, but between four families.
  Mr. McGovern: It was under Tory rule.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It was not under Tory rule. It was one result of the rapid fall in housing which took place as against the Moderate output when the Socialist majority was in control.[Interruption.] Many other local authorities were just as bad. The Lanarkshire authority was a public scandal; the local authority of Fife

  103
  was a public scandal. Fife produced in one of those years 80 houses to serve for the county of Fife. It is not a party matter, but I think it is certainly not a matter on which one party can shovel off all the responsibility on to another.
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has conveyed the impression, I am sure unintentionally, that, in that year, only 86 houses were built in the whole of Fife. Of course it is quite untrue. Apart from the action of the County Council, there were many small and large burghs in Fife building very large numbers of houses, as my right hon. Friend knows.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Yes, but I was doing my utmost to indicate that a very big effort in housing by everyone was necessary, and nobody, not even my hon. Friend, would suggest that 86 houses built by Fife County Council and 38 houses provided by private enterprise in the county of Fife constituted anything like an adequate contribution to the housing needs of that great county for a year. [Interruption.] Whatever the programmes of the burghs and the other authorities of Fife, I only say, and I think we all agree, that nobody is going to defend the building of 86 houses by the chief local authority and 38 by private enterprise in the year 1937 met the needs of that great county.
  These were some of the contributions of the building trade when it was at full strength and was going full speed ahead and when there were no blitzed areas. We now have a million damaged houses in London alone to add to the task we have to face. The building trade must, of course, mend the damaged and use the old sites to the utmost. The mere mending of these houses will require the use of a great force of skilled tradesmen. It is a matter in which, in the first aid and second aid repairs, skilled tradesmen will be needed to work at their full skill, and this will inevitably absorb a great number of the tradesmen who might have gone to building of new houses for the people. In face of that, we have to find an alternative programme, and this is one which should not only be welcome but pressed on with the utmost possible vigour.
  104
  The proposals which the Government have put before us to-day are proposals which will certainly require a great deal more working out in practice in negotiations with the local authorities and otherwise. Certainly, delay has come from the Government and from the House, because it was by the will of the House that the debate on this Bill was adjourned in August. The Secretary of State for Scotland has indicated that the charge on the local authorities will be a fixed charge. An enormous figure is going to fall on the Exchequer—a colossal sum—a subsidy which nobody has ever previously suggested. I do not think it can be said that the Government is niggling and haggling in this matter. That subsidy is calculated on a 10 years' life. No doubt it is that 10 years' life which makes that subsidy of such a size and weight. I agree, however, with the hon. Member for Gorbals that it is not in 10 years that we shall get rid of these houses. I could not help smiling at the clause drafted by the Government to get rid of the fear which some people they said may feel, that these things will still be there in 15 or 20 years' time. The statement was made that the Minister of Health might, and, if asked by the local authority, should, remove these houses if the housing permission permitted. I gather that that was the suggestion.
  The day when a local authority comes to the Secretary of State for Scotland and says, "Knock down houses, we have got plenty; take these away," that day we can sing Nunc Dimittis, and the Secretary of State of the time will be taken up to Heaven by a chariot of fire and will be a very remarkable figure, even in the heavenly courts. No, Sir, there will be no vehement demand from local authorities for the destruction of houses for many a long day, and I think we must face the position that we cannot justify the erection of these houses on the ground that they will be removed in 10 years. They must be justified on the ground that they represent the best way, from the point of view not of money but of steel, men, time, and land, to tackle the job now—that it is the most economical way in which to apply the extra resources of our country to help the housing of the people within the next two or three years.
  There are some technical questions which it is not possible to go into too

  105
  closely on the floor of the House. The Government are criticised about the lines of a tank, and about what kind of tanks to produce, and there is a vigorous defence by the Government. These are technical matters. No House of Commons would ever say to the Government, in regard to tanks, that, because they did not think one particular tank was satisfactory, they should build no tanks at all. Of course, the House of Commons says "Go ahead, build your tanks, and alter the programme if necessary." The housewives must have houses just as the soldiers must have tanks, and we have got to have a beginning. I say to the Government, "Go ahead; what we shall criticise you on eventually is the design and appearance of the house, and its usefulness, when these houses are being lived in. But, we shall criticise you first of all on whether the houses are there to be lived in at all. What you will be judged on is not the appearance of your programme but the extent of your performance. That is what we shall be arguing about a year hence." If the Government produce the goods, they will get away with it; the only thing to bring them down will be if the goods are not produced.
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just addressed the House has used an argument which comes strangely from one of his critical and original turn of mind, and I confess that I have never heard him make such a speech before. What he has been saying is this—The Government come with a plan; therefore, accept the plan and tell them to get on with it. With very great respect, that is not an attitude to be adopted by any Member of this House, and I should think least of all by my right hon. Friend.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I say that, for those who are not going to vote against the Bill, that is the proposal I made. I shall listen to my hon. Friend's speech to see how he ends on the one determining Parliamentary test—Are you for or against?
  Mr. Stewart: I propose to vote for this Bill. No other course is open to me, but I am not going to vote for it with my eyes shut and my arms up in the air, hailing it as my right hon. and gallant Friend has done. He seemed to chide us, and
  106
  some hon. Members opposite, for seeking to delay the conclusion of the Second Reading and thus afford a little more time for the Government to consider the matter. Are we not now thankful that that time has been given?
  Mrs. Tate: No.
  Mr. Stewart: Well, let us see. There has been a very curious and substantial change in this Bill and in the Government's attitude to it during the last seven or eight weeks. When, in March last, the Prime Minister announced this great programme, it was to be 500,000 of these steel Portal houses. Last June, when we were debating the Scottish health and housing Estimates, my right hon. Friend the Minister was talking in terms of 500,000, and he was going to have 100,000 Portal houses in Scotland. I asked if the Minister meant that, and he replied that that was what he did mean. In June last year, the figure was to be 500,000; by August 1st it had been reduced to 250,000—a very decided reduction. Further, they were all to be, as far as one could see, Portal houses. There was no reference, in the speech of the Minister in June, to other types of houses. There was no clear definition in the Minister's speech of the two different types now described. But the weight of public criticism has indeed borne upon the Government; the Government has responded; there are now to be three types; and I welcome the fact that they have made that response.
  Mr. T. Johnston: Will my hon. Friend permit me? In the course of my speech this morning, I said—and I repeat—that these types were under discussion before the Debate started. They have not been agreed to as the result of pressure, and there are any number of other types still under consideration, and the Government will welcome any and every type that can be proved satisfactory.
  Mr. Stewart: The longer this Debate goes on the more reasonable and sensible do the Government become. May I close this point by repeating that, on 20th June of this year, I asked the Scottish Secretary if my right hon. Friend meant 100,000 Portal houses, and his reply was, "That is what I mean." I will now give way to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: If my hon. Friend will refer to Column 1302 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Debate on 1st August, 1944, he will see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, speaking on the question of the Weir houses, said:
  "Negotiations are going on with the firm of Weirs, and with the trade union representatives, on the general conditions under which they will be erected. … My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland tells me that discussions are going on very well and that, as soon as a decision is reached, he will be able to give directions to go on building steel houses."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st August, 1944; Vol. 402, c. 1302.]
  Mr. Stewart: That is very interesting but it has nothing whatever to do with the point I am making. If the House will permit me to conclude my argument, they will see that there is a logical sequence. I observed that the Government have made changes and I welcome those changes. The Minister, speaking from that Box, announced not one type of Portal house, with vague references to others, but three types of house, and I welcome that announcement. I observe, however, with regret that the two new types are to be of precisely the same design as the Portal house. My right hon. Friend seems to think that there is no authority in Scotland that has refused this House, and I can give him the name of one.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): One that has communicated with the Department?
  Mr. Stewart: They communicated with their Member of Parliament.
  Mr. Westwood: Oh.
  Mr. Stewart: The Leven town council say:
  "It is hinted in some quarters that the Portal will be thrust upon local authorities whether they state a preference or not. My council feels so strongly in the matter that I am instructed to ask you to raise the question in the House and do what you possibly can to obtain the assurance that local authorities will have free choice in selecting their temporary houses."
  Mr. Mathers: That particular statement was contradicted before it was made in this House. There is to be no forcing. I have a clear recollection of the statement from the Front Bench that these Portal houses would not be
  108
  forced upon any local authority and I have heard the retort to that, that those who did want them would thereby be able to get more than they otherwise would get.
  Mr. Stewart: It is very gallant of the hon. Member to support the Secretary of State for Scotland, but I do not suppose that the right hon. Gentleman needs it.
  Mr. Johnston: The hon. Member said I refused it.
  Mr. Stewart: I am sorry that I am interrupted by the Government in this way. I was commenting on three different types of temporary houses. They are all to be of the same design. I will quote the opinion of an official in a well-known coalfield on that point. He said that when he saw it—meaning the Portal house—it looked well in the surroundings of beautiful beech trees and rhododendron bushes in flower, but what would the houses look like in a mining community with the coal-bings as neighbours? They would look like a row of hen-houses.
  I wonder if the Government will be prepared to extend the accommodating spirit they have shown to the House and move away from this strictly temporary principle of these houses. There are to be various types of temporary houses, but must a temporary house be temporary in every respect? I will quote to the House from a very remarkable leading article on the matter which appeared in "The Times" of 20th July. It puts in words, upon which I could not improve, precisely what so many of us feel about this matter. It says:
  "Must the unavoidable temporary dwellings be temporary in every respect, and therefore wholly replaced after a brief span of years? Or is it possible to adopt one or other of the methods of construction with which a number of local authorities are now experimenting, methods which might permit the building of more spacious houses, combining permanent foundations and skeletons with temporary walls."
  I ventured to write a letter to "The Times" previous to that date on this same point, because it happened that I had been rather closely concerned with the development of prefabricated houses. I know, as many hon. Members of this House know—as those who come from Hull, Manchester and Glasgow know—that there are a whole lot of new types of houses of a semi-permanent character—

  109
  a type of house, prefabricated, which can be almost as quickly built as the Portal house.
  Mr. David Grenfell: And cheaper.
  Mr. Stewart: Yes, and cheaper—I was coming to that—and a house which is produced in steel or concrete, and which is temporary only in respect of the walls, the outside appearance. The foundations and main structures are permanent, and as the situation improves its outside claddings can be changed and more attractive ones put in their places. That is the appeal I am making to the Government. I ask them to get away from this cold temporary principle and to use the money voted for in this Bill not only for temporary houses, but for semi-permanent houses which will have a lasting value of years. Consider the Bill now before us. It is a staggering proposition that the House is asked to adopt. Here is a dwelling which is going to cost, in the terms of the Government's own figures, £600 per house. With the additional subsidies which the right hon. Gentleman has announced to-day, I reckon, in the short time available to me, that it will amount to an additional capital sum of at least £150.
  My rough estimate to-day is that this house is going to cost at least £750 to complete and finance, and in ten years it is to be destroyed. The right hon. Gentleman is going to introduce an Amendment to ensure that it shall be destroyed at the end of ten years—£750 scrapped at the end of ten years. This other type of house to which I have referred, on which Manchester, Hull and Glasgow Corporations are experimenting, and which Lord Weir is building, will cost maybe £850, but it will last 25 years or 30 years. They will be real houses. They will make homes. They will be two-storey buildings. I need not try to persuade many hon. Members because they know my case, but I do beg of the Government to introduce some kind of Amendment—if they do not, I shall endeavour myself to do so—to enable local authorities and the Government to adopt methods other than strictly temporary methods of house building; in fact to extend the Bill to include those semi-permanent prefabricated buildings to which I have been referring.
  Mr. Bossom: Can the hon. Member explain the difference between the Portal house and the Weir house which makes the one a temporary one and the other a permanent one, as they are almost identical in details except as to price?
  Mr. Stewart: The Government claim that the Portal house will last ten years: Lord Weir's claim is 20 or 30 years.
  Mrs. Tate: The Government never said the house would not last more than ten years. Therefore the two are identical.
  Mr. Stewart: The Government say they will not let it last more than ten years. On the actual possibilities, I am afraid this Portal house is going to last ten or twenty years; it will take us a long time to be rid of it; but it is not what the Government are claiming. I am asking that the Government put up houses in which families can live and grow up, and that there shall be no instructions from Whitehall or St. Andrew's House that people will have to move as their families increase or their houses will be pulled down altogether.
  I have the authority of the "Architects journal," and of a great many architects and many public-spirited men in the building trade for the point of view I am presenting to the House. I beg of the Government to consider it and I shall try to put down such an Amendment as will make it possible for the Government to give expression to it in the final form of the Bill.
  Mr. McGovern: In so far as the present position is concerned, I am in complete harmony with the point of view expressed, that every form of housing should be developed in this country in order to eliminate to a large extent the great need and the injustices which prevail. I realise, as one who has been in the building trade for the greater part of my life, that there is a tremendous amount of exaggeration about the labour required to construct the ordinary types of house. I was astounded at the statements made regarding the provision of concrete, brick and various other types of houses. In relation to the building trade labour, there has been, all along, that old narrow-groove outlook and spirit developed over a long period of time, due to the fact that men were afraid that they might be thrown on to the street. They

  111
  have, therefore, protected their craft and industry and refused to allow alternative methods to be developed. As housing has gradually developed, with concrete and various types of blocks that have been used, there can be a tremendous amount of unskilled labour used in the provision of such houses.
  There are two or three difficulties which I do not think the Government are facing and on which they are not giving the public the benefit of the doubt. In view of the tremendous housing costs to-day, it has been found necessary to cut down to a lower housing standard for the great mass of the community; and, as it is so costly to provide a decent type of house, the Government are not prepared to face up to the tremendous difficulty. Therefore, they are forcing the average citizen down to a lower standard of housing.
  There is a second point, regarding building trade labour. Behind all these schemes I think there is an intention on the part of the powers-that-be to reserve most of the building trade labour in this country for both commercial and the larger housing combines and trusts to provide houses after the war is over for those who can afford to build houses, for alterations, and for commercial development, and as there are not enough skilled men in the building trade to do all the jobs, they intend that that labour should be conserved for the class-interests of the country rather than for the provision of houses for the community generally. Thirdly, I think that with the prospect of large-scale unemployment in the steel industry, as a result of the tremendous war development, that industry has taken a new interest in what they have previously regarded as the separate interest of the building trade in wood and stone and brick and lime. They see an opportunity, which Lord Weir and others previously saw, of entering into the building trade and providing houses, and instead of suffering a loss of income in the steel trade they intend to be serious competitors for the provision of a large mass of houses for the poorer classes in the community.
  Dr. Russell Thomas: May I interrupt the hon. Member? Is it not a fact that the motor industry, which uses steel to a large extent, is becoming most alarmed at the prospect of steel being directed to prefabricated houses? I do
  112
  not think, therefore, that my hon. Friend's allegation against the steel industry is quite correct.
  Mr. McGovern: I always recognise the fact that in certain compartments of the steel industry or in fact any industry, a struggle goes on. It is sufficient to say that Lord Weir has just closed down one of his departments in Glasgow which was using labour for the provision of, I think, guns, and is now making steel plates for steel houses. Therefore, some of the workers have had to be sent back to their old occupations because the Ministry of Labour could not provide them with jobs. I say that Lord Weir and others in the steel trade see an opportunity after the war of competing on favourable terms for the provision of houses.
  I am not one of those who have taken the view that the provision of steel houses should be completely ruled out. I have never believed that, and I believe that a great deal of exaggeration took place in this House away back in the days of 1923 or 1924 regarding steel houses. I remember the great speech made by Mr. Rosslyn Mitchell. He knew nothing at all about steel houses, but, then, most great speeches are made by men who know nothing at all about their subject. A large number of steel houses were provided in the area I represent, and I myself was employed on the building of these steel houses at that time. There were three types—the Atholl, the Weir and the Cowieson. I say that as against the Weir house, the man who had the smallest number to build provided the best house, and that was the Atholl, because the Atholl house was a steel house in the real sense. The Weir house was made of wood with steel plates nailed on to it, and the Cowieson house was similar, but the Atholl house had steel plates bolted on to a steel structure. Therefore, if anything went wrong internally, such as a mild fire, the Weir and Cowieson houses would collapse completely, whereas the Atholl structure would remain in position, unless it were a devastating fire. It was prophesied that the houses would be damp, but nothing of that occurred, and a son of mine who has lived in one for 12 months has been quite comfortable.
  If anybody said to me, "Would you prefer a brick or a steel house?" naturally I would say, "A brick house," but when you are facing the problem of providing houses for the community who are

  113
  in a tremendously difficult position at this moment, herded together worse than cattle in byres, then I say that the provision of alternative measures can be commended and should be speeded up in order to meet the needs of the community. Even the very appearance of the steel house has been improved as time has passed. They have been sprayed in a manner which gives them the appearance of being rough-cast brick houses, which has added tremendously to their appearance. What makes the housing scheme adjacent to my own house less prison-like is that the houses have been intermingled—a Weir, a Cowieson and an Atholl all interwoven—and, being of a different structure, they give the appearance of a village with different types of houses. The Weir house had the finest fittings, the Atholl house had the finest structure, and if the best points of the three types were combined, a splendid type of steel house could be produced to meet the requirements of the community and would be a boon and a blessing to the great masses of the people in Glasgow who, at the present time, are herded together in single apartment houses. Therefore, I am most certainly backing any form of alternative house, but I would like some form of guarantee that the houses will be removed inside 15 years.
  If, however, an improved type of house is put up, like the Weir house at Sandyhills, I do not think there would be need for a guarantee to be given, because there they have been up for 18 years, they are very substantial, and there has been very little change. It would be an insult to any person living in those steel houses in the Sandyhills, Shettleston and Spring-body areas to put them into a less effective type of house. After all, public opinion will decide, and if public opinion were roused to the extent that these houses were completely failing to meet the needs of the community, then it would be for the community through its public representatives and public bodies to see that they were removed from the landscape.
  I have met a large number of trade union representatives who have been over the Portal house and have come away feeling very enthusiastic, but I have met other public representatives who say, "Well, we cannot oppose them but there are many things we do not like." Some said it was a great relief to see the higher ceiling in the second house, and everyone
  114
  I have met has been loud in his praise of the internal arrangements. It has also been felt that the Portal house provides only for newly married people or those with one or even two children, but if you have to use them for families of seven or eight children, as has been done in the wooden houses in the London Road area of Shettleston, it is another matter. I remember when these wooden bungalows went up in the last war, it was prophesied that they were temporary, but they remained for the best part of 15 or 16 years until they were absolutely decayed by internal damp and infested with various insects.
  I do not want to exaggerate or to get at cross purposes with hon. Members in relation to this housing problem. I have said during the whole of my life that I would give all the kudos necessary to any individual or to any party in the State or to any Council which would solve this tremendous problem of housing. I agree with the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) that this is not a party matter. I have gone in and out of houses in the Shettleston area for 28 years doing repairs in the building trade, and the conditions were simply horrible—families of ten and twelve herded together in one room in a small apartment house. One could see in the streets continually between one and two in the morning, men standing in shop doors out of the rain while in their single-room apartment house their wife was being delivered of her baby by a doctor and nurse. Conditions are so appalling that one could not come to this House and say "I am not prepared to support a Bill for temporary houses." Therefore, I say that as the houses are so urgently needed, let us have the provision of as many decent houses of stone and brick and alternative methods as possible. Let us even have wooden bungalows for temporary accommodation and the development of steel houses from the 1924 type. I make this proviso, however, that no very small and unsuitable type of house should be allowed to remain too long in the community, though public opinion will be the guiding factor in this. I say to the Secretary of State, Let us get on with the provision of houses because there are hundreds of thousands of people in and around the West of Scotand who woud wecome amost any type of decent habitation at this moment.
  Mrs. Tate: I heartily agreed with everything that the last speaker said when he stressed the urgency of the provision of houses, and when he said that the question of housing should never be permitted to be a party question. It is one of such appalling urgency that the whole of this House should welcome any step which gives us promise that the question will be dealt with with as little delay as possible. I myself feel somewhat depressed when I hear that the Government recognise the urgency of getting on with temporary housing and yet realise that we had the First Reading of this Bill before the Summer Recess and have had to wait for six whole weeks before we can get the Second Reading or the Money Resolution, without which it will be quite impossible to lay down jigs and tools upon which the production of these temporary houses depends. I was one of those who voted against the long Parliamentary Recess for that very reason, that I thought it essential that we should have had the Second Reading of this Bill concluded before we adjourned for the Summer Recess. However, what I consider to be an unfortunate and great mistake, has been made. It has quite certainly held up the provision of temporary housing for at least two months.
  What I would like to ask the Government to-day is this. Statements have appeared in the Press in the last few days giving particulars of new permanent houses and the man-hours required to build them. Some of the man-hours for those houses are low. There was one house with steel girders, concrete slabs with insulation material between them and the inside walls. That is a very remarkable and good house of a completely permanent type, and I understand takes only 900 man-hours to erect. I do not know whether that is 900 hours on the site in addition to certain work in the factory or whether that figure represents the entire factory and site construction. I would like to ask how many man-hours a temporary house of the Portal or other such type, takes to erect. Although this House is seized of the great importance of producing houses, and is willing to pass this Bill to provide temporary housing, if permanent houses could be produced in the same number of hours there is no Member who would
  116
  not prefer permanent houses instead of temporary houses.
  I feel that we are to-day discussing this matter under some difficulty, because since we adjourned for the Summer Recess permanent houses have been erected at Northolt, among them this fine house put up in 900 man-hours. We have not been given the number of man-hours required to erect temporary houses and, therefore, because we welcome the Government's intentions to provide housing at the earliest possible moment, we applaud and approve temporary houses which none of us want if it has in the interval been found possible to produce permanent houses at comparable cost in as short a space of time. I would be grateful if we could have an answer on that point. I welcome the statement if I understood it aright—and I hope we shall all be clear on this—that no local authority will be compelled to have temporary houses—
  Mr. G. Griffiths: Some will not have the chance.
  Mrs. Tate: —if they consider that they can produce permanent houses as speedily, as that would meet my point. If, on the other hand, it is still the case that permanent houses cannot be produced in the same time as temporary houses, I hope local authorities will be compelled to have temporary houses of one type or another. I would like an assurance on another point, and that is that when temporary houses are to be erected we shall not have undue delay because of the inter-Departmental arrangements between one Ministry and another. I feel some apprehension on this score, because I have not found that the Ministry of Health is always as speedy in dealing with housing matters as one could wish. In fact, I have long deplored the fact that housing should be under the Ministry of Health because I think that that Ministry is already overloaded with other work. But I hope that if these houses are to come under the aegis of the Ministry of Health, we shall have speedier arrangements in regard to them than we did in regard to the agricultural cottages, or the Brown cottages as they are known.
  In my division some of these houses were erected, and when they were nearly completed the Frome council wrote to the Ministry of Health with regard to the

  117
  rents to be charged for them. They wrote on 22nd June last saying that the matter was urgent, and asking the Minister if he could approve a rental of 10s. a week. They had no answer to that letter, so they wrote again on 1st August. They optimistically awaited a reply, too optimistically as it turned out, for no reply came. They therefore wrote again on 13th September, but a few days ago they reported at a council meeting that there was still no reply from the Ministry as to what rents were to be charged. They wrote on 22nd June, 1st August and then on 13th September, and it is interesting to note that those cottages which could take tenants will be unable to be let when they could be only because the Ministry of Health had not yet answered letters from the council as to what rent should be charged in three months, although told the matter was urgent. I hope that if the Government are as impressed with the appalling need for speeding up housing as every Member is impressed by it we shall not have, or permit, delays of that kind to take place with regard to the arrangements made between the Ministry of Health and the local authorities in the provision of temporary houses.
  I want to congratulate the Ministry of Works—and I am sure other Members will join me—on the tremendous drive and energy they have shown in encouraging various forms of construction of houses, and the plans they have made, and the excellent interior fittings they have provided for the houses. I have nothing but praise to give to that Ministry, and I sincerely hope that their energy and drive will not be nullified by the perpetual delay we have to suffer when matters are in the hands of the Ministry of Health. In conclusion, I would like to repeat my request for an assurance that between now and the passing of the Bill if it is found that there is any type of satisfactory permanent house that can be produced in the same number of man-hours as temporary houses, then permanent houses will be substituted for the temporary houses.
  Mr. Quibell: I do not think there is any one subject that this House can consider that is more important than housing, for if there is anything calculated to cause serious unrest it is lack of housing accommodation for our men when they come back from the fighting fronts.
  118
  They have fought for freedom and civilisation and when they come back they will expect this House and local authorities to fulfil the promises we have made to them, namely, that we intend to deal with reconstruction and housing in this country. I have listened with great interest to the last two speeches. I am a bricklayer by trade and very much prejudiced in favour of brick housing, but want to say that I have been privileged during the last few months to visit various parts of the country to see what has been done in regard to housing. I am bound to confess that I have seen some of the houses described by the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) and others, and I have been impressed. Some of the prejudices I have hitherto held have been largely dispelled.
  I was in Scotland the week before last and I looked at various houses which were considered to be temporary. I looked at wooden houses which had been up for 20 years, and which were in as good condition as, or better than, the day when they were erected. Those houses are not temporary, they are permanent, and are a great credit to whoever erected them. I visited Lochaber, where the Forestry Commission erected houses of English timber in 1929, and I made inquiries of the tenants as to the accommodation and how they liked it. I can only repeat that those houses are in perfect condition to-day. Every one of the tenants described them as dry, warm and comfortable. I did not get one complaint. I have seen other houses which have been described here to-day. I was prejudiced by the speeches made in this House when the Weir steel houses were erected after the last war. I saw the latest Weir house in Glasgow recently, and I was not impressed with its internal layout, although the general construction has been much improved as the result of modern science and experience since the original was built. That house cannot be described as a temporary house, although everyone who saw it might so describe it. I understand that the general lay-out is to be re-designed and brought up to date to meet the criticisms which have been made.
  I went to Hull and saw the Tarran house. If you want speed go to Hull. There was a bare piece of ground in the morning, and about 8 o'clock at night

  119
  there was a house on it, in which people were having dinner. Hull can give you the good example of speed. I understand that eight or nine girls and three men erected the house in a day.
  Mr. Stephen: How many could be supplied in a year?
  Mr. Quibell: It is stated that 100,000 can be supplied in a year. I do not like the general construction, but it would last long enough as a temporary house and, moreover, is cheaper than a Portal house. Mr. Tarran told me himself that one is to be erected in London of the same size as a Portal house.
  Mr. Muff: It is 90 cubic feet larger, and costs £50 less.
  Mr. Quibell: I am talking about floor space. Mr. Tarran is restricted to the same superficial area as the Portal house and he told me that one is to be erected near the Tate Gallery, this week. I think the Government should encourage all the best brains and brawn of the country to make the maximum contribution to temporary housing. I saw one house in course of construction in which no bricklayer is required. He can be relieved to do other engineering work, and the rebuilding of many of our stricken cities. Bricklayers will be wanted for that for many years. This house is as good as any I have seen built for the last 30 years. It is shuttered by a new system of steel shuttering, and they guarantee that they could build 50,000 in a year. It has all modern fitments and appointments, and a laundry outside, and the price is somewhere in the region of £750. It is built by unskilled labour, and absorbs only half a standard of timber per house. Previously we had three or three and a third standards per house. When the war is over, it is our job not only to supply houses but to find work for unskilled men, and this will solve many of our other difficulties.
  The next house that I was privileged to see, thanks to the Parliamentary Secretary, was at Northolt yesterday. I was tremendously impressed. There might be certain little improvements inside, but the houses are a real credit to the Department, and it will show the councils what can be done by organisation and by mass producing internal fittings. I had a bit
  120
  of a shock before I left. I went into two semi-detached houses built by the Steel Federation. They were splendid. I think they were as good as anything that I saw. Every woman I talked to pointed to the clash between different colours, but I am not concerned about that. A woman would soon alter that kind of thing. In general construction, lightness and airiness the steel house was the equal of any that I saw there. It had the traditional partition walls and the traditional ceilings and standard fittings. Steel is used for the framing but it is not all steel by any means. I was afraid of condensation unless there was proper insulation, but some of the previous difficulties have been overcome. In my view, the Steel Federation have produced a steel house which is infinitely superior to the one produced by Lord Weir himself. We have made immense progress and I congratulate the Government, and particularly the Ministry of Works, on the experiments that have been made. To meet the present crisis we have to have alternative methods of solving the difficulty. I welcome the Bill. I hope the Government will not insist on just the Portal house but will produce something equal to it. They ought to give every encouragement to people like the Tarrans and the Steel Corporation and others who can build houses of a permanent character and give local authorities facilities to see them and encourage them to get on with the job of rehousing.
  Captain Cobb: The Secretary of State for Scotland has reminded us of the very great need for new housing and for repairing the ravages which the enemy has wrought in many parts of the country. I do not really think that the reminder was necessary. There is no difference of opinion here or in the country about the very great need for improving housing. Where there is difference of opinion between many of us and the Government is whether the Government have chosen the right method by means of this Bill. It is evident from what we were told on 1st August, and from what the Secretary of State has told us to-day, that in effect the temporary house means the Portal house. A great many of us have seen one Portal house but we have not had an opportunity of seeing a great number of Portal houses planted down together. Anyone who has

  121
  any imagination at all can visualise the effect that a large number of these houses is going to have in the towns or villages in which they are erected. It is bound to be deplorable. It must destroy the natural beauty of the districts in which they are put down and it will inevitably mean that for many years to come a great part of "England's green and pleasant land" will be utterly destroyed from the aesthetic point of view. That is a most important consideration. It is a most deplorable prospect that, if we have these ugly houses planted down in our midst for many years, we may become accustomed to them and cease to object to them. I believe most eminent biologists agree that eels no longer object to being skinned alive because they have become accustomed to it, and I am afraid that that is what may happen to our national taste. We shall no longer object to having these eyesores dotted about all over the country.
  However, these aesthetic considerations are apt to be a great deal less important than they used to be, but surely the material drawbacks to the Bill are most evident. To discuss first of all the cost of these things, we are being asked to provide £150,000,000 for a purpose which the Government allege is purely temporary, and in 10 or 12 years these temporary houses will have been swept away and we shall have nothing whatever to show for the money. I am not a pessimist about our post-war financial position and I believe we have enough initiative and enterprise to recover from the enormous financial sacrifices we have made in the last five years, but I find it very difficult to believe that our position will be so satisfactory that we shall be justified in throwing away £150,000,000 for a purpose of that kind. Surely the money could be spent to infinitely better purpose. Further, this £150,000,000 will constitute a very heavy burden on our housing accounts, which will have to be shouldered by the people of the country. It is bound to be represented in higher rents of local authority houses, higher rates and higher taxation, all of which fall most heavily upon the shoulders of those least able to bear them. Then we have the undesirable fact that these bungalows will occupy double the space of a normal house. We have not such a vast amount of building land available that we can afford to waste it.
  122
  It is most unfortunate that the Government is proposing to provide accommodation for only half the number of people they would be able to provide for if they built a more suitable type of house. It is bound in the long run to affect very seriously our housing programme because the space that would be occupied by a house built in the ordinary way will be occupied by a temporary house.
  Mr. Bossom: Has my hon. and gallant Friend seen the lay-out of this type of house which does not take any more space than the normal type? A very ingenious arrangement has been made for the purpose.
  Captain Cobb: Members far better qualified than I am to speak on these technical matters have said in so many words what is the exact space occupied by the Portal house, and the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) was not contradicted from the Front Bench when he declared that the Portal bungalow will occupy double the space of an ordinary house.
  Mr. Quibell: Not quite double. Surely it is possible to build a pair of semidetached houses between two others and pull the latter down and rebuild without disturbing those already there.
  Mr. Bossom: The point is rather important. On a great many estates to-day houses are being built not in a row but staggered, in such a way that they do not occupy the space which the hon. Member for Peckham said would be required.
  Captain Cobb: I am not prepared to argue with the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom) or the hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell), who have spent the greater part of their lives in this business, but I would like to ask why, when that point was made by the hon. Member for Peckham, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, who knows something about building, did not deny these statements when he wound up the Debate on 1st August. If we are to have a reply from the Government Bench to-day, perhaps that point will be dealt with more satisfactorily.
  Another great drawback in the proposals contained in this Bill is the divided responsibility which is involved. I understand that the houses are to be produced by the Minister of Works, who will

  123
  then hand them over to the Minister of Health, who will in turn hand them over to the local authorities, who will be responsible for their erection. I do not think that that will be the only division of responsibility. I imagine that the Minister of Town and Country Planning will have to be consulted and that the Minister of Supply will have his say about the release of the necessary materials, while the President of the Board of Trade will be running very much below his best form if he fails to have a finger in the pie as well. I am sure that all the confusion which is bound to result from passing the buck from Department to Department is bound to result in an enormous amount of unnecessary delay. I hold the opinion, which is apparently not shared by the Prime Minister, that if we are to deal satisfactorily with housing, whether it be permanent or temporary, it must be in the hands of only one Minister who is not distracted by any other calls on his attention. The Government are proposing to appoint a Minister for social security. Surely the business of providing houses for the people is infinitely more important and more difficult. I would like to feel that the Government are going to think again about the creation of a Minister who will be solely responsible for providing houses for our people.
  I am not attempting to simplify the problem, for I realise what an immense number of difficulties there are in the way. The first and most outstanding difficulty is the shortage of building labour with which we shall be faced after the war. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works told us that out of rather more than 1,000,000 men engaged in the building trade before the war, only about 300,000 are available now. I am not sure whether those figures include men who are normally engaged in the production of building materials or whether they include only men actually engaged in the building of houses.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Hicks): If my hon. and gallant Friend looks at HANSARD I think he will find that I said that we had, before the war, roughly 1,000,000 men engaged in the building industry, that to-day we had much fewer than
  124
  400,000, and that at the end of the war with Germany it was anticipated we should have rather over 300,000. Those figures do not include those manufacturing building materials but only those engaged in the building industry.
  Mr. Austin Hopkinson: The original 1,000,000 included the unskilled men.
  Mr. Hicks: So does the figure of over 300,000 who will be available at the end of the war.
  Mr. Hopkinson: Would it not be as well to tell the House that the 300,000 are mainly men exempted from military service, which the unskilled labour was not?
  Mr. Hicks: The men in military service were taken according to age, and therefore the personnel in the building industry was balanced and there remains a similar proportion of craftsmen, general workmen and ordinary labourers.
  Captain Cobb: Perhaps I may be allowed to resume. I asked the Parliamentary Secretary a specific question, and I have the answer I want. It is that the figures he quoted on 1st August comprised both skilled and unskilled men engaged in the building trade alone and that there is a further number engaged solely in the production of building materials. That number must also have been reduced by the calls of the Services and the war factories. We can, therefore, be certain there is an enormous number of men who are necessary to the building industry who will be available as soon as demobilisation starts, and the demobilisation scheme which was announced by the Government a few days ago will go a long way towards helping in this problem. People engaged in essential work like building—and they must include those engaged in the production of building materials—will be given an immediate release from the Services in order to engage in the vast work of physical reconstruction. The men who are given an exceptionally early release from the Services or the factories should be given it upon the understanding that they will be prepared to work wherever their services are needed. That should be an essential condition of their early release. The matter of producing building materials is of enormous importance. Everything that is put on to a housing site is prefabricated to a certain extent. The raw

  125
  materials is not taken to the site and then made up, and the idea that prefabrication is a completely new thing is false.
  It is essential that we should have a large army put to work as soon as possible on the production of building materials. It is essential, too, that we should start work now on the preparation of housing sites. As far as I know, nothing has been done up to the moment and a great deal can be done. We have these 300, 000 who are available in the country now. For the most part they have been engaged on vast public works such as barracks and aerodromes, but there must be a large number of them who could be put to work on laying down sewers, gas and electricity mains, making service roads and the rest of it, so that the building could start as soon as the materials were ready and the Government were in a position to say "Go." I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works will not be unduly offended with me if I make the suggestion that it is high time the building unions improved their standards. I do not think there is any skilled bricklayer who would deny that the present output of 240 bricks a day is childish. The pre-war standard of 300 was ridiculous. I do not know of a skilled bricklayer who does not protest against such standards, which have the effect of reducing the skilled man to the level of the least skilled. The sooner the building trade unions get it into their heads that if they are not careful alternative methods will be introduced which will wash out their work altogether, the better it will be and a great deal better for the people who need houses.
  Mr. Hicks: It is by no means true that the number of bricks laid per day is 242. That is a purely gratuitous statement, and cannot be supported by any facts. I have many times brought to the House evidence of bricklayers laying 900 bricks a day during the war period. The number 242 was accepted at a certain period for the purpose of basing a bonus on the narrowest form of work, 4½ inch brickwork, but it is erroneous to assume that that is the basis upon which everything has been measured.
  Captain Cobb: The fact remains that that is roughly the standard. Anything above that standard is paid at special rates. This is supposed to be a Second
  126
  Reading Debate, and I must remind the hon. Gentleman that we are entitled to attack the principle of the Bill.
  The right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) poured scorn upon a statement which was made by an hon. Member that pressed steel would be required to manufacture motor-cars after the war and would not be available for housing. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman appeared to think that the sole purpose of a motor-car is to provide a plutocrat with a quick and easy method of killing pedestrians. Surely the manufacture of motor-cars, like everything else that we are going to sell, is of enormous importance. Do we not want to raise revenue in order to pay for these houses which we are proposing to provide? It is childish to talk about motorcars as though they were a sort of luxury which only millionaires and bookmakers could afford to have.
  I have a very strong suspicion that behind all this business of providing temporary houses by an arrangement between the State and the local authorities is a desire to make a direct attack upon private enterprise building. There is a sort of idea at the back of the Government's mind that the only people who can deal satisfactorily with the housing problem are the State and the local authorities. If they really believe that it is in spite of all the evidence of the past 20 years. The Minister of Health himself has a Central Advisory Committee which has set up a sub-committee to report on private enterprise building, and everything in the report of that sub-committee confirms the fact that if it had not been for private enterprise during the last 20 years or so housing would be in a far worse condition and that private enterprise provided a very large proportion of the new houses built since the last war, infinitely more, cheaply and at least as efficiently, compared with public authorities.
  When debating this matter not long ago, the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Donald Scott) made a useful and interesting suggestion, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works thanked him for it and said he would examine it. I do not know whether the Minister meant that he would really examine it, or that he would bring it to the notice of his civil servants, for them to have a chance of providing satisfactory

  127
  reasons for turning it down. The suggestion was that the ground floor of these houses should be built of normal materials and that a temporary structure of steel or something else should be put at the top for the time being, to form a first floor. That seemed to me a proposal worth looking into. At least there would be half a permanent house. When the temporary programme was more or less completed we should be able to start with the first house and make it into a complete house without taking the whole thing down, as we shall have to do under the proposals contained in the Bill. I suggest to the Minister of Health that he should take counsel and advice from the building industry, which has done so much to provide housing accommodation for the country. So far as I can gather, there has been no real consultation between the Government and the industry on these matters. This appears to be a Government-thought-out scheme in which the building industry has had no say whatever. I am a sufficiently confirmed believer in British enterprise and British industry to feel sure that the industry, if consulted, would be able to produce far better proposals than those contained in the Bill.
  I regret very much to say that I do not believe we have had a Government in this country since the end of the last war which was really serious about providing satisfactory houses for the people of the country. I am not prepared to say that a tin can is a suitable house in which to place a British family. It is a rotten, second-rate makeshift. The Government should be persuaded to take the Bill back, to talk a great deal less about the difficulties that face them and to show a bit more determination in tackling the difficulties successfully.
  Mr. Key: In moving the Second Reading of the Bill, the Minister of Health said that nothing could be more clear than that this House was insistent that the Government should show imagination and special energy in regard to the housing question. At the time the statement was made, if a poll had been taken I believe the House would have expressed the feeling that imagination and energy were conspicuous largely by their absence, so far as Government effort in this matter was concerned. But within the last few weeks at any rate
  128
  both energy and imagination have been more evident in the work which the Government have done. There was probably more imagination in one of the statements made in the speech to which we have just listened, when we had a sort of mournful moan about the expenditure of £5,000,000 involved in this proposal for housing the people of the country. A rapid calculation shows that £150,000,000 spent on temporary housing in 10 years is merely 7s. 6d. per head per annum for helping the people who suffered all the troubles and trials and deprivations, which air raids and so on have brought upon the people of the country.
  The worst fault in the Bill is that it shows an absence of true appreciation of the housing problem which faces us and which presents itself in a three-fold aspect. There is, first, a general, national problem arising from the cessation of building and from the increase in the number of family units for whom housing accommodation is required. In tackling that problem, local authorities will have a very big part to play. Private industry will be engaged for many years in providing houses for sale and not in the production of places to be let at reasonable rents to the working poor. But even that problem of housing the poor is not of the same character everywhere, for in those areas where, because of poverty, the need is greatest, the ability of the local authority to meet the problem will be least. In the poorest areas where the need is greatest the slum clearing subsidy, which has recently been extended to general housing, will be totally inadequate to meet their needs.
  Even if the more generous proposals with regard to subsidy eventually materialise, as the local authorities have been led to expect they will, then still in our poorest areas, particularly when you take account of the need the authorities will have to re-equip their general social services by the rebuilding of schools, of libraries, of public baths, of maternity and child welfare clinics and so on, the local authorities will find that their financial resources are very strained indeed. In my humble opinion, too, this general problem which, as I have already said, is nation wide and calls for the immediate planning of a great post-war building programme, is not to be tackled

  129
  in any way at all by the provision of steel huts or tin sheds. The job has to be done by permanent building if permanent needs are to be met.
  In my experience, however, in this London area there is a far more pressing problem, which is the result of the air raids from which our people have suffered. In many districts, added to the general necessity to overcome the lack of houses because of the cessation of building and so on, an enormous amount of housing accommodation has been destroyed. Here again, that destruction has often been greatest in the areas which are poorest, like, for instance, my own Poplar, or Bethnal Green, West Ham or Bermondsey, to name only those areas with which, as a Londoner, and particularly an East Ender, I am most familiar. I admit that up and down the country there are comparable areas where destruction has been along the same lines. Happily, however, they are very well scattered, but where they exist the need for immediate housing is extremely acute.
  Then on top of that problem comes the problem of the destruction of housing as the result of the flying bomb. It was localised again, but in rather a different way from what it had been during the period of the normal air raids, and here in the South of England there is a very acute and immediate housing problem, in many local authority areas which had not previously been affected by the normal air raids. But in those areas where distress was greatest, the flying bomb added to the appalling task of the local authorities, and if I had to make a charge of any lack of imagination in the attitude of the Government, so far as this Bill reveals it, it is in this, that they seem to me to be regarding all these different problems as one, which is going to be solved by the building of Portal houses. Quite frankly it seems to me to be an impossible situation to take up because it ignores entirely, so far as the local authorities are concerned, the cause of the shortage, and the relative poverty of the local authorities to meet the shortage of housing accommodation which there is.
  So far as that first problem is concerned, the general national shortage of houses due to the lag in permanent construction because of the war, I suggest definitely that it is not to be met by diverting to temporary structures, land
  130
  which the housing authorities have procured for permanent housing purposes, and it is not to be met by the laying out of specially developed estates with montonous rows of hum-drum, depressing structures, the presence of which many will resent. A real concentration on the proper organisation of the building industry to tackle the permanent housing problem of the country is the real answer to that permanent problem, and wherever new land is to be used for the purposes of providing shelter it should be used for the proper construction of houses, and not marred by the erection of temporary structures. But in those areas where the destruction has been greatest there is a need for immediate shelter which cannot wait upon the permanent building programme which we have in mind.
  Even in those areas the temporary structures ought not to be put upon new estates involving the expenditure of labour upon the construction of roads and services. Wherever labour of that type is to be used it can far more efficiently and economically be used in connection with the permanent building programme, and the temporary erection of structures of this sort should be done upon cleared bombed sites, where concrete platforms could be put very readily over the foundations of blitzed and destroyed areas. Apart altogether from being quicker—and believe me there is a great need for urgency, in meeting this housing problem in the poorer parts of Southern England at the present time—it would, itself, introduce a force which would be very beneficial and helpful, a force which will mean the removal at the earliest of these temporary structures.
  I suggest also that this immediate problem is not one which should be dependent upon the financial ability of the local housing authority. It is not a normal housing problem, and when it is done the housing authority will still have to face the same financial responsibility with regard to its permanent problem as it would have done if this temporary problem had never existed. It is a war problem, and in my opinion it is as that it should be regarded. It should not fall to the local authorities to act in relation to it in any other way than as the agents of the central Government. During the period of the air raids the housing of the homeless has been the responsibility of the

  131
  Ministry of Health. The local authorities have acted as agents of the central Government but the cost has fallen centrally; the powers that have been used have been central powers. In the same way, if we are adequately to house our people in the very poorest areas of London, it has to be with the local authorities acting as agents of the National Government in this matter.
  Let me try to illustate this by reference to my own local authority area. It is an exceptional one, I admit, but one which I think will illustrate my points fairly clearly. When this war started there were in my local authority area 23,000 inhabited houses. Of that number, 9,000, or over 40 per cent., have already been completely destroyed. The local authority at present have a rate of 18s. 6d. in the £, and it is being kept at that figure because the Ministry of Health during the war have advanced us something like £750,000, only 25 per cent. of which they say they expect us to repay—and even of that 25 per cent. they have very little hope indeed. Our previous housing business before the war had landed us into a housing deficit which results at present in a rate of 2s. in the £. Is it right, is it fair, to ask such a local authority to meet even a part of the expense of housing the people of those 9,000 destroyed houses? This is a national problem. It comes to us not as a result of some local fault, but, I might say, because of our local importance so far as the national war effort is concerned. We have suffered because of our geographical position: are we to be told that not only are we to suffer because of that, but we are to go on suffering because of our abject poverty, with the result that the local authority will be unable to house the people concerned?
  This Bill says that the temporary structures are to be made available to the local housing authorities on such terms as the Minister may agree with them. It happens that I have been privileged to be a party to some of the discussions regarding what those agreed terms shall be. It would be very inappropriate for me to enter now into any discussion of what those terms are, but what they are going to result in is very material to the argument I am trying to put forward with regard to the responsibility of my own local authority. In my own borough we shall have very great need of these temporary structures.
  132
  I do not know that I have given the clearest picture yet. I have spoken of those 9,000 totally-destroyed houses. I want to add that before the war the average number of inhabitants per house in our borough was six. That is a very high average indeed. With 9,000 houses destroyed, and an average of six persons per house, you can see that we are faced with an enormous task so far as temporary housing is concerned. We may get, as a result of what we put forward, an allocation of something like 2,000 temporary houses. But, on the suggested financial conditions under which that 2,000 houses will be allotted, it would mean an annual addition of 1s., for the next 10 years, to the rates of that local authority. I ask Members, do they consider it right and fair to an authority which has suffered so much that its ability to do this job shall depend on the imposition of an additional 1s. rate? When you remember the addition which is going to come upon us because of the necessity to rebuild libraries, schools, general social services, and so forth, it stands to reason that the ability to satisfy this general housing demand is going to be absent in our area.
  Mr. Craven-Ellis: The hon. Member need not have any fear about those additional impositions, which he cannot avoid under the present monetary system. If he would support the reform of the monetary system, he would escape that.
  Mr. Key: Monetary systems do not weigh very much with me, at times when the need for the provision of shelter is so urgent. It will take some time to alter our monetary system. I hope that we shall have some chance of providing shelter for the people of our area long before Christmas, because if we do not, I am afraid there is going to be a good deal of trouble. I have tried to give a picture of the local conditions. I have not yet completed it. I want to get over the real problem in the distressed and poverty-stricken areas. So far as the 14,000 houses that are left are concerned, we have already given 50,000 first aid repairs to them—in other words, we have repaired them on an average, three to four times each. But we have no unbuilton land in our area, no open spaces that can be developed with roads and services. All that we have got are the bombed sites of houses that have been destroyed.

  133
  Leaving out of consideration those areas which we have decided shall be in our first four-years' permanent building plan, we have already surveyed some 80 sites for taking the temporary houses, and we have accommodation for 1,400 temporary houses at present already planned and laid out for this job. But none of those sites belongs to us. Under this Bill, we have to buy them.
  Now I want to come to the problem of the buying of the sites. We have a first-year's permanent building programme. That first-year's programme covers an area which used to have on it some 600 to 700 separate working-class dwellings. We have already given instructions to our local government officials to negotiate for the purchase of this site, and we discovered that when they come to do it they have to undertake negotiations with something like 850 separate freehold and leasehold interests, before it is possible to purchase the site. If, in addition, we have to negotiate for these 80 separate sites, scattered up and down the borough, I am afraid that many of our people will be dead before we can provide them with the temporary shelter which is necessary. We cannot wait, in dealing with this problem, for the slow business of negotiation for the purchase of these individual sites. During the war, the housing of the homeless has been done by the Ministry of Health, by the method of requisitioning buildings in which to put the homeless people. If this job is to be adequately and properly done, the same principle must be applied to getting the sites on which the temporary houses are to be built, and the Government must come forward and requisition all the sites upon which temporary accommodation is to be provided. Only upon those lines will it be possible for us to deal with this job adequately and properly.
  I am certain that, in the most poverty-stricken and depressed areas of this country, this war problem, which is the result of the conduct of the war, can only be solved by dealing with it on the lines which I have indicated. It is a far more serious problem than many people in this country realise. I would like to take a large number of hon. Members of this House and show them what it actually means in the East End of London, so far as the living conditions of the people are concerned. Already, the spirit of the
  134
  people is beginning to rebel against the conditions. This winter is going to be a very trying and testing time. I had a great experience after the last war, as chairman of the Poplar Board of Guardians, in dealing with distress that grew out of unemployment and exceptional things were done there then as a result of that distress. I want to make it quite plain that exceptional things are now in train there, because of this housing shortage, and, unless this House does something quicker and bolder than this Bill implies, the problem of temporary accommodation for the people will not be solved.
  Mr. Bossom: The last speaker has certainly painted a picture that must appeal to everybody in this House. The serious situation he has described is certainly not exaggerated. During the Recess, I have been sent by the Navy Department to talk to a great many naval and military units, and I can assure the House that these units are fully conscious of the situation which the last speaker has described. I am certain that we will have to use every possible agency, temporary and permanent, to meet this situation. It is no good saying that this Bill is enough, or that only permanent buildings will be enough. We have to get every possible agency at work to answer this most serious housing problem.
  Many people will say that we must only have permanent houses, but let us look frankly at the man-power situation, because you cannot get houses without manpower. The maximum number of building trade operatives we have ever actually had on the jobs—not in the factories—was about 1,250,000, but, in pre-war days, just prior to the war, we had just over the 1,000,000. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works has said that he expects that by the time the war ends we shall have only in the neighbourhood of 300,000, and only about 50,000 will be men under 40 years of age. They will all be a little old and will all be a little slow. But let us look at the whole picture. In those days before the war, when we were thinking of general maintainence and repair of buildings, as well as of building new ones, it took about 300,000 men to repair and maintain our buildings alone, and we have had five years without any maintenance work at

  135
  all, so we shall face the rehousing drive with only the same number of operatives that used to be employed on repairs and maintenance alone. In addition, we have had two periods of very serious blitzing, an account of one of which we have just heard. In these drastic circumstances, I feel the House will wish to be convinced that every possible agency is being called in to play its part.
  There is one advantage about the temporary house, and that is that it will not require as many building trade operatives to construct it as a normal house will. Temporary houses will require about one where a normal house will require 10, and that will relieve a large number of workers for other purposes, such as repairs which will have to go on, for schools which have to be built and for hospitals and social centres which will all have to be dealt with at the same time. We have great towns like London and Coventry, Plymouth, Southampton and Portsmouth, which have to be attended to, and we cannot take all the available men for one purpose, housing. But we must concentrate on getting houses ready and we shall have to employ a lot of new methods which do not follow the traditional building trade procedure. We shall have to do a lot of construction with non-building labour. I am sure that the building trade will agree, because they know they cannot do it all themselves, and that without this temporary help it is quite impossible to provide the indispensable homes for our men and women when the war ends. We shall have to use prefabricated houses, but does everybody know the real meaning of prefabrication? It is not something shoddy, but something which can be as good as or even better than anything else. It means using good, ordinary or non-traditional materials, fabricating these under satisfactory conditions in a factory where there is good machinery and the sections can be produced quickly. By that means only shall we have the chance of getting the houses to meet the demand which is so obviously great.
  The mere passing of this Bill will not get these houses. It is only one of the ingredients in the essential process. This whole matter is really a constructional challenge to the nation, and I think the only way you will ever get the houses is by means of a great drive under the direction of one man with energy and by following
  136
  sound scientific procedure. We cannot leave it to the hit-and-miss conditions under which we attempted to produce those 3,000 agricultural cottages. There we had half a dozen Ministers all having a whack at the task and it is not straightened out yet. We cannot wait for that sort of thing for our post-war results. We have not only to produce these emergency houses most expeditiously, but we have to get permanent houses built as well.
  I do not see how we can possibly do this unless it is made the responsibility of one Minister—I do not say a new Minister, but one Minister—with full control of the situation. Without that it is almost certain we shall never get it done. Certainly not in time. I think it will be essential to second to such responsible Ministry, whether it be the Ministry of Health or the Ministry of Works, the people from the other Departments who, in the ordinary way, deal with local authorities, so that we do not leave the local authorities swinging with no one to help them at all. Again, it is not going to be satisfactory, or even possible I fear, unless we give to the Minister who is to handle these temporary houses, the most ample manufacturing facilities. It is useless passing this Bill if the Ministry of Supply says, "You cannot have this factory or that factory." The Minister must have the factories and the men and the materials that are required to produce the prefabricated work in the proper time and order.
  I think the Ministry of Health set a very good example a few days ago by issuing its Building Manual, 1944. I think it is very desirable that the Ministry should also issue a pamphlet describing how the proposed temporary houses should be most suitably arranged, for we have heard to-day from one hon. Member that people had the impression that these houses must be laid out in a certain way, which by the way is not the most desirable. The local authorities should be told that a great many ingenious arrangements had been worked out, which they can adopt. These houses need not all look alike.
  When I was over in America last year for the Ministry of Works I saw the Baldwin Hills Estate in Southern California on which the buildings, by the treatment of different colours, had been made to look very attractive indeed, and

  137
  such information should be given in a temporary housing pamphlet. Further, I think that when local authorities submit their requests for temporary houses they should also submit a full statement showing where they wish to place them and a clear description of the lay-out, and this they cannot possibly do in the best way without this information. The authorities should have the information and the Minister should work out the entire plan on a scientific time and progress schedule appropriately based on the facts at his disposal as to the production dates of the factories, etc., so that when local authorities apply they may be told when to get their drains, roads, gas and electricity prepared so that the construction of these temporary houses on the sites can be worked on a scientific plan. I hope that things will not be left to chance. Local authorities should know the definite date when the houses are to arrive. There must also be furniture for these houses and that is an important matter too which should be looked after in some way at the same time.
  If we pass this Measure to-morrow, there is no reason why, in seven months' time, the first of these houses should not come off the production lines, and in nine months they should be coming off at the rate of about 2,500 a week, which though not enough would be a tremendous help toward solving the vast problem. If such information, that houses would be produced for certainty at that rate, could be conveyed to the people and they could rely on it that in nine months from to-day these houses would arrive it would give them great heart and
  encouragement. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that we were to have many types. I hope that they will all be equally well equipped internally. Internal equipment is very important. We have started a new high standard in that direction and I hope that we shall not now let it down. I hope that the equipment will be very solid and substantial because it will receive very rough wear and will not last 10 years. Furthermore, I trust that examples of the equipment will be put into a great many of our domestic science schools so that future users can get the maximum advantage from such improved equipment. It is no use providing new forms of equipment if the people do not know how to use it to the best advantage. The question of
  138
  whether the houses will be called upon to last more than 10 years will answer itself, for no doubt Members of this House will be exceedingly quick to call the attention of the Minister to the fact that such houses are no longer needed—and in the face of such information he would certainly have them removed.
  Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Is the hon. Member suggesting that the daughters of working class parents do not know how to use equipment? Is he not aware that they have known how to use it for years but have not been able to gain access to it or to buy it?
  Mr. Bossom: I am very pleased that the hon. Member interrupted me in that way. It gives me an opportunity of explaining that when I was chairman of the Slum Clearance Sub-Committee of the London County Council I found that there were a considerable number of tenants who did not know how to handle certain equipment to their own or its best advantage. I am sure that the hon. Member will agree that those who do not know how to use such equipment should have an opportunity of learning about it before having to use it. We would all much prefer to have only permanent houses but as we cannot have them, we must do the best we can and get all the good houses that can be produced from any source. I was pleased to see in the papers this morning the account of the houses being built at Northolt under the guidance of the Ministry of Works on a 900 man-hour production plan. This will go a long way towards meeting the demand of permanent houses and if this fully materialises we should not have to build all these temporary houses indicated in this Bill. I am sure that the Minister is not anxious to build temporary houses if he can possibly get permanent ones with equal speed. I am convinced that we shall have to make a mighty effort to get the permanent houses no matter how long they take to build, but in addition we shall need the machine-made prefabricated houses. By getting all we can I believe we shall go a long way towards solving the post-war housing problem and it is for that reason that I support the Bill, for I believe that the Government are fully conscious of the size of the task ahead and will attack it with both vigour and skill.
  Mr. Hugh Lawson: I hope that the House will give a Second Reading to the Bill because it contains provisions and principles which are of first-class importance, though I do not think that the Portal house is the very last word in design or equipment. As so much has been said about the merits and demerits of the Portal house I do not intend to discuss it but hope to call the attention of the House to the principles of the Bill which are important. The basis of the Bill is that urgent human needs must be met by the direct action of the Government. We are aware of the necessity for the provision of houses; there is a realisation that the need is really a great one. Therefore it is logical to say that it should be made by the direct action of the Government. It should not be left to be met by private enterprise and private interest. If this principle applies to the provision of houses it should also apply in many other fields, and for the essential necessities of life. On that ground, therefore, I welcome the Bill. The Bill makes provision for the houses which are to be built to be publicly owned. Therefore these other things should, in the matter of capital equipment, be publicly owned too. I welcome this principle and would like to see it extended to the whole field of housing.
  One of the important results of the public ownership of these houses will be that the letting of them will be in the hands of the local authorities. One of the problems which has not been faced at all in the country, and which is very acute, and will be after the war, is the matter of the letting of houses. A Serviceman came home the other day and told me that he had a wife and two children who had to live in one room. He had heard of a house that was vacant and had been to see the owner of the house, who, as soon as he heard that he had two children, told him that he could not be given the tenancy of the house. That is a monstrous thing, and I submit that, if the scheme for the provision of the Portal type of house is to work, it will mean that the letting of all houses must be in the hands of public authorities.
  What is the Portal house? It is a house suitable for a family of two or three people. Therefore, if it is a house that is suitable only for a small number of people, if the scheme is to work it must be possible to have a transfer of
  140
  families from the Portal house to other dwellings as soon as the family increases. The only way I can see to meet that is to give the local authorities, who have the control and letting of the Portal house and their own council house, the right to decide which tenant shall have the tenancy of any dwelling house when it becomes vacant, as long as there is a scarcity. It seems to me that will be forced upon us, if we are to make this scheme work, and I feel that on general considerations also it is a principle we should accept—that dwelling accommodation should go to those who have most need of it. That can only be done if you have unification, and that unification must be in the hands of the public authorities.
  The third principle proposed in this Bill is that the houses should be built for a specific life and removed as soon as they have became unserviceable. In the past, houses have been allowed to outlive their usefulness. Very often they have been substantially constructed so that, after they have lasted 100 or more years, the structure is still strong while the layout and the design and the fittings are so bad that the house should be pulled down. Therefore, the permanence of the shell militates against the pulling down of these houses. So the idea that we should set a life for dwellings is a good one. I think, however, that in the Portal house there is a lot of confusion as to whether it is temporary or permanent. It is composed of materials which will last different lengths of time, according to the treatment and the painting they get. I prophesy, as other hon. Members have done, that the steel Portal house, if it is properly maintained, will last much longer than 10 years — it will last for possibly 30 or 50 years. Therefore that seems to me to be an argument in favour of building a house that is not on quite such a sub-standard basis of accommodation, particularly when it is realised that in most of the towns where these houses are to be built, when the time comes to remove them, if the worst houses of the town are removed first, you will probably have to remove 50 per cent. or more of the total number of dwellings before removing the Portal bungalow. For, when you have said everything against it, it is a very much better dwelling for a small family than many houses built before the

  141
  last war, or quite a number built before this war. So, while welcoming the principle, I suggest that the Government production of houses, the principle of the ownership of houses, should be applied to a structure on a larger standard of accommodation.
  The fourth principle I welcome is the one of mass production. The only way we can get increased production from the labour force at our disposal is by applying scientific factory methods. But why stop at making houses of steel, on a comparatively flimsy scale? Other hon. Members have pointed out that you can apply this method to manufacturing prefabricated houses of reinforced concrete and other materials. I am sure in my own mind that permanent material, such as concrete, could be used to make a prefabricated house which would be really permanent, and I do not think there would be any difference between the cost of those, and what it will cost to make this house of steel sheets. Therefore I ask the Government if this Bill cannot be so framed that it will be possible to build other types of structure than those of thin steel sheets. Surely it would not be impossible, even now, to amend this Bill in such a way that when in a few months' time the necessary technicalities can be gone into, we should be able to apply these principles to making concrete houses which would then be truly permanent. If we are to make concrete houses, there is everything to be said for increasing the size of the rooms, because we make them permanent dwellings by doing so.
  The introduction of mass production into the production of houses will create difficulties from the point of view of labour. In the main, we have had a very large amount of craftsmanship put into the production of houses, and because the craftsmen concerned have been working in a world of unemployment and competition, they have very naturally and rightly protected themselves against exploitation, and they have quite definitely reduced output—or rather they have not given the maximum output possible because they knew the alternative was more unemployment. During this war, because of the great public need, many of the things which the trade union movement have worked for in the past have been put into cold storage. If you are going to make the same appeal for the production of
  142
  houses as that we have made during the war, if you are going to ask for trade union practices to be shelved, for dilutees to come in, for a bigger proportion of unskilled labour to be used, I think you must be able to make the same appeal to the people who are to do this as has been possible during the war, that is to say: "We are asking you to let this thing, which appears to be to your immediate disadvantage, come in, because there is a real public need for it." You can only do that if the people concerned know they are working directly for the community and not for the interests of any shareholders. That leads me to the conclusion that it is logical, if we are to make this scheme work, that we should have public ownership of the factories in which these houses are going to be made.
  While welcoming mass production, it seems a pity that it should be applied only to one model of dwelling. One of the big mistakes made in house-building before the war was too much concentration on dwellings of one sort, and it seems to me that we are perpetuating that bad system. Why will not the Government agree to build three to four bedroom houses as well? Why should they restrict it to two-storey houses? Why should not this principle of factory-made dwellings be applied to terraces and to flats? It seems to me there are advantages in the combination, particularly in flats, of permanent and temporary dwellings. I do not see why you should not have either a steel or reinforced concrete frame with permanent floors in it, and fit this up with your temporary panel wall and fittings as a block of flats. Then in, say, five years time, why should you not move the temporary panelled walls and put in permanent ones on the same lay-out or, indeed, a different lay-out, if you found that the number of families of any particular type had altered. A permanent steel frame and a concrete structure, which might last for many years, might be used several times to provide flats of a different lay-out.
  I have already said that I think it logical that the factories in which these houses are to be made should pass into public ownership, and I now wish to consider this from another point of view. Little has been said by the Government about the relationship between them and the firms which are to makes these houses. There is very little analogy between this trans-

  143
  action between firms and the Government and the normal public authority when there is advertisement for tenders. In the first place, there is to be no competition. Contracts are normally on the basis of competition. Secondly, the firms which are to make these factory houses will not take any risk. They will have a guaranteed order from the Government for a good many years, particularly if this principle is to be extended as I would like to see it extended, to be the backbone of our building programme. If you are to envisage factories making houses for sale to the Government as part of our permanent policy there is every reason why they should be publicly owned and no reason why they should be privately owned. The Government can hire the brains necessary to make these houses just as well as any private firms, and can own the plant as well. Therefore, if you are to extend this business it is more economical for the Government to buy the plant than to hire it.
  That brings me to something which sums up the whole matter. The underlying principle of this Bill is that housing is a public service and, therefore, as an essential public service it is something that should be run by the public under democratic control, and not left to private enterprise and profit. So I welcome this Bill and ask for its extension. We were told by the Secretary of State for Scotland that not only are houses to be provided by the Government, but that the Government would allow local authorities to provide furniture for them at cost. Will it be just a provision which will allow local authorities to do that, or if they do not want to supply furniture at cost will people in their areas be able to get furniture at cost direct from the Government? If it is reasonable to supply furniture at cost without the intervention of hire-purchase people—who, we are told, have made profits up to 150 per cent.—why not provide soft furnishings, bedding and things of that nature, which are essential commodities, and which will be required in very large numbers? I suggest that this is another of the principles which should be extended to every article of standard equipment which will be needed inside the houses.
  Others have said that the Bill will not solve the problem, but I think it gives the Government authority to solve the
  144
  problem if they really wish to do it. I welcome the Bill, as I have said, because it contains principles which I think are right, but if it is to produce houses—and many more are needed than even the Government have said we require—there must be the same sort of drive which has been displayed in the defeat of the U-Boats and in other matters in this war. This drive will not come if we are only able to appeal to people to work harder because they are to get higher wages, but will come if we can appeal because there is an essential human need to be met. I do not think that that will come about if a few monopoly firms are engaged to do this work. If the factories in which these houses are to be built are owned by the people we shall be able to appeal to those working in them to put forward a greater effort than they would put forward merely for the shareholders of the firm. I therefore ask the Government to extend the principles contained in this Bill.
  Captain Gammans: I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton (Mr. H. Lawson) will not think it discourteous of me if I do not follow him in that very interesting field of discussion about private enterprise and State-owned factories. His contention, I gathered, is that human beings work harder if they know they are working for the State than if they are working for private individuals. I only suggest that he should consider the cost of building in the Royal Dockyards before the war as compared with what it cost to build the same ships in private yards.
  Mr. A. Edwards: What evidence is there for that? I have seen the evidence and I can say that the dockyards claim to produce much cheaper.
  Captain Gammans: I do not want to enter into that argument—
  Mr. Edwards: The figures are there.
  Captain Gammans: Not if all the costs are taken into account.
  Mr. Edwards: The hon. and gallant Gentleman himself started this. It was my business, as a member of the Select Committee on National Expenditure, to investigate these matters and I can say that there is no dockyard that will not prove its case against the hon. and gallant Member.
  Captain Gammans: I do not want to enter into that argument to-day, and on this occasion. All Members, with one exception, who have addressed the House to-day feel that such is the urgency with regard to housing that we must have some temporary houses in addition to permanent houses. The one exception to that point of view was my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell), who made a most interesting speech. He made certain statements—almost allegations—which I hope the Government will attempt to answer at the end of this Debate. My hon. Friend, who is an experienced house-builder, said he was quite convinced that it was not necessary for us to adopt temporary sub-standard houses when other methods of building, other than by using bricks, could be used, which would provide the houses of the standard we want and, what is more, in the numbers we require in a reasonable time.
  Although some of us feel that some temporary houses are necessary I do not think we can pass the Government's request for this Bill without satisfying ourselves on two points. The first point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart), when he said that he wanted to be satisfied that what the Government proposed to do by this Bill would provide the houses within a reasonable time. The second point is, surely, one of cost. I listened to the Debate on 1st August and I did not feel particularly satisfied on either of those two points, nor do I feel very much better about it after having heard the Secretary of State for Scotland to-day. On the question of costs, we have got so used to passing staggering sums of money without inquiring how the Government are going to spend them that we may get into that frame of mind in a matter of this sort where no question of security is involved. We are asked to pass £150,000,000, which is a pretty tidy sum even in these
  profligate days. What is going to be spent on a house? I asked the Minister of Health three or four months ago for an estimate of what each part of the house is going to cost—how much the steel, how much the refrigerator, etc. I asked for a specification, but I have not had any estimate of the cost at all. That is simply not good enough. If we are to spend this large sum, let us at least know on what it is to be spent. It is a large sum. It is £600 for the house itself, exclusive of the
  146
  land and of the roads and other services. If my figures are correct, the total will be not £750, as the hon. Member for East Fife said, but £800. Eight hundred pound to be spent on a house with a life of ten years is a pretty substantial sum and surely the House has to satisfy itself, before it gives the Government that money, that that is the best that they can, in fact, do.
  There is another point on which I am still not altogether happy with regard to alternatives. The right hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate rather skimmed over that. He told us that two other types of temporary house have come along since our last Debate. Are they of the same size as the Portal house? Can anyone else put up a specification and get a grant under this Bill? Can a local authority which happens to have ideas of its own apply to the Government for a temporary housing subsidy and get it, or are we in fact still confined, if not to the Portal house itself, to the size and the general lay-out of the Portal house?
  There are two technical points that I should like to raise. One is with regard to the lay-out. I do not pretend to be a technician in this matter but all my technical friends tell me that the great objection to the Portal house, from the technical point of view, is that, in fact, it is a bungalow. In other words, you are requiring 40 per cent. more ground space for a house which is 20 per cent. below the minimum standard laid down by the Ministry of Health before the war. Why is it that we are confined to a bungalow? It means stringing your houses over a very much larger area than a two-storey house while, it you want to build a two-storey house on that site afterwards, your footings are completely useless for the purpose you have in view. In other words, you have to start all over again. I cannot see how this Portal house is going to be of the slightest use to us in London, or for that matter in any large urban area. Surely we are faced with this dilemma. If we put a Portal house on a bombed site, we cannot put a permanent house on that same site. I have been all over my own borough to see where we could build these temporary houses and, as far as I call see, the only possible sites are in public parks or places of that sort or on allotments. If these temporary houses are of no use to

  147
  the London boroughs, for heaven's sake let us say so, and not lead people to believe that the housing shortage is going to be met in this way.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Preston (Captain Cobb) pointed out that, if we use pressed steel for these houses, we cannot use it for motor-cars. I agree with him that we are relying on the motor-car trade, not merely to supply the shortage in this country, but to provide us with perhaps the quickest asset to our exports. I read the other day that the makers of pressed steel do not want these orders, because it would mean that they will have to choose between making houses and making motor-cars. Surely that is something that we have to take into account. If we have to choose between motor-cars and houses, for heaven's sake choose houses, but that does not mean to say that we should not satisfy ourselves that other materials and other methods of construction cannot be used.
  Then there is the matter of time. Can we have any idea when the necessary materials can be released to get on with the houses? My right hon. and learned Friend who opened the Debate on 1st August suggested, I seem to remember, that nothing much could be done under six months after the end of the war with Germany. Surely we have to do something better than that, because the housing situation has deteriorated very seriously since then. We read of what is being done in America to get back to peace time production. They have started to make washing machines, sewing machines, gramophones and all the rest of it. There is no comparison between that and the way we have given up our industry to war needs. I hope we shall be given some assurance that there will be no delay in making an early start on these houses, even before the German war is over. Factories all over the country are turning from war production. Surely it is in this direction that priority has to be given. I am wondering, too, whether we can be told something about acquiring the sites. Surely we ought to be able to get on with preparing sites for these houses, and also for permanent houses. One suggestion I should like to make is that we should use German prisoners. I understand that in Germany our war prisoners have been and are being used to clear up bomb damage in the large cities. Why should
  148
  we not use German prisoners, at any rate to clear sites in London? They could even prepare footings, so that when the materials are ready we can go straight ahead.
  Misgivings have been voiced with regard to the organisation generally. There are too many Departments engaged in it. I have a terrible feeling that an unholy mess is going to be made of the whole housing question. We cannot look at temporary housing by itself; we have to think of it as part of the whole housing programme of the Government. The trouble, as far as I can see, is the divided responsibility. We started off with an unholy trinity of the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Works and the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. Now we have other people chipping in as well. We have Lord Woolton, who comes in in some capacity or other, and now we have Sir Trustram Eve. It seems to me that the Minister of Health is in a completely impossible position. He is responsible, but he has no control over labour or materials or land. It is difficult enough for a Government Department to get on with the job if they have control over all those factors which affect their efficiency, but when three or four other Departments come into the matter, the whole thing is bound to crash. I would suggest earnestly to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health that he has quite enough on his plate, with evacuation and with the reform of the health and hospital services, not to take on this job as well. I hope that the Government will give some consideration to setting up, at any rate temporarily, some Ministry which will have the sole responsibility for the provision of houses, both permanent and temporary.
  Mr. Cocks: In spite of the careful defence by the Secretary of State for Scotland of this Measure, his knowledge of which might he described as a temporary structure erected on a valuable central site, I do not feel that the Government can be congratulated upon the way in which they are dealing with this urgent problem both in this Bill and the previous one. The Minister of Health has told us that there is an immediate need in this country of 1,000, 000 houses. He said that in January, 1943, his Ministry was advised that they would want a long period before even the most urgent part of the problem

  149
  could be dealt with by permanent building. Instead of organising the whole productive and technical resources of this country into one gigantic effort to solve this problem, as during the war we solved the problem of rapidly building factories and aerodromes and making munitions, all they proposed was a programme in the previous Bill of 300,000 houses in the first two years and in this Bill of 250,000 temporary steel bungalows. Each bungalow will consist of sitting room, kitchen, and two bedrooms all leading out of each other and covering a ground space of 616 square feet instead of the 900 recommended by the Dudley Committee.
  The Minister of Health said in his speech that he hoped these houses would be comfortable. I think it will be very difficult to be comfortable in a living-room of 145 square feet and three draughts from the doorways, as against the 225 to 345 recommended in his own housing manual which he issued last week and sent to every one of the local authorities; or to be comfortable in a kitchen of 74 square feet as against the 90 to 100 recommended in the same publication. I doubt whether the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works would be comfortable in a bathroom measuring 7 feet 4 inches by 4 feet 6 inches, even if he left the door open and the soap outside. Such rabbit hutches as these seem to be only suitable for Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, although only Snow White and three of the dwarfs would be able to get in, and one of them would certainly be Grumpy. It seems to me remarkable that the Minister of Health should think that a house with two bedrooms is especially suitable for young married couples. He seems to date back to the Victorian age when there was a convention so narrow and so strong that you could read all the works of Dickens or Thackeray without discovering that either of them had the slightest notion that men and women, especially married ones, sometimes went to bed together.
  These houses are to last for 10 years. I can imagine during that period, to use one of the Minister's own delicate phrases, there will be several occasions when the wife will have to go to bed for a time and have the care of a baby. Yet, apart from the connubial chamber, there is only one bedroom of 125 sq. ft. in which the rising generation will be able to sleep in
  150
  restless proximity. The Government say they need larger families and have made an appeal to the country for larger families. By erecting these houses, however, they are more likely to stop child birth altogether, and instead of calling them Portal bungalows they should be dedicated to Dr. Marie Stopes. I agree with the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Sir J. Walker-Smith) that it is a criminal shame that the workers should have to do their domestic drudgery in such a confined space as in these houses, or that the soldier, the hero of Alamein, who returns from the war, should be given a petrol can to live in, even if it is adorned by climbing plants or judicious variations of colour such as the Minister of Health suggests, so that for the next 10 years he would be constantly reminded by his domestic surroundings of some features of the North African desert which he would be very pleased to forget.
  Apart from the size of the bungalows, where are these eyesores to be put? We are told that the local authorities have 250,000 acres in their possession for permanent buildings. Are these bungalows to be erected on this land or on part of it? If so, will they not stop the erection of permanent houses? In that case we shall never get the 1,000,000 houses which the Minister of Health said are necessary in the next 12 years. If the temporary houses are not to be built on the land which local authorities already possess, are they to be built on new land? In that case new land must be acquired and built on before any planning schemes are passed under the Town and Country Planning Bill. What will be the result of that? It will mean interference with planning if land is occupied by these buildings, and, as "The Times" said the other day, it will mean an enlargement of the suburban spread which we are all so anxious to avoid. We shall have a repetition of what happened at the end of the last war. Lord Astor wrote the other day to "The Times" about what happened when he was Minister of Health in the last war:
  "The prospective needs of servicemen forced us to urge local authorities and private interests to rush up buildings without previous country planning and guidance on siting. Irreparable damage was inflicted on districts and communities."
  "The Times" in a leading article said that this mistake must not be committed again. It seems to me and to many

  151
  Members that the Minister is making the same mistake in this Bill.
  In the last Debate the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin), who speaks with great authority on housing matters, pointed out conclusively that the cost of these buildings will be enormous. The construction and erection of 250,000 buildings will cost £150,000,000, but on top of that there will be the cost of the land, roads and drainage. The hon. Member for Peckham said that in the outer districts of London, if they were erected there, there would be an enormous deficit of rent of about £1 a week on every bungalow, which would fall partly on the local authorities. I imagine that the Minister of Health will explain how much of that deficit will fall on the local authorities and how much will be supplied by the Treasury. Anyhow, the loss will be there and will have to be met by the taxpayers or the ratepayers and it will have to be added to the other costs. Other Members have mentioned that these buildings, being wide, will take up more room than other houses. The result is that when they are removed and new permanent buildings occupying a narrower space are erected, more money will have to be spent on altering the sites, and the drains and things of that sort will have to be rearranged.
  I would like to mention a further matter to the Minister of Production. The Government seem to fall between two stools. They envisage a scheme of temporary bungalows in which to shelter people while more permanent buildings are being erected, yet the erection of the temporary building will block the site needed for the permanent building. It therefore seems that the bungalows are not temporary enough and that we need to put up types which can be run up more cheaply, and be more easily removed to make way for the permanent buildings. The Minister stated that there would be new designs, but why are they all to be exactly like the Portal house? Why cannot some of the new types be of a different shape, occupying not quite the same area of land? Why should we always have the same dismal design? It is not as though the design were beautiful. Why should all makers, using various materials, have to copy that plan? Everybody admits that the rooms are too small and not numerous enough. I was reading in the paper about the Tarran house of a differ-
  152
  ent kind at Hull and I understand that Mr. Hughes, the Housing Director of Manchester, has made certain improvements upon it. I saw another type of house at Birmingham to which high praise has been given. Many of us feel that the Ministry of Works is too closely wedded to the Portal type of house and is not willing to consider other varieties of construction and shape. They insist upon the particular shape being reproduced. The steel carcase of this house is to cost £175 and where the carcase is, there shall the vultures be gathered together.
  There is a disconcerting mystery surrounding the particular proposals, and it is causing some uneasiness. I hope that the Minister will be good enough to endeavour to dispel it. I would like the Ministry to set out its general requirements for different types bf houses and to ask for tenders. It is no answer for the Parliamentary Secretary to say that there are only two firms which have the organisations and the presses necessary to make 100,000 steel houses per year. In the first place, the other houses need not be of steel or the steel need not be in the same proportion. Secondly, it is not absolutely necessary for the work to be undertaken by the two big firms; it could be given out among smaller firms in different parts of the country, so long as they were able to do the work.
  Far be it from me to suggest that there is anything that savours of a financial ramp. I would be the last person to make any such suggestion about this particular Government, but I can only say that, if there was a ramp going to be proposed, this is the kind of procedure which would be adopted. There is an unfortunate resemblance. We know that certain insects resemble other insects, quite innocent insects resembling very poisonous ones. So do the Government plans resemble those other plans. I ask the Government to give further consideration to different types and a different plan.
  Mr. Molson: I am glad that the Secretary of State for Scotland was able to say to-day that the Government have approved two other types of temporary house because that does go some distance towards answering the point made by the hon. Member who last spoke. In the first day's Debate an im-

  153
  portant question was asked of the Government by the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin). He referred to the great danger that these house would consume an enormous quantity of pressed steel and he wanted assurances that the demand for pressed steel for the houses would not be allowed to interfere with the development of a vital part of our export trade. That matter was not dealt with by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works when he would up the Debate; I hope that the Minister of Production, who I understand will reply, will not fail to deal with the matter, especially as it has subsequently been raised out-of-doors by the vice-chairman of the Nuffield Organisation.
  With regard to the cost of these houses, I was at first uneasy at the idea that the production of the steel houses was to be upon a cost-plus-percentage basis, but I understand that there are only two or three firms in the country who could produce the pressed steel economically, and for that reason it would not be possible to get open tenders. Probably the greatest security for the taxpayer would be obtained under the present costing system—but perhaps the Minister of Production will deal also with that point. The hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes), in what I think the House regarded last time as a most important contribution to the Debate, expressed his anxiety about the duplicating of costs involved in the temporary houses. I believe that is part of the price that we are willing to pay, and are willing gladly to pay, in order to deal with the appalling shortage of houses that there inevitably will be, even when everything has been done to produce the maximum number of permanent and temporary houses, in the immediate aftermath of the war.
  But I would like, secondly, to ask the attention of the Minister of Production to one rather important practical aspect. The Portal house requires a large cement raft as its foundation. It is possible, with careful designing, as I think was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom), for four Portal houses to occupy approximately the same area as would subsequently be occupied by six Dudley houses, provided that there is a cement path round the six Dudley houses. I have been making
  154
  some special inquiries about this point because obviously that would be an important financial economy, and would also be a great economy in time if we could be assured that in the vast majority of cases the roads and the sewers and the foundations for Portal houses would subsequently be useful for the Dudley houses when they come to be built to take their place. That was the point that was referred to by the hon. Member for East Ham South when he drew attention to the long-fronted Portal house and the greater depth of the Dudley house. By putting two houses lengthwise, and turning the other Portal houses sideways to the road it is, I am advised, possible, with a little careful designing, for the same raft to be used as a permanent foundation for the permanent house after it has been used as a foundation for the Portal house. I hope the Minister of Production will be able to say something on that point when he replies.
  The third point is that the Minister of Health in his speech indicated that there were cases where the sites would be acquired, roads and sewers would be put in, only for temporary houses. He said:
  "… whether they are sites eventually to be used for permanent houses or sites which will be used only for these bungalows."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st August, 1944; Vol. 402, c. 1269.]
  I think that the House of Commons ought to hesitate before it agrees to a proposal under which substantial sums of money will be spent, and areas will be taken over for housing purposes, when it is intended that at the end of ten years the temporary houses shall be removed, and these roads and sewers grubbed up. I hope the Minister has no intention of doing that in any case where it can possibly be avoided.
  The fourth point arises somewhat out of the speech of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Key), who referred to the large number of houses demolished in his constituency and other parts of London by the flying bomb. I hope the Government will consider very carefully the possibility and desirability, in cases where a house has been completely demolished, of erecting a Portal house and making use of the foundation, drainage, water and gas supply which was used for the old demolished house. I believe that the Government's answer at an earlier stage was unsympathetic, but I think that as a result of the Clause under

  155
  which sites may be requisitioned it might be possible for something to be done on these lines, and there are cases, of course, where it would be possible for a second Portal house to be put on the garden of the demolished house. We have an emergency problem to deal with, and although no one will suggest that it is going to be perfect, or that a Portal house is the most desirable kind of residence, when there is every prospect that Londoners will be living this winter in ten thousand shelters we have put up, I hope the Government will do what they can to provide Portal houses.
  I hope we shall have some assurance that the Ministry of Agriculture will be more sympathetic than it has shown itself to be, at any rate in my constituency, to applications by the local authority for the possession of sites now used for agriculture in orders that roads and sewers may be put in. There are large numbers of pioneers in my constituency at the present time who have just been called up for the building service, and are now being sent out to France. It is vital that not a single man should be called up for the Army for the building service who is not absolutely essential and necessary for the prosecution of the war.
  I hope therefore I may have some answer on these points: the question of the supply of steel, the question of the duplication of costs, the possibility of using the same raft for permanent houses as for temporary houses, that we may have some assurance that the Government will not lightly acquire and develop sites for temporary houses only which are not going to be used for permanent houses, that sites in London will be requisitioned and Portal houses put down there, and that the Army and the Ministry of Agriculture will cooperate and give all the assistance they can to the Minister of Health in dealing with the urgent and pressing problem of housing.
  Mr. J. J. Lawson: My hon. Friend the Member far East Ham South (Mr. Barnes) asked at the outset of the proceedings to-day whether we would be able to deal with the London situation, as revealed by the declarations last week. We were very glad that it was agreed we should be able to deal with that subject, as some of my friends particularly wanted to ask certain questions about the arrange
  156
  ments. Most hon. Members will remember that last week an announcement was made that Sir Trustram Eve had been appointed to deal with the particular and pressing situation that had arisen in London. I do not know what other Members felt but I myself had a feeling, when I heard the announcement, and learned of certain other things that happened, that this London situation was getting so pressing that it was getting under the skin a bit. I will put it at no more than that, and one can understand that.
  My hon. Friend who has just spoken has hinted, I think, about people living in shelters. There are masses of people in this city living in very dire conditions. What they do during the day one hardly understands, but it is a question of work during the day and shelter at night. I understand that arrangements have been made whereby they are to be sheltered in Nissen huts, at the earliest possible moment. We ask these questions in connection with these temporary arrangements for housing; how long are these Nissen huts to last? Is there to be any limit to the type of family that is to be put in them? One can see that if there is not strict control very bad housing conditions could prevail under such conditions. I do not want to press it too far, but I am sure that, while the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Minister of Health wants to meet the immediate needs of the people as soon as possible, he does not want to create a new slum problem. I have sometimes wondered whether the Ministry of Labour quite know where some, at any rate; of the workers from the building industry are to be found. Last week I was asked by a man who had been directed to another industry, but whose direction had been temporarily held up because he was over 40, if I could intervene. He was a skilled building trade worker. I told him that he ought to go into that industry. He said that he would be only too pleased to go into it to help. He was on the maintenance staff of a local council, and had been doing heavy squad work in Civil Defence.
  Mr. Stephen: What industry had he been directed to?
  Mr. Lawson: Railways. That situation has arisen through no particular fault of any Department. I state the fact only in order to give a lead to the various Depart-

  157
  ments concerned. Before the outbreak of the war many local authorities had to fix up hurriedly demolition squads, heavy and light rescue brigades. Men from the building industry went into those brigades, and almost every local council engaged them, for they were the men to deal with buildings which had to be pulled down. Those squads are now being dissolved, and many of the men in them have great experience of building repair work, as well as of demolition. I do not know what has become of the flying squads that were used for repair purposes. I do not know whether they have been concentrated in London. As the House knows, it has been my business to follow up bombings in the North. I was pleased to see how the men in those squads sometimes arrived at 10 o'clock on a Sunday morning, and then worked on the roofs or around the buildings as busily as bees, hustling in order that the work of those places might go on again as soon as possible. I may be wrong but I think that some of the building trade workers who went into that kind of work have been lost sight of.
  I think that the House has shown how apprehensive it is of the present situation. It has a feeling that this temporary housing proposal is not altogether inspiring but temporary housing is so necessary that we have to accept the proposal. It is a case of the mood of the House being that it is willing to wound, but afraid, in the circumstances, to strike. That is understandable. I have seen the Portal house although not the revised version. I did not feel too happy in it. It is bright and its fittings are good. It looked quite nice with the furniture in it, but I knew for the first time when I was in it, the meaning of the word which I have often heard used but have failed to understand—"claustrophobia." The roofs are high enough. It was my lot to spend the first years of my young life and up to manhood in a very large house with a very large kitchen, in which there was a very large family. I would sooner be in a large house with a large family, than in a small house with only a couple in it. I should think that there would be no very affectionate remembrances among those who have been brought up in a house of this sort.
  Ministers speak of shortage of labour and arrears of building and all the rest They so multiply difficulties that I feel before they have finished that they hardly believe that this temporary house will be
  158
  abolished at the end of 10 years. I think that they must feel that the house will have to last more like 20 years. I shall feel certain of that, unless there is a more encouraging advance organisation of the building trade than there seems to be at present. If there are to be 4,000,000 houses built, with the shortage of labour that there is, it can be taken as a foregone conclusion that this house is going to last nearer 20 years than 10 years. But there must be shelters for those who are coming back from the front. It is lamentable that we are not in a position to hold out anything brighter for them than this house. But there is one thing I will say for it. I thought that its fittings were better than anything I had seen in any house, at any rate, that I lived in in my younger life, better than most working-class houses, and I was very pleased indeed to hear the Secretary of State for Scotland state to-day that the local authorities, under the new financial arrangements, can supply £45 worth of furniture to each house, in addition to the fittings. Anyone who knows the destruction of furniture that has taken place from bombing, and who knows anything about the parlous conditions to which young married people are reduced by lack of furniture, must appreciate that that is a very great point indeed. I hope, for my part, that the local authorities are going to take advantage of that arrangement so that they can purchase furniture direct on a large scale and supply it to the young people. Otherwise they will be subject to interests which will certainly make a racket out of supplying furniture.
  My hon. Friend the Member for East Ham South made it quite clear on the last occasion that we were not going to vote against this Bill, but we are not too happy about it. I understand that, for five years, the Ministry of Works has had a hard and heavy job putting up various factories and dealing with blitzed areas where factories had to be rebuilt. I think they have done a first-class job, but I should have been able to make a much stronger speech to-day if we had been told about the three new models which, I understand, now exist, in addition to the Portal models. I have not seen these models; I do not know where they are. I think it would be appreciated by the House if the Minister could tell us where these models can be seen, and when hon. Members might be able to see them. I

  159
  understand that they are of the same size as the other model.
  I should also like the Minister to deal with what is, to me, a very important point. It was quite clear in the Debate on the last occasion, as it has been through to-day's proceedings, that one of the things in people's minds is the danger of this situation being used for profit-making on a large scale. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House whether these three new models are by the same firms which made the other one, or whether they are by subsidiary firms of the firm which is making the Portal model.
  It is a lamentable thing that men who have been fighting our battles have to come back to a temporary house of this kind. I hope the Government are going to show much more energy and much more vision in the organisation of labour and material for the building of the 4,000,000 houses so that the men, in coming back to houses of this description, will at least realise the possibility that they will have, some day, a brick house of the kind which is regarded with affection by the bulk of the people of this country.
  Mr. Stephen: I would like to ask two questions before the Minister replies. My first question is —what is the likely rent of the Portal house? I represent a district in Glasgow in which the housing conditions are something fearful, and I discussed with some of my constituents yesterday the question whether they would like the Portal house. Their answer was, "It will depend upon the rent." There has been a rumour that the rent will be 10s. plus rates, which, in Glasgow, would work out at 16s. 6d. per week. They said that, if that was the case, they could not look at it. I would like the Minister of Production to give us some idea what the rent will be.
  My second question has already been put by another hon. Member. Will the Minister not consider giving the House some information as to the cost of the particular bits of the Portal house? I suggest also that the Government should give us a White Paper in which they should give the prices of some of these other houses which have been mentioned in the Debate to-day. I hope the Minister will be able to give us an answer to these
  160
  questions with regard to the cost of these houses. This matter is very much in the public mind, and I have heard it said that the Government are selling the Portal house on the basis of the refrigerator that is provided with it.
  The Minister of Production (Mr. Lyttelton): I think it was very marked at the beginning of the Debate to-day how many Scottish Members, and hon. Members for Scotttish constituencies, spoke, and I was very glad that that happened, because I think that, in the South of England, we, who have suffered the exceptional damage by air raids, are rather apt to forget that the problem in Scotland is no less serious but is of longer standing. We are apt to look at the things under our eyes and forget the others.
  I think the House may be surprised to find me at this Box to-day, because my duties are known to be concerned mainly with war production. Indeed, if I had been asked only a few weeks ago what contribution the munitions industry could make to the problem we are discussing to-day, I should have had to say, unhesitatingly, "None." I would like to remind the House that a short time ago, on 25th July, the American and British Armies were fighting round Caen and St. Lo. We were being "contained," to use a military phrase, by the enemy. To-day, our victorious armies have swept through the whole of France and gained a most significant success in Italy. I am not suggesting that we are any more entitled to-day to predict with any certainty the end of the war, but I am suggesting that we are entitled to adopt a new attitude of mind. Not more than that. That is why it is my task to wind up for the Government in this Debate.
  I am here because we are going to try to begin the actual production of emergency houses in a very short time, irrespective of the estimated end of the European war. We are going to begin the actual production if necessary while the war is in progress. That is an entirely new situation of which I should apprise the House at once. I must also say that, in doing that, we must act with the greatest circumspection and be sure that, in fitting the production of these emergency houses into our war machine, we do not disrupt in any way the vital war production, which is my primary responsibility. We must see that this

  161
  does not impinge upon the production of weapons which are necessary for the Fighting Forces, but I think it quite possible that we can do so in this situation in the war with very little damage to these vital things. I must say again that in doing this we shall have to act with great circumspection.
  Two things on the emergency houses have already been done. We have put in hand the ordering of the jigs and tools for the whole of the steel houses. The expenditure so far incurred is very small. The design and ordering of these have been put in hand and the House should know this, the idea being that, if we get the Bill, no time will be lost in carrying out those preliminaries. The second thing is that the ordering and design of the jigs and tools for the kitchen units, and their ancillary equipment, have also been put in hand.
  Captain Cobb: Is it the usual practice to take action of this kind before the House has sanctioned it?
  Mr. Lyttelton: The matter is one of great urgency and I ought to tell the House that these preliminary steps have been taken. As I said, the expenditure is very small and has been incurred under our war powers and I thought it necessary to say this in order to show that we are going to treat this matter, if we get the Bill, as one of great urgency.
  Mr. A. Bevan: Some months ago the Minister of Health made a statement at that Box in which he said that he had taken powers and certain steps in anticipation of the House making a decision, which the House in fact did not make. I interrupted him at that time to ask for his authority. Now we are to understand that the Government are spending public money in anticipation of the House agreeing to a certain proposal. Supposing we do not carry this Bill, will the Government then ask for indemnification because this is not covered by the war emergency powers?
  Mr. Lyttelton: Certainly, my answer to that is unequivocal. We are asking for the indulgence of the House. I mention it for that particular purpose, and if we do not get the Bill, we shall ask the House to indemnify us in this matter, if we have exceeded our war-time powers.
  Mr. Cocks: Will the jigs and tools belong to the firms or to the Government?
  Mr. Lyttelton: They will belong to the Government. The other matter is the design and ordering of the jigs and tools for the kitchen unit. That is the other matter I mentioned and that ancillary fittings have also been put in hand. There has been some delay over this because my Noble Friend, I think very wisely, has had these kitchen units broken down into sections, the object being, in this as in other fields, to secure the widest possible manufacture in different parts of the country so that not only can we spread the orders but we can save transport by getting them made locally and assembled near the site where they are to be used. As a result of these measures, if we get the Bill, we can get ahead considerably quicker than we should have been able to do otherwise.
  Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Are some of these parts being manufactured in Scotland?
  Mr. Lyttelton: When this unit is sectionalised I would expect the manufacture to take place all over these islands. Parts of it may be made in Scotland. I want to discuss for a moment the disadvantage of steel houses from a production point of view, because it has a very direct bearing upon these other types of which the House has been informed. It is not as my hon. Friend suggested the desire of the Government to become engaged in a financial ramp that has caused the fact that there are only very few firms—four or five—that have the technique, the experience and the plans to make the steel houses.
  Mr. Cocks: I did not suggest it. Far be it from me to suggest that.
  Mr. Lyttelton: I think the hon. Gentleman was in slightly ironical vein. He passed from a delightful Dickens-like humour to rather Voltairean irony, but if I have been lacking in a sense of humour in this matter I apologise. There is no ramp at all. It is not part of the Government's intention—it would be utterly foolish—to create a bottleneck in a few firms for the production of steel hulls for these houses. But it is the fact that only a few firms have the necessary qualifications and that is a great disadvantage, not only because these firms have now got a very vital task in war production to do but also because it would cause transport difficulties if we had to

  163
  concentrate the production into very few hands. That is the reason why my Noble Friend for some months before the last Debate took place, just before we rose for the Recess, pressed on with plans for other forms of construction. It may not be quite clear to the House what they are. There are three houses and my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) asked if Members could see them and where they were to be seen. They are at the Tate Gallery, and from to-morrow Members of Parliament can see them and make arrangements accordingly. Of these three houses all have passed the Burt Committee, but two only are finally cleared for production, and the third is still under consideration.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, they do not involve a steel hull and they open up a field of competition between one type of construction and another. That is a most important thing—and I want to impress most strongly on the House—that we do not want it to stop there. There is some suggestion that this is a close corporation and that the Government intend to direct their orders here or there. It is nothing of the kind. We would welcome any new devices in building construction, any new forms of house which the ingenuity of the trade or of anyone else can put up. The only thing which must be clear to the House is that the site man-hours involved in the erection of any new type must conform broadly to the site man-hours of those already in view. There is also this important matter, and this deals with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) just now, that any type of house must in the emergency period be designed so that it takes the standard fittings of the. kitchen unit. If you get that amount of standardisation plus the need for erecting the house on the same kind of area as the Portal house and at the same site man-hours, you will get a uniformity which I certainly deplore but which cannot be helped because this is an emergency measure.
  Mr. A. Bevan: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, and I apologise to the House for doing so again, but there have been some ugly rumours in circulation about this matter which ought to be cleared up. Have these specifications
  164
  been made available to the whole trade? Were they tendered? What is the cost? What financial conditions have governed these things? We do not know at all and the Government have had no authority from the House.
  Mr. Lyttelton: I think I can clear up that point very simply. There are no financial arrangements at all. The costings and the contracts with the firms who have made these three types are not by any means complete. There are no financial arrangements. All there in each case is, is the production of a single prototype which is to be shown and which, as far as the Burt Committee is concerned, has been cleared. I think this gives me an opportunity of saying something about the general affair of competition. All over the housing field, the erection of houses is to be subject to open tender but when you get to the actual building of the houses, perhaps under a patent and so forth, where there is no competition or the possibility of open tender, the Government will apply precisely the same costing system to these houses as they have applied to the munitions of war and of which they have had great experience. That is how it will be done, but I would like to emphasise that no commitments or financial arrangements have been entered into with the builders of these houses, which are merely in the experimental and demonstration stage. If we get the Bill, we shall then have to undertake the negotiation of contracts, first of all on an agreed and maximum price with the usual clause which enables the Government, after that maximum price has been fixed, to go in and ask whether it should not be reduced as the result of mass production, and whether the margin between the cost to the State and the cost to the manufacturer is a fair one. I think that deals with the point raised by my hon. Friend.
  With regard to the size of this problem, there are two great uncertainties which make estimation of the numbers which we conceive of being erected immediately very difficult. The first one is, when will the end of the European war actually take place? Secondly, how will it take place? Will there be a clean-cut issue, or is the dreadful music of war gradually going to die down? If you get a clean-cut date, and it is reasonably soon, then the estimates we make of what we can pro-

  165
  duce may be too pessimistic; but I ask the House not to press me beyond what we have already said about the numbers because there are too many uncertainties and I would feel very anxious if we went beyond what we have already said. What I would say is that these two new types enable production to begin on some scale, not a very large scale, in January next. Now that is impossible on the steel hull owing to the time that it will take to make the jigs and tools, but under the simpler construction of these new types we shall get, if we get the Bill, a certain production beginning next January which will be substantially raised in April and, as far as those types are concerned, will reach its designed peak after the middle of the year.
  Now since this housing problem has engaged the closest attention of the Government, and we regard it as probably the most urgent of all the post-war problems and the one which has to be tackled first, two things have happened. The first one is that the bomb damage in London has greatly increased the size of the problem. I am only mentioning this because I think it necessity that the House should know by a very simple illustration what this means. It means, roughly, that to repair the houses which are repairable in London we should consume something like the whole of the prewar annual production of plaster board. As the House knows, plaster board is a necessary ingredient of these temporary houses. Therefore, here is another uncertainty which I cannot resolve to-day, but we are trying to raise the production of plaster board—which is not easy—in order that the programme now upon us and the emergency housing programme can be tackled simultaneously. That is an extremely gloomy thing to have to say, but there it is.
  The other thing that has happened is encouraging. It concerns the new type of permanent house, which has been referred to by hon. Members and about which Sir George Burt has written a letter to "The Times" to-day. The figures are obviously capable of considerable revision; I hope not upwards, because they are based on the erection of only one house or, rather, a pair of flats. But if our estimates are realised, and I am hopeful that they will be, I think that this new method of construction, when
  166
  thoroughly learnt by the trade, may very well alter the balance between the needs of temporary housing and our desire to have permanent houses. I want to say, straight away, that we regard temporary houses as an absolute necessary expedient but if we can bring the man-hours and the cost of a permanent type of building down nearer to the cost of the temporary house then that is an alternative which the Government would embrace with the greatest willingness. Before I get on to many of the detailed questions which have been raised I would like to deal with one other point. The object of the emergency housing is to transfer part of the strain of house building from the building labour force to the engineering labour force. That is a contribution it can make. Of course, the erection of the houses and so forth has to be done by building labour and it is the most common of commonsense projects to use every expedient we can to relieve the strain of this problem. Aesthetically, I am not going to say anything about these temporary houses, but from a practical point of view I ask the House to support us in this matter, as being a practical contribution to this very difficult subject.
  If the House will forgive me, I must become even more than usually disjointed because a good many points have been raised by Members which I should like to attempt to answer before I sit down. I hope that the many I cannot answer in the time at my disposal will not be held against me because I assure hon. Members that I mean no discourtesy. I want to try to pick out the points which have been made by more than one Member, or which have a particular significance. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), and my hon. Friend below the Gangway, asked about the rents of these temporary houses. That is a matter which concerns local authorities and will vary from one district to another. But I can answer the point in the simplest way by saying that the general average at which we aim is 10s. a week.
  Mr. Stephen: What about rates?
  Mr. Lyttelton: That is without rates. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Preston (Captain Cobb) asked about the space taken up by the Portal house. The lay-out worked out by the Ministers of Health and Town and Country Planning, which will be circulated to local

  167
  authorities for their assistance when the Bill becomes law, shows that steel bungalows can be built at 13 to the acre in a satisfactory manner, and this compares with a normal density of 12 to the acre for two-storey houses. A bungalow, therefore, need not take up any more room than the normal council house.
  The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Key) made some very interesting remarks. I think he was mainly concerned with two points which I thought were dealt with by the Secretary of State in his opening speech. The first matter that he raised was about this temporary housing leading to an increase in the rates, something which he regarded as unfair when it was the result of enemy action. The Secretary of State said:
  "It is proposed that in the agreement there should be a provision that, if the local authority can show that in fact the rates have sustained, by reason of excessive or unremunerative costs, a greater loss than normal, the sum payable shall be adjusted further."
  We regard that as a very flexible Clause which will do much to meet the objections. There was another point about the acquisition of sites. These are the words my right hon. Friend used:
  "The Government have considered whether any further special action is required to obtain possession of sites without delay in order to ensure that the erection of bungalows will not be held up by any difficulties on this score. The need for avoiding delay will be especially important at the outset. The Government have decided to add a Clause to the Bill for sites required up to the end of 1945 which have been approved by the Minister of Health and the planning authority as suitable for the erection of bungalows. The Clause, of which notice has been given, will be based on the principle accepted by Parliament in the Unemployment (Relief Works) Act, 1920."
  The effect of that is, in short, to enable a local authority to enter into possession of the site and to negotiate the details of purchase afterwards—to enter in first and to explain afterwards.
  Mr. Quibell: I think that anomalies in rating differ between town and country. You have, in some cases, a high rateable value and a low rate; you have in others, a low rateable value and a high rate. It is the burden per week per house that matters, and in our view it will mean about 3s.
  Mr. Lyttelton: I cannot deal with that matter in a Bill on temporary housing. There is a flexible Clause here which will
  168
  go some way to relieve the special difficulties of which these cases are typical.
  Mr. Wilmot: Will the right hon. Gentleman be more explicit on this matter of the financial relations between the Government and the local authorities? Does this flexible Clause mean that the Government will meet all the excess costs falling on the local authorities over a certain datum?
  Mr. Lyttelton: The answer is that 80 per cent. will fall directly on the Exchequer over a certain datum line. The next point, which was raised by the hon. Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate), was a comparison between the man-hours on the flatted dwellings which are being shown at Northolt and the man-hours on the emergency factory-made bungalows. I can give the hon. Lady only the site man-hours. The business of estimating exactly what the factory man-hours are has not yet been done. The site man-hours for each flat—and these are only preliminary figures—are 900, and for the emergency factory made bungalow 570. My hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. J. J. Lawson) asked a question about the activities of Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve. He has a special appointment to deal with the problem created by the flying bomb. He is concerned with what really are huts. He is going to put up only 10,000 or 11,000 of them, and they are really quite outside the subject we have been discussing. They are to be erected at the Government's cost and are not to be regarded as any form of temporary houses. They are merely shelters particularly for this winter while we can get round to the matter of repairs on whatever is repairable in London. I expect that their utility will not extend beyond a year or 18 months.
  Mr. J. J. Lawson: Do I take it that that means that the huts will last only as long as the need for meeting the repairs, or will the Nissen huts last as long as the need for houses?
  Mr. Lyttelton: Certainly not.
  Mr. Lawson: They are a dangerous thing if they continue.
  Mr. Lyttelton: We cannot regard them as houses but only as shelters which are designed to alleviate the problem while repairs are being undertaken. The hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson)

  169
  raised a point touched upon by other hon. Members about the effect on the motor car trade of making pressed steel. This question does not arise because the total requirements of the pressed steel houses are about 15 per cent. of the factory capacity for making pressed steel in this country, and the motor car industry will not be stopped by meeting the necessary requirements. The hon. Member raised some very technical and interesting points with regard to the cement raft and roads and sewers, with which I will have to deal by correspondence with him as they are too technical to deal with across the Floor of the House. These are the main points which I can deal with this afternoon. Before I sit down I would like to make it quite clear that this is an expedient. We share the views of the House that where we can produce a permanent house with anything like the same man-hours as the temporary house, we should go for the permanent house. It seems to us a matter of great urgency that during the war itself we should make some contribution to what will be probably the most difficult of all our social problems.
  Mr. G. Griffiths: Have the Government definitely decided that they will not allow fewer than 50 Portal houses to be built in any part of the country? It was so stated in the Press. If that is so, some small local authorities who are in a bad fix for houses at the present time will want to know. Suppose my local authority were to put in an application for 12 Portal houses, for which they already have the land. They did not have to buy the land, which is not sufficient to be a building site for permanent houses, but is sufficient for 12 Portal houses. Will they be turned down because they are not asking for 50?
  Mr. Lyttelton: I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no such limitation.
  Mr. Griffiths: Thank you.
  Mr. A. Bevan: There is obviously not the haste that has been suggested by the Minister for getting the Second Reading of the Bill to-night, because the Government apparently pay not the slightest attention to whether they get the Bill through the House before they embark upon public expenditure. If we do not get the Bill at all this year, the Government will apparently still go on spending
  170
  public money in anticipation of getting it. That is exacty what we have been told by the Minister in answer to an interrogation of mine. The jigs, he told us, have already been supplied.
  Mr. Lyttelton: No.
  Mr. Bevan: Well, they have been ordered. A prototype will be constructed. In other words, the preparations of the Government for the construction of these houses go forward, independently of whether the Bill is passed. It is one way of doing business. It is a bit unorthodox. It means that the House of Commons has not the slightest control over the expenditure of public funds and that there is no urgency about the passing of the Bill. Indeed, I cannot understand quite where we are getting to. This is not a Bill It is just a Resolution which authorises the Government to spend no more than £150,000,000 on the provision of temporary houses. There is nothing else in the Bill.
  Mr. Colegate: That is all we want.
  Mr. Bevan: That may be all that the hon. Member wants, but I want to know what supervision we have over the expenditure of public money. I want to know how the sum of £150,000,000 is arrived at. We have only an approximate figure. We do not even know what the rents are to be. We have been told that they might work out to an average of 10s., but if rates are to be added to that 10s., in our district the total rent of a temporary house may be something like 17s. or 18s. per week. Does anybody suggest seriously that local authorities will be in a hurry to acquire temporary houses to let at rents of that sort? The hon. Member said: "that is all we want", but is there to be no relationship between the amount of money expected to be spent, and the number of houses ordered by the local authority? We do not even know how many houses the local authorities will require. Judging from the talk from many parts of the country, there are local authorities who will not have these houses at all. Surely the House of Commons cannot embark upon a scheme of this sort without first knowing to what extent the local authorities will be in favour of it? I think I can answer for my own authority. They are not going to acquire temporary steel houses to let at rents of 17s. or 18s. a week. Our people will not live in them.

  171
  I admit that the problem is exceedingly urgent, particularly in the London area, but we ought to know a little more about the ways in which the contracts are to be placed. For instance, those firms who are to have the chance of building a prototype will obviously be far ahead of other firms in the building of these houses. How are the others going to get a jig? The right hon. Gentleman said that there would be opportunity for the trade to have access to this information. How can they have access to it? It is not advertised. It is not made available to the Board of Trade. All we are told by the right hon. Gentleman is that the same supervisions are to be exercised over the production of these houses as over the production of war goods. The Select Committee on National Expenditure has reported to us that the steel masters of this country have not only been reluctant but have, on some occasions, refused to give their costs of production. How are we to know whether the money spent upon these steel houses and paid to steel firms is properly spent unless we can get information from the steel firms as to the costs of production, and we cannot get that now?
  I do not know whether the suspicions that have been aroused in the country are justified, but those suspicions will certainly be increased if the House of Commons passes powers in this slipshod fashion, without any information at all on these very grave points concerning the expenditure of public money. Then, again, the point has been made in some quarters that the prototypes which have been ordered are not the same. I would like to know whether there are several prototypes or only one. If the prototypes are to be made available fairly quickly, will all the firms who are able to make these houses be given the opportunity of having jigs?

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  The Minister of Health (Mr. Willink): I apologise for interrupting the hon. Member, but I hope he will not complain if I rise to move a Motion to suspend the Rule in order to get the Business already outlined, which the Government regard as most important. I beg to move,
  "That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."
  Mr. Bevan: Before I give way, may I inquire whether the Rule is suspended for this Business as well as the other?
  Mr. Willink indicated assent.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

  HOUSING (TEMPORARY ACCOMMO DATION) BILL
  Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  Mr. Bevan: I am not trying to be obstructive at all, but I think the House is entitled to ask that before we continue with the further stages of the Bill, certainly before we finish with the financial Clauses, a White Paper should be prepared on the financial proposals of the Bill in order that we may know a little more about what is proposed. I am certain that when it is understood in the country that the rents of these houses may be as high as has been stated to-day, local authorities everywhere will be frightened at the prospect of having to order large numbers of them. Unless we can have more details of how it is proposed that this money should be spent, the names of the firms who have been invited to produce jigs, what kind of estimates have been formed as to the cost of individual houses, and how many of these houses the local authorities have agreed to acquire, it will be necessary for us to examine the Bill in very much more detail before the Third Reading. I therefore invite the Government to let us have that White Paper at the first opportunity, in order that we may know in a little more detail what they propose to do.
  Mr. Muff: I would remind the House that when we postponed this Debate it was because there was great dissatisfaction, but also there was a tendency on the part of the Government to show that they had not got only an empty mind but an open mind. I had hoped that we could have had a fair amount of unity in the House to cope with this problem. We were thinking in terms of steel when we debated the matter a couple of months ago. I suggest that we are not now debating altogether in terms of steel, as hon. Members will see if they take a walk along Millbank tomorrow morning. There is a certain amount of urgency, and if this House rejects the

  173
  Bill, I will gladly, on the ground of urgency, put my hand into my pocket towards a flag day to indemnify the Government. We are changing our minds. What we have to do is to make up our minds, and to get rid of some of our prejudices against what we call prefabrication. In the West Riding of Yorkshire we have plenty of stone, and we like to think in terms of stone, but our friends in Scotland and Northern Ireland and other places have to think in terms of unit blocks—that is, prefabrication. [An HON. MEMBER: "We have stone in Scotland."]Then Scotland ought to use your stone. There is 25 per cent. of overcrowding in Scotland, and we want to help remove it. I have seen three of these houses—one for aged people, one for a small family, and one for a larger family—made of what I prefer to call unit blocks. Those houses will outlive steel houses by at least 15 years, and, on the same basis, will cost about £50 less for the same kind of house, but that should not prevent our trying to get a new idea by thinking in terms of chalk, wood and clay, instead of steel. Hon. Members will see that for themselves if they take a walk on Millbank to-morrow morning.
  With regard to the names of firms taking part and ready to take part, I have already a list of 22 reputable firms, some of them in Scotland, I am glad to say, who are ready to co-operate, and, if there are any patent rights attached, to waive any rights to patent fees, and put them into a common pool. In fact, if there is one positive thing I like about the present crisis with regard to building, it is that both operatives and firms have been ready to co-operate and come to the aid of the Government. There are firms all over the country, but I do not wish to mention a single one of them, though I know their names and their repute, who are ready to co-operate and guarantee 100,000 houses in one year, not of steel, but partly of cement and partly of laminated wood. The Government, I am told, have refused to consider what they call plywood, but if they will provide ten ships in order to import from British Columbia the plywood which is there, and which the British Columbian timber merchants have promised they would supply, the country would get houses at least 20 to 30 per cent. warmer in winter than steel houses. I do not rule out steel houses; I only say that, both on the operatives'
  174
  side and on the other side, co-operation is taking place, and that is why I agree with the remark of the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), "Get the signals ready for the All Clear; it is a matter of urgency." That is why I support the Second Reading of the Bill to-day; I want to get on with the job. I have a sufficiently long memory to recall what took place after the last war, and it was one of the greatest causes of the disillusionment which took place in this country and which caused people to say that we had sold the pass.
  There is one condition, and that is that every step of production must be controlled, whether we like it or not. When the right hon. Christopher Addison (as he then was) was given the task of providing 350,000 houses at £1,100 each by the Government, he was given an impossible task. He could not do it because there was no control of raw materials, but if the Government will see to it that these raw materials, from the beginning to end of production, are controlled in a proper way, just as we have already got standard units of production on the domestic side of the house, even to the refrigerator, we shall get the houses. If we waste our time in pettifogging peccadilloes we shall not get the houses but a revolution.
  Dr. Russell Thomas: May I ask one question in regard to the preparation of sites—foundations, roads, drains and so on—I will not go into that now? This is a very important part of these prefabricated houses, and I would like to have an assurance from the Government whether contracts will be put out to open tender by the local authorities or be confined to a few firms. There is an impression at present that these sites will be put into the hands of half a dozen big firms—firms which will be taken off the air runways and so on and which will still have the special machinery—many hon. Members will know the big firms I mean—largely obtained under Lend-Lease, I believe, while the smaller firms—but still firms of considerable size—will have no opportunity of tendering. I would ask whether these smaller firms will be given the opportunity of tendering and of having the special machinery directed to them which is now, in fact, as we all know, in the possession of the big firms,

  175
  and whether they will also have the skilled labour directed from those firms if need be. I think it is time the Government disposed of these somewhat disturbing and ugly rumours of monopoly in this respect which are going about.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—[Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]
  Committee to-morrow.

  HOUSING (TEMPORARY ACCOM MODATION [MONEY]
  Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 69.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for temporary housing accommodation, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient:

  A—(i) To authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of sums not exceeding one hundred and fifty million pounds to defray expenses incurred by the Minister of Works in connection with the manufacture, construction or erection of structures to be made available to housing authorities for the provision of temporary housing accommodation.

  (ii) To authorise the Treasury to raise money for the purpose of providing sums to be issued as mentioned in the preceding sub-paragraph in any manner in which they are authorised to raise money under the National Loans Act, 1939.

  (iii) To authorise the repayment into the Exchequer, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of the sums issued as aforesaid, together with interest thereon.

  (iv) To authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of sums paid into the Exchequer as mentioned in the last preceding sub-paragraph and the application of sums so issued in redemption or repayment of debt, or, in so far as they represent interest, in payment of interest otherwise payable out of the permanent annual charge for the National Debt.

  B—(i) To authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of expenses incurred in the removal of structures, fittings or materials made available to housing authorities for the provision of temporary housing accommodation.

  (ii) To authorise the payment into the Exchequer of proceeds of disposal of articles removed as mentioned in the preceding subparagraph.

  176

  C—(i) To authorise the payment into the Exchequer of sums received by the Minister of Health or the Secretary of State from housing authorities in respect of structures made available as aforesaid.

  (ii) To authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of expenses incurred by the Minister of Health or the Secretary of State in making contributions towards expenses incurred by housing authorities where land provided by them for the erection of structures to be made available as aforesaid is land of exceptionally high value."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. Willink.]

  Mr. A. Bevan: Do I understand that the Government are to insist on taking the Financial Resolution without attempting to make any reply to some of the criticisms which have been made? It seems to be a very strange procedure. The only people who are ever hurried in the preparation of legislation are Members of the House of Commons. We are expected to rush Bills, more or less through all their stages, on the same day, although Ministers have dilly-dallied and wasted months, and when Members raise certain questions we cannot even get replies. There is no hurry about this business at all. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh!"]We know that there is need for temporary housing, but there is no hurry about the Bill. I and the whole House are prepared for the Government to take certain steps, and when the time comes we shall be ready to indemnify the Government for any absolutely necessary expenditure they may have undertaken. But this ought to have been done before. These powers could have been obtained before the Recess. It is a very strange state of affairs indeed. We ought to be told far more than we have been told concerning the financial arrangements in this Financial Resolution, because the sum of £150,000,000 bears no relationship to any definite figures. We have not heard the figures and we ought to be told what they are. An hon. Friend said that raw materials ought to be costed and went on to say that we ought not to waste our time. What guarantee has he that raw materials are to be costed? None at all.
  Mr. Muff: I know that my hon. Friend is a watchdog and not a lap dog. We are here to see to it.
  Mr. Bevan: We are at the present time trying to find out what forms of costing,

  177
  what arrangements are going to be made, because obviously we are not going to have open tender. We are to have orders placed with particular films in a favoured condition and we ought to know who those firms are, what are the costings, and what steps are being taken to safeguard the public funds. Furthermore, if the cost of these houses is to bear any relationship to the rents charged for them, then people will be mulcted in higher rents in order to pay money over to private firms who ought never to have got in. Is it not our duty as Members of the House of Commons to find out whether the cost of the houses is reasonable, and whether the rents to be charged are reasonable?
  An hon. Member talked about the situation at the end of the last war. I was very familiar with the situation at the end of the last war, for I was a member of a housing committee all the time and I know what happened then and what happened in between—that rents were charged for houses which half-starved the tenants. We are now being told seriously, without any attempt to find out whether the costs are reasonable, that an average of 10s. per house is to be charged, with rates on top of it. The rents will be highest, of course, in the poorer areas, because there, as has already been pointed out, the rate table values are lower and the rate table is higher. So in poorer areas the rents are going to be anything from 17s. to 18s. a house. Will men coming home from abroad be happy at being pushed into these houses, which many of them feel are unsuitable, and charged those rents, only to find out perhaps in six months' or a year's time, when the Committee on Housing Expenditure has got to work on the matter, that the rents are hopelessly high and the cost of the houses exorbitant because the House of Commons has taken no proper steps to see that public funds are being properly spent and tendered for? If hon. Members do not want to do their job as Members of Parliament they ought to resign, but they ought not to pass Bills in this slipshod fashion. Why, after all this time, does the right hon. Gentleman inform us that another Clause is to be added? I have never known what it is to be treated in such a fashion in all my life and I have never known Parliament to be so careless about its functions. I suggest seriosuly that the Government ought not to ask for the Financial Resolu-
  178
  tion until they have provided the Committee with far more details as to the way in which this money is to be spent.
  Mr. McKinlay (Dumbartonshire): It is proposed in the Financial Resolution that when the time comes to scrap these temporary houses the scrap value should be credited to the Treasury. Is it proposed to credit the local authorities with any of the scrap value, seeing that they will be called upon to make a substantial contribution?
  Mr. John Wilmot: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman before he replies to consider again a statement which I understood him to make earlier in the Debate and which is provided for in the last Clause of this Resolution? It authorises him to make contributions to the expenses incurred by local authorities where land has proved exceptionally expensive. I understood him to say that the contribution which he had in mind was limited to 80 per cent. of that extra cost above what he regarded as the normal cost. It seems to me that this is a very unfortunate proportion, and that really the whole cost of this extra expense ought to be borne not by the local authority but by the taxpayers as a whole.
  The reason I put this to the Minister with the utmost earnestness is that the places where the maximum bomb damage has been done—the badly blitzed urban areas, the London boroughs and other places—are the very places where land will prove expensive. Therefore, it is the badly blitzed areas, particularly the urban boroughs of London, to which this applies. Great tributes have been paid by members of the Government to the courage and fortitude of the London public. It is a poor recognition of that spirit if they have to pay out of their own meagre resources—for their rateable values are sadly reduced by the bombing they have suffered—20 per cent. of this extra cost, which arises solely because of the bomb damage itself.
  The provision of these temporary houses is no part of the permanent solution of the housing problem of these boroughs. They still have to shoulder the heavy burden of rebuilding their towns, and if they have to bear 20 per cent. of the cost of expensive land in London that may well be a crushing burden on them. Surely it would be more just and equit-

  179
  able that the cost of providing this temporary accommodation, which has been occasioned entirely by enemy action, should be spread over the community as a whole, so that those who have had the good fortune to be relatively immune from bomb damage will pay a contribution towards those who have suffered most heavily. I put it to the Minister that this is a reasonable request. The Minister should meet the whole of the excess cost over the normal cost out of the national revenues. That is provided for in the Money Resolution, but it seemed to me to be limited by the statement which was made earlier to-day.
  The Minister of Health (Mr. Willink): I hope I shall be able to show the Committee that this is an urgent matter and that we are right in asking for this Financial Resolution now at the earliest possible moment. I would like to deal with one or two points which were made by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan). This preparation for reconstruction is a matter on which it would be quite normal for the Committee to approve pertain steps having been taken in advance of legislation. Most Members of the Committee went to see the first prototype house made early in the year, long before further types could be decided upon, and still longer before the cost of the houses and bungalows, to be produced at an uncertain date at the end of the war, could possibly be ascertained. There was an example of expenditure—expenditure incurred on that prototype—which could hardly be said to be incurred in the prosecution of the war.
  Mr. A. Bevan: There is no reason why the Government could not have had the permission of the House of Commons for that expenditure.
  Mr. Willink: There is a good deal of pressure on time, but if the. hon. Member is really suggesting that there should have been legislation in order to provide for the building of that prototype I think he is expressing a view with which the majority of the Committee would not be in sympathy. But it is not only with regard to production and matters of that kind that we need this Bill. I am sure the Committee will accept it from me that one of the most urgent matters is that the land to receive these bungalows, when they are produced, shall be ready,
  180
  not only acquired but serviced too. It is a Clause in the Bill as it stands, together with another Clause of which we have given notice to-day, that we desire to have operative, not for action by the Government but for action by local authorities, applying to all citizens of the country on whose land entry may be made and whose land may be acquired by the process we indicated earlier to-day.
  On those two matters there is real urgency and, in the very close consultation that I have had with local authorities on two occasions with regard to the proposals in the Bill, they have said with even greater stress, than on the financial issue:—"You must enable us to get land suitable for these bungalows at the earliest date." It is not a question of weeks, or a month, or two months, but of something like six months to survey, acquire and service sites for these bungalows. That is perhaps the most urgent matter of all. Criticism of a vigorous kind has been made that it is slipshod and shocking at this date to be introducing a new Clause. Need I really deal with such a contention as that? The Committee know that we have been in consultation with local authorities and, if the local authorities make a reasonable suggestion which appeals to us as one not adequately covered by the Bill as first drafted, is it to be said that it is an indication of incompetence that the Government intimate that they are going to move on that suggestion?
  Mr. SilvermanSurely the right hon. and learned Gentleman realises that the allegation of being slipshod arises out of the very fact that on a matter which is now urged to be of such vital importance and urgency the Minister responsible for handling this urgent problem never thought of it until after he had prepared his original Bill and consulted the local authorities. Why did he not think of it before?
  Mr. Willink: If the hon. Member is suggesting that omniscience is supposed to reside in the Government he is making a suggestion which I do not believe any of our constitutional theories support. I, as Minister of Health, am, I think, saying what all my predecessors have found, that in matters of this kind, particularly in the field of housing, which is a function of local authorities and not of the central Government, one expects to receive, and

  181
  does receive, relevant and valuable assistance from the local authorities.
  Mr. Silverman: I rise at once to rebut the charge that I ever accused the Government of omniscience. I am not doing that, but I am saying that here is a matter which ought to have been obvious, as it was to the local authorities, who will have the principal part of the job to do. They brought it to the Minister's attention, and he now agrees that it is vitally important and urgent, so that we must deal with it now. Surely it is obvious that one cannot build even temporary houses unless there is the land to put them on. The Government's handling of this part of their scheme and the necessity they find themselves under at the last moment of giving notice of a new Clause on Second Reading is a confession of complete incompetence and of slipshod handling of an urgent problem.
  Mr. Willink: I do not propose to argue the point further, except to correct the hon. Member on a question of fact. The suggestion made by the local authorities has not been found to be obvious. In fact, it has been modified as a result of discussion and another arrangement has been arrived at which will be moved tomorrow. The question of the rent to be charged for houses has never found a place in any housing legislation, as far as I am aware. The actual rent remains under this legislation, as under our housing legislation as a whole, a matter to be fixed by the local authorities. When the cost of the bungalows is uncertain, as it must be when there are four types and the date of production is still in the future, my hon. Friend's suggestion is not a reasonable one. I think the hon. Member for Kennington, (Mr. Wilmot) will agree that the point that he raises is entirely open on the Committee stage of the Bill, because everything that he urges is covered by the Financial Resolution.
  Mr. McKinlay: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not dealt with the point I raised.
  Mr. Willink: I am sorry—it was by inadvertence that I omitted to deal With my hon. Friend's point. His point was, as I remember it, that there should be some provision in the Financial Resolution and the Bill dividing in some proporton any scrap proceeds on the property. I venture to think, and I suggest to the
  182
  Committee, that that is not really a practical proposal, provided it is known that the scrap will go to one or other of the partners. It is a matter which, instead of being left to the complicated procedure of dividing the spoil in the Bill itself, will be taken into account in the arrangements made under Clause 3.
  Mr. Cocks: Before we depart from the Financial Resolution there are certain questions I would like the Minister to answer and which the Committee is entitled to have answered. We have been told that the Government have ordered jigs and tools for the manufacture of these bungalows. Can he say how many jigs and tools have been ordered or it will be expected will be ordered in the future? Are they only the jigs and tools required for the manufacture of the Portal type and not for any other? If that is the case, does it not give the Portal type a preference over other types? I understand from the Minister of Production that the Government will own the jigs and tools. Will they then have to lease them out to various firms who will pay a rent for them, and how can factories obtain them? Are there enough of these jigs to be supplied to firms other than those mentioned by the Minister? Will there be an over-plus so that other firms can make the bungalows? I would also like to ask what charge it is proposed to make to the local authorities for these bungalows? We have not been told that. If non-steel types are manufactured at a lower cost than the Portal bungalow, will they be supplied to the local authorities at a lower cost so that the local authorities will be able to charge a lower rent? If a local authority prefers a non-Portal type will it be able to get it? Finally, it is not clear yet what proportion of the cost of these things will in the end have to be borne by the local authorities and what proportion by the Treasury. These are a few little queries which I would like the Minister to answer.
  Mr. Willink: My hon. Friend rightly referred to "queries," but I doubt whether his adjective "few" or his other adjective "little" were appropriate. I can hope to answer only certain of his queries at this stage. On the question as to the extent to which local autorities will be able to make an effective choice between the three or four types that have been mentioned to-day and any further

  183
  types that may be produced after further research, the essence of the matter is to produce the maximum number of these bungalows at the earliest possible date. We propose to invite an expression of preference from every housing authority which makes a request for these bungalows. We guarantee that we shall comply to the utmost possible extent with those preferences as expressed, but if they all ask for Portal steel bungalows and we have, by that date, properly and wisely produced other types, it is obvious that they may not all be able to get what they want. We shall give them what they want so far as we can, but the allocation to any particular authority must depend upon the number produced and the types that we have available.
  With regard to the jigs and tools, I cannot answer the actual question as to how many have been ordered, but I can tell the hon. Member and the Committee that no jigs and tools, in the sense in which that phrase is properly used, are required for any of the other three types, which can be inspected by hon. Members tomorrow. They are required only for the Portal house. They are, of course, required also for the kitchen unit. So far as arrangements for supplying jigs and tools to various manufacturers are concerned, I must point out that the production side is not within my Departmental competence, and I respectfully suggest that the hon. Member and the Committee might consider this to be a point of detail which might be left over for to-day.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  HOUSING (SCOTLAND) (MONEY)
  Resolution reported:
  "That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to extend the making of contributions under Section one of the Housing Financial Provisions (Scotland) Act, 1938, as respects new housing accommodation provided by local authorities before the first day of October nineteen hundred and forty-seven and to provide for grants and advances to the housing association approved for the purposes of Section two of the aforesaid Act, it is expedient:

  (a) to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of (i) any increase in the sums payable out of such moneys under Section three of the said Act of 1938 which is attributable to the provi-
  184
  sions of the said Act of the present Session removing as respects new housing accommodation provided as aforesaid, the limitation of contributions under the said Section one to certain classes of housing accommodation and (ii) the sums required for payment of grants to the said association in accordance with the said Act of the present Session;

  (b) to authorise the Treasury to issue to the Secretary of State out of the Consolidated Fund such sums as are necessary to enable the Secretary of State to make advances to the said association in accordance with the said Act;

  (c) to authorise the Treasury, for the purpose of providing the sums to be issued under the last preceding paragraph, to raise money in any manner in which they are authorised to raise money under the National Loans Act, 1939;

  (d) to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by the Secretary of State from the said association by way of interest or repayment;

  (e) to authorise the Treasury to issue out of the Consolidated Fund sums received under the last preceding paragraph, and to apply such sums in redemption or repayment of debt or, so far as they represent interest in payment of interest, otherwise payable out of the permanent annual charge for the National Debt."

  Resolution agreed to.

  HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS in the Chair]

  HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL

    CLAUSE 1.—(Contributions to be made in respect of new housing accommodation provided by local authorities before specified date.)
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: I beg to move, in page 1, line 5, after "house," to insert:
    "including prefabricated houses built of steel or other materials which comply with recognised housing standards."
    The hour is getting late and I will confine my remarks to a few words. The chief purpose of the Bill is to extend the classes of houses eligible for housing subsidy. I want to ensure by the Amendment that those houses shall include all the various types of prefabricated house which we have been discussing to-day, and that the houses concerned shall not be confined to brick houses but shall, if you like, include the Weir house and other houses now being experimented with. I fancy I am knocking at an open door, and that the Minister will give me an assurance on the matter.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): I am assured that the Amendment is unnecessary, since the words:
    "any new house",
    mentioned in the Sub-section already embrace permanent and any number of houses of varying constructions, in steel, timber, concrete, brick or whatever it is. Moreover, the Amendment is open to the objection that it singles out prefabricated houses to the exclusion of other houses. I hope, with that assurance, that my hon. Friend will see his way to withdraw his Amendment.
    Mr. Stewart: In view of the assurance, which I accept, I gladly ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Erskine-Hill: I beg to move, in page 1, line 18, at the end, to insert:
    "and as if the expression 'working classes' meant any person or persons who depend solely or mainly for their livelihood upon their earnings."
    The object of the Amendment is to make sure that the interpretation of this Measure will not be limited, and will be wide enough to take in such people as insurance clerks, black-coated workers and others. There is no definition that I know of which is satisfactory on this phrase, although it has occurred in one or two previous Acts of Parliament relating to Scotland.
    There is, in fact, a definition which is limited to the Schedule to the Act of 1925, with which I do not think at this stage of the discussion I need weary the Committee. In any event I will say, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate I think will agree with me, that that particular definition would not have allowed to come in for the benefits a lot of those people whom I am sure it is his wish, and the wish of the Secretary of State, to bring in. Never has there been a greater demand by all sections to be allowed in, and these particular types of people will be coming back from the Forces. I do not want to see them then met with the objection, "You are not, strictly speaking, working-class people. Therefore, you cannot get the benefit of the houses which are to be set up as a result of this Measure." I hope I have made my point clear to the Committee.
    186
    I hope it may be possible to clarify the position, so that there may be no possibility of the non-inclusion of these types of people.
    Commander Galbraith: I rise to speak in support of the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Erskine-Hill). He has informed the Committee that so far as can be ascertained there is only one definition of what the words "working classes" mean. It is in the Fifth Schedule to the Scottish Housing Act of 1925, and it applies only to that Schedule. Nevertheless, as that is the only definition in existence, no doubt local authorities and others pay some attention to it, and may well be guided to a certain extent by it. I propose to base a certain amount of my argument on that definition. The definition speaks only of wage earners. I do not know whether wages and salaries are synonymous, but even then, under this definition, no man drawing a salary would receive any benefit under this Bill unless his income were not in excess of £3 a week.
    Again, I do not know whether we can say that wages and the pay that is received in the Forces are synonymous. I want to know for certain that the Forces will get the benefits to be derived from this Bill. I can conceive of many cases of men serving in the Forces to-day who might not, on a strict interpretation of "the working classes," benefit by the Bill at all. For instance, take the case of a young man from a working class home who was serving an apprenticeship before joining the Forces, who has won a commission in the field and is desirous at the conclusion of hostilities of taking up an administrative post or of starting in business for himself and working on his own account. There will be many men like that who are married and have families who may not benefit from this Bill, and at the same time may not be able to afford an unsubsidised house. Apart altogether from those who are generally included in the term "working classes" there are all kinds and conditions of people in the country who require houses. Many of them, perhaps, are worse off than members of the working class. I feel that subsidised houses should be available for every one of them. I consider that the Amendment makes the

    187
    position much clearer than it is at present. It would give the benefit of a subsidised house to anyone who earns his own livelihood and requires housing such as is envisaged under the Bill. We want houses for all, at rents which they can afford. On that consideration, I have very great pleasure in supporting the Amendment.
    Major Lloyd: Members of the Committee may have noticed that I and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) have an Amendment to Clause 3 dealing with much the same issue, and it might just as well be dealt with now, because whatever reply the Secretary of State makes to this Amendment he will probably have to make to our Amendment. The issue is: who are the working class? Nobody, so far as I know, has been able to define them. They are easily recognised, but not easily defined.
    The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): Does the hon. and gallant Member propose to make his speech on this Amendment, and not on his own Amendment later?
    Major Lloyd: I would rather like, with your permission, Mr. Williams, to see how the Amendment goes.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. and gallant Member cannot make the same speech on two Amendments.
    Major Lloyd: I would like to make my speech now.
    The Deputy-Chairman: It is usual, when a Member makes a suggestion of that sort, for the Committee to discuss the Amendments together.
    Major Lloyd: Thank you, Mr. Williams. I was hoping that the Secretary of State would be able to give a definition of the working class. There are misgivings that a number of individuals who might not feel that they were members of the working class would be left out of this Bill. Many people coming back from the war might say, "I have never looked upon myself as a member of the working class, but I do not see why I should not have a chance, all the same, to get one of these houses." Is a hard-working young doctor, setting up, under the new State scheme, in a house, with his wife, a member of
    188
    the working class? The expression is vague and unsatisfactory. I agree that we want to know where we stand. Local authorities, apparently, have the right to decide who are the working class. The local authorities are to allocate the houses. Some local authorities may define the term in one way, others in another way. What assurance have we that there will not be prejudices shown by certain local authorities on this issue—class prejudice perhaps, which I hope will not operate in Scotland, but may operate elsewhere? A phrase of this sort ought not to appear in an Act of Parliament. We want to safeguard people. It would be far better to have an income limit. That would be fair. It is because we want fair play for all that I strongly support this Amendment.
    Mr. Johnston: In the first place the Amendment, as it stands, would defeat the objects of its promoters. For example, it would exclude old age pensioners and persons in receipt of Poor Law relief. Therefore, the Government could not possibly accept this Amendment. The Object of the Amendment is to get a statutory definition of the term "working classes."
    Mr. Erskine-Hill: May I intervene for a moment? It is perfectly true to say that, on a strict reading, it would have that effect, but, surely, if the Secretary of State is willing to give effect to it, words could easily be found to carry out the meaning and intention of this Amendment.
    Mr. Johnston: If my hon. and learned Friend will permit me, I propose to say a word about some other difficulties which are in the way of accepting this Amendment. To begin with, the term "housing of the working classes" is embedded in housing legislation and has been for half-a-century at least. My hon. and learned Friend was quite correct when he said that there is only one place where an attempt has been made to define "working classes" and that was in the Schedule to the Act of 1925, where it dealt with a very limited problem of the rehousing of persons in cases of displacement. How did Parliament at that time attempt to define it? It defined it this way:
    "(e) 'Working class ' includes mechanics, artisans, labourers and others working for wages, hawkers, costermongers, persons not working for wages, but working at some trade

    189
    or handicraft without employing others, except members of their own family, and persons other than domestic servants whose income in any case does not exceed an average of three pounds a week, and the families of any such persons who may be residing with them."
    Obviously, that attempt to define "working classes" excluded large numbers of persons who may be perfectly entitled to and deserving of consideration by local authorities in the letting of a house.
    Mr. Mathers: Including the railway clerks, who have been denied houses because they were railway clerks.
    Mr. Johnston: There was only one case and that was abandoned afterwards. In only one case of which I am aware in the history of housing administration in Scotland has that question ever been raised and that was the case of a railway clerk, and afterwards the local authority abandoned its contention and permitted the railway clerk to be called a member of the working classes.
    Mr. McGovern: Did the right hon. Gentleman define the term in his book "The History of the Working Classes"?
    Mr. Johnston: I do not think I ever defined it, but most certainly I never defined it for the purpose of receiving a subsidy from public funds. Attempts have been made frequently to find a general definition, but Parliament has never accepted any of the proposed definitions as satisfactory. This was only a temporary one for a specific clause, but the difficulty of finding a satisfactory definition is indicated in the phraseology which my hon. Friends have produced for this Amendment, and I submit to them that it is beyond us, at this stage of legislation on this Bill, to define what are the working classes without doing a grave injustice to a possible large number of applicants, because every time we define we limit.
    Now, if this had been a real grievance, as apart from a theoretical one, one could have understood it. I am assured that there has been only one case in all Scotland where the issue has ever been raised, and local authorities, to the best of my knowledge and belief, have interpreted the terms literally, liberally, and with common sense during all these years. I hesitate to offer any definition of my own, and certainly any definition should be made in the general body of housing legis
    190
    lation and not confined to this Measure. am sure that no local authority in Scotland desires to exclude any bona fide applicant or any necessitous applicant—and by necessitous, I do not mean merely monetary circumstances but any applicant requiring a house and unable to get one. I am sure that no local authority in Scotland, at present conducting affairs, would seek to exclude any applicant. I, therefore, hope that, with that explanation, my hon. Friend will not seek to press the Amendment.
    Mr. Erskine-Hill: I am impressed with what the Secretary of State has said, if the meaning of the word be taken literally. It is difficult at this stage to introduce a definition, but I would ask him carefully to see, when other legislation comes forward which may contain these terms, that some effort is made to meet the particular case, and if he can give that undertaking I shall ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. Johnston: I will gladly consult my hon. and learned Friend on this matter, but I cannot give any promise of finding suitable and satisfactory words myself.
    Mr. Erskine-Hill: In view of that statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: I beg to move, in page 2, line 8, at the end, to add:
    "Provided however that any new letting regulations applied in respect of houses erected under the provisions of Sub-section (1) above shall apply to all houses at present owned or in the future to be built by local authorities."
    Again the point here is a small one, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to give me a satisfactory reply. It is plain from the Explanatory Memorandum that Clause 1 provides that houses built with the aid of the subsidy shall not be subjected to the present restriced letting condition, namely, that local authorities reserve an appropriate number of houses for occupation by low wage earners or persons not in an economic position. At present local authorities provide houses, assisted by a subsidy, for those who have lived in slums and those who are agricultural workers. The purpose of the Bill is to make such houses supported by subsidy from this House available not to these three classes alone but to all classes.

    191
    We welcome that proposal, but it raises some difficulties. Take an authority like the much maligned Fife County Council; it may possibly have deserved some strictures in the past but it has tackled this new trouble with a very progressive spirit. In the county of Fife, where new mines are being developed and where plans are laid down for the building of great new groups of houses, where populations will be invited to move, and where houses now occupied by the working classes will be left vacant, the local authority is going to be faced with the extraordinary anomaly that it may place in new houses under this Measure any person, but it can only place in evacuated houses one of three classes of the working class. That is a ridiculous anomaly. It makes a fool of the whole business, and I beg of the right hon. Gentleman to agree that it ought not to be maintained in this Bill. The purpose of the Amendment is to remove that anomaly.
    Mr. Johnston: The purpose of Clause 1 Sub-section (2) in the Bill is to free houses provided for general needs under the Bill from a condition requiring authorities to preserve an equal number of houses for low wage earners or persons in a similar economic condition. It is clear, I think, that the use of the temporary power to provide houses for general needs—this Bill is a temporary Bill—would not be facilitated if local authorities were to be limited to the choice of tenants from amongst low wage earners and persons of a like economic condition, and in catering for general needs they will have to deal by-and-large with a representative cross-section of the working-classes. Because of this extension of open subsidy for general needs—taking away from purely slum clearance and overcrowding, as is the case now, and permitting us to provide houses for young couples who may not come under either categories of slum clearance and overcrowding—this restrictive condition in the other Housing Act is not to be applied to houses provided under this Bill. It does not follow, however, that we can go back and remove from houses already provided for slum clearance and relief of overcrowding these inhibitions—they are there—or, that it should be provided for this purpose specifically in the future. The matter is one which in any event—I admit that it is one not free from difficulties—it is hardly appropriate to
    192
    consider in connection with a temporary Measure. We are providing here for houses for general needs, and it would be more appropriate to consider this question in connection with any legislation dealing with the permanent housing law. At any rate we cannot make this Act retrospective and deal with existing tenants. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will see his way not to press it further.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: I can see the points my right hon. Friend makes and the difficulty of meeting this problem in this particular Bill. I appreciate it is attended with some difficulty, although I think that might be overcome, and I do not want to press it unduly, but would my right hon. Friend give me this assurance? The operations of the local authorities in all these matters are very largely regulated by the attitude of the Department. Would my right hon. Friend instruct his Department, in view of the difficulties he himself admits, to allow the authorities very considerable discretion in these matters, and not to stick too rigidly to the law as it now is—in other words give an authority left with houses vacated by the same kind of people a fairly wide measure of discretion in filling these houses with tenants from the working classes? If my right hon. Friend can do that, I will gladly accept his own suggestion.
    Mr. Johnston: I could not answer that very difficult legal issue, as to whether a house that had once received a subsidy under a slum clearance regulation under one Act of Parliament, once it is vacated, can be used by someone who is not of the like economic class. I do not know that, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the local authorities at this moment and for some time to come are at their wits' ends to find houses for tenants and not tenants for houses. As I have already said, the point will be examined when future legislation comes before the House.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: I do not know whether that is satisfactory but obviously I shall not get any further. However, having raised the point and got my right hon. Friend to agree that it will be considered in the future, I have no alternative but to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    193
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. McKinlay: What I do not understand about this matter is why there should be restrictions to two years of the allocation of houses for ordinary requirements. I wondered whether the Bill was a temporary Measure but it is to extend the making of financial contributions. Do the Government seriously contend that they can spike one prong of this three-pronged problem in two and a half years? The only way you can give houses to young married people with one or two children is the granting of the houses for ordinary requirements. Why the Government restrict to two and a half years is beyond me. At the rate of progress we are making at the moment they will not even be started two and a half years hence. Everybody outside the Government, since 1935, knew that the 1935 Act created a difficulty by preventing local authorities from dealing with the community and acting on the assumption that when an overcrowded house became vacant it would automatically be occupied by a young married couple. As one who has had considerable practical experience in the allocation of houses, that simply does not work and never did. Here, the Government suggest that in connection with houses built from the passing of this Bill until 1947 local authorities will be freed from the obligation of imposing overcrowding and slum clearance conditions. There is a more serious implication than that. Have the Government considered what effect this will have on the preparations of local authorities in regard to the ratio of three-apartment houses to four-apartment houses in their permanent development? The three-apartment house is useless for overcrowding purposes unless you are going to use the living-room as a sleeping room and when the Government say that between the specific period mentioned local authorities will be freed from the obligation of making tests of overcrowding, I think something should be done about it.
    I cannot see why the date cannot be extended, or why the elasticity enjoyed by local authorities prior to the solution of the housing problem in 1932-33, when it was decided that the housing problem had been solved and the Wheatley Act subsidy was withdrawn, could not be restored. Is there any possibility of
    194
    extending the period whereby local authorities will not have to impose conditions with regard to overcrowding and slum clearance?
    Some authorities are under the impression that houses built under the earlier scheme, where conditions were settled, must now, if they become vacant, be allocated on the principle of over-crowding. That is not true. I am even willing to cross swords with the Department that local authorities can do what they like with houses built under the Wheatley Act and earlier Acts and, once they become vacant, they can let them to whoever they care so long as they satisfy the other conditions. I should like to have some explanation why this arbitrary date was fixed between the passing of the Act and October, 1947.
    Mr. Johnston: My hon. Friend has raised two major issues. He asks what is the virtue in the date October, 1947. The date was first of all to synchronise with a reasonable period after the estimated conclusion of the European war. It was a temporary Measure. It does not pretend to tie up innumerable difficulties and points such as the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) has raised. It was a limited Measure intended to expedite building and letting powers up to the period of October, 1947. When long-term legislation is brought in, the permanency or otherwise of the right of local authorities to let houses to classes other than slum clearance or overcrowding will have to be considered. On the legal point, as to whether a house once let to a slum clearance tenant—
    Mr. McKinlay: No. I said houses where the subsidy conditions have been fixed. I am referring to houses built under the 1923 and 1924 Acts, houses let for ordinary requirements. My complaint is that when these houses become vacant some authority superimposes on them that they can only be let to people living in overcrowded circumstances.
    Mr. Johnston: My impression is that these houses are in the general pool and can be let by local authorities to any tenant they care. I am not giving that as a carefully considered official opinion but I will look into it and communicate with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. MeKinlay: What is to be the attitude of the Department in approving layouts? Every local authority is confronted with this problem, which has three spearheads. We do not know anything about it. There are thousands of fellows coming back from the Forces who will get married. The number of married persons in Glasgow at the moment who have no accommodation, as far as the Corporation is aware, is 6,000. You could not provide for these people in the two years at your disposal and, if you lay out plans which comprise 25 per cent. three-apartment houses and 25 per cent. four-apartment houses, and for some districts you require 50 per cent. five-apartment houses, local authorities will say to themselves "If we are to allocate houses without the condition which has been imposed, we will increase the ratio of the three-apartment houses to the fours and fives." Before houses are ready for allocation, October, 1947, will have arrived, and what are you going to do about it? The number of three-apartment houses are useless to meet overcrowding. It will upset the considered plans of local authorities, and if the Government imagine that it will speed up delivery it cannot be done. The mere building of three-apartment houses will not give us any more building trade workers or material. It will not give us any more of anything. If the Government are only going to commit themselves up to the extent of what they think will be their term of office, I can understand it, but if the Government have something up their sleeve let us know about it.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 2. — (Compulsory purchase orders: temporary suspension of local inquiries.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Commander Galbraith: I want to speak against the Motion. According to the Explanatory Memorandum, this Clause is for the purpose of expediting the acquisition of land for housing. It empowers the Secretary of State to dispense with public local inquiries for two years from the passing of the Bill. I cannot see that the holding of these inquiries necessarily delays any housing programmes. The Explanatory Memorandum points out that
    196
    there was a similar provision in the Act which was introduced immediately after the last war, and the suggestion seems to be that if it was necessary then it is probably more necessary now. I want to suggest that the conditions are absolutely different. At the end of the last war there was no housing authority which had any land available for housing purposes, but to-day practically every housing authority has sufficient land on which to erect the maximum number of houses that could be erected in the first year after the war. If that be so, it appears to me that there is plenty of time available for public local inquiries to be held without delaying the housing plans and that the plea that an inquiry would delay the plans has no substance whatever. I see no reason why inquiries should be suspended even for a limited period.
    There is another aspect to which I would like to draw the attention of the Committee. Democracy, as I see it, can only function if the public take a live interest not only in national, but in local affairs. How many times do we go into our constituencies and hear the complaint that if people had only known the local authority was going to do this and that, they would have protested with all vigour? I do not think it is sufficient that there should be merely publication of the plans of the local authorities. The majority of people do not start to take notice until some objection is raised.
    It appears to me that a public local inquiry gives an opportunity for raising objections and so gives the public a chance to judge the merits of the case and enables them to make representations to the proper quarter if they see fit. The Executive of a democratic State should work in the light of day. Our local affairs should not be decided at Edinburgh before they have been publicly discussed in the localities concerned. The public ought to know exactly what the objections are to any scheme proposed by the local authority. For those reasons, I desire to move the Amendment; first of all that a public local—
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot move the Amendment, and he cannot go outside the Clause in order to refer to Amendments that he might have wished to see moved, but are just not selected.
    Commander Galbraith: There are two reasons why the Clause should not stand part of the Bill. The first is that a public local inquiry will not delay any housing programme, and the second is that the inquiry is a democratic form of procedure which has long provided a safeguard to the public.
    Mr. Erskine-Hill: I would like to add a very few words to what has been said. I entirely support what my hon. and gallant Friend has just said. The public local inquiry has played a very important part in Scottish local affairs. It is a democratic procedure and appeals to the public. I cannot see that any urgency should deprive the public of that very useful institution. I would, therefore, ask the Secretary of State to be reasonable about the matter. I know he will be, but I think he should give the matter particular consideration. All of us in Scotland are democratic at heart and we do not wish to see go an institution like this. We do not like to see anything go unless there is a strong case made out for departing, even temporarily, from the general procedure which takes place.
    Mr. Johnston: I can assure my hon. Friends that this is not a power which any Secretary of State for Scotland would willingly attract to himself. It means that a certain amount of unnecessary ill-will is occasioned. The only excuse is that it is a temporary power, specifically limited to two years, a period in which there might otherwise be great delay in the acquisition of land in some places. The hon. and gallant Member who raised this issue said that Scotland had a considerable number of sites already; that is so in Scotland as a whole, but those sites are not equally distributed. There are areas where little or no land is in possession.
    Commander Galbraith: Would the right hon. Gentleman assure us that he intends to use this power only in cases where no land is actually available?
    Mr. Johnston: My difficulty in answering that question is illustrated by one authority of which I know. It has a fair amount of land but may be obstructed in the acquisition of suitable land in other parts of its territory. I would not like to give the precise pledge for which my hon. and gallant Friend has asked. All I can say is that normally, and wherever an
    198
    inquiry would serve any Useful purpose whatever, no Secretary of State would want to withhold his consent to a public inquiry. Clearly, and I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend will agree with me about this, if there is a bona fide, clear case of obstruction, sabotage or delay, hindering the provision of houses—or the preparation for the provision of houses, which is a better way of putting it—anything that can save, as I am assured it will save, a period of up to two or three months' time will be a very valuable provision. Instances were given to me, which I have not verified, by local authorities in Scotland, which showed that the delays in acquiring land meant considerable delays in the preparation of sites in the recent bulldozer campaign. I hope that with this assurance, given by the Government, that they do not intend to use this power unreasonably, and in view of the fact that the Secretary of State can always be chipped at in this House if he does withhold his consent in any case to a public inquiry without due reason being given, the hon. and gallant Member will not persist in his objection.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Grants to Scottish Special Housing Association.)
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: I beg to move, in page 2, line 26, at the end, to insert:
    "Provided however that the local authorities in all such areas shall be entitled to share in the determination of the numbers and types of houses to be built by the Association, the selection of sites or areas for building and the selection of tenants."
    The intention of Clause 3 is to give the Secretary of State powers to direct the Special Housing Association to go into any locality he likes where he thinks the housing shortage is serious and put up in such places such houses and in such numbers as he, the Secretary of State, directs. I must confess that I do not like this proposal at all. "When this Special Housing Association first saw the light of day it was a body which was part of the Special Areas organisation, and no doubt performed a very useful function. Later it began to be a body which experimented with new types of building, and here again it did useful work. I see great possibilities in the Housing Association or some other body experimenting in

    199
    building houses in considerable numbers with the help of the Government in a way which a local authority could not, and would not, have the right to do, but the proposal in this Bill to give the Secretary of State, which means St. Andrew's House, power to send the Special Housing Association into Fife, Perthshire, Angus, at the whim of the Scottish Office, to do what the Scottish Office says, irrespective of the wishes and desires of the local authority, is, I think, taking this totalitarianism too far. I am asking in this Amendment for something which is supported by the Lanarkshire County Council, the Fife County Council, and the Association of Scottish County Councils and other bodies. I have telegrams here.
    Mr. Johnston: The County Councils' Association?
    Mr. Stewart: Yes; may I read this telegram to my right hon. Friend? When I put this Amendment down in August I received this:
    "The Association of County Councils in Scotland strongly supports your Amendment to the Housing (Scotland) Bill at the end of Clause 3. The Association also supports the Lanarkshire proposed addition to the Amendment."
    The proposed addition was:
    "Co-operation and consultation with the local authorities shall be required."
    Mr. Mathers: This Amendment is not at the end of Clause 3.
    Mr. Buchanan: But it is what they are supporting, surely.
    Mr. Stewart: I think my hon. Friend is being slightly pernickety. I am asking a very simple thing. I am asking that the local authorities in all areas to which the Secretary of State proposes to send this Association shall be entitled to share—
    "…in the determination of the numbers and types of houses to be built by the Association, the selection of sites or areas for building and the selection of tenants."
    I think that is a reasonable thing to ask. I fancy that it is the misdeeds of the Socialist Glasgow Corporation and its failure to produce the necessary houses, that have persuaded my right hon. Friend to take in somebody else and give them the power to do the job.
    Mr. Buchanan rose—
    Mr. Stewart: No, I cannot give way. Because of the misdeeds of one authority—
    Mr. Buchanan: Surely the hon. Member will give way.
    Mr. Stewart: —he should not penalise others. I move my Amendment, quite satisfied that it would meet the democratic wishes of the Scottish people.
    Mr. Buchanan: The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart) has shown himself lacking in the ordinary courtesy and decency of this House by refusing to give way. I am sorry that he showed himself in a light different from what I expected, because I always thought that he was a good Parliamentarian. I do not want to go into the question of the deeds and misdeeds of the Glasgow Corporation. I am sorry that he should have used this Amendment to bring in the question. I would not mind debating Glasgow, and its rights and wrongs, at any time, but do not let the hon. Member call in Glasgow at the tail-end of such a question as is raised in this Amendment because he has some fetish about it. The Amendment has nothing to do with Glasgow. If he wishes to have a debate on Glasgow, let him raise it on an appropriate occasion, and we will answer him. There is something to be said for the County Councils' Association. They are building houses in areas where, after all, the county councils are the responsible authorities. But I hope that, at half past seven at night, Members will not use a small Bill, which has nothing to do with Glasgow, as an occasion for hitting at the Glasgow Council.
    Mr. McKinlay: Despite the display of ignorance shown by the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart) at the tail-end of his remarks, I have a great deal of sympathy with the Amendment. I myself sent in an Amendment, which I thought was in Order, but I cannot find it on the Paper. When the Special Housing Association set up there may have been a reason for it, but I do not see why their powers should be extended. There is a very great danger that this association will supersede the local authorities. This association cannot create building trade workers or building trade materials, and, while it may be all very well for the Secretary of State to direct the association into an area where the local authority is not doing its work, I believe that the Secre-

    201
    tary of State has sufficient power without the further strengthening of this association. They made an excursion into my own division, and I have a very serious complaint. When this association invade a district they treat the local people as though they had the plague.
    There is a grave lack of collaboration between the Association and the local authorities. During our perambulations of the coalfields on the housing sub-committee, we arrived at one place where there had been a colossal waste of public money at the instigation of the Special Housing Association, and where the most appalling abortions had been erected and named houses. When we were there, I made inquiries from the local county councillor and I asked "What did this cost?" He said they did not know, as they had had nothing to do with it, nor had they accepted designs or provided the sites. These people just came and then went. I put a Question in this House five years after the houses had been completed and before the figures were disclosed, and, if I may say so again, it was a colossal waste of public money. The houses were not worth the money. As a matter of fact, I understand that one of the blocks they built was burned down shortly after it was erected, but that was not the fault of the Association.
    Why extend the powers of this body? They cannot produce a single extra house which could not be produced by a local authority, and I am too good a local authority man to want to see that special association coming in to supersede the local authority. If a local authority is lacking in its duty, then the central Government has the power—or should get the power—to call it to book. This is a very dangerous thing. They are going to be indemnified against extra cost. They will get more money out of this business than even the local authorities. It is a bad thing—these special concessions to this special association. It should either exist on a competitive basis—and the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) will agree with me here—or not exist at all. If they existed for the purpose of experimental work, possibly that could be justified, but I understand that there have been murmurs from some districts that even the experiments have not been too successful.
    The principle is still the same. I do not think any nominated body has any
    202
    right to spend public money, when the responsibility for housing people in Scotland at the moment is the responsibility of the local authority. The Housing Association has been in my own division. I was asked on Thursday night if I thought 9s. 2d. a week a reasonable rent for a house that was always damp. This is one of the special Housing Association's houses. I never answered, because I had not visited the houses. What did they do in Leven Vale and other districts? They have not done anything in Dalmuir or Clydebank the local authority could not have done. They get facilities to supply men and materials that were denied to other people. I think we ought to walk very warily in strengthening the position of this Association.
    I will deal with the hon. Member for East Fife and the misdeeds of Glasgow at some other time. I know something about that and the hon. Member does not. I will take it from the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok, but not from the hon. Member for East Fife. I hope the Secretary of State will give us some assurance that, when this Association is going into a local authority area, at least there will be the closest consultation on questions of how the houses are to be allocated. It is quite easy for a town councillor or a county councillor to say, "Do not blame me if you do not get a house under that scheme. It was a special Housing Association scheme and we have nothing to do with it. You had better write to St. Andrew's House in Edinburgh." We should walk very warily before we extend the powers of this Association.
    Mr. McKie: I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to indicate that he is at all events in sympathy with the principle behind the Amendment. There is a considerable amount of feeling among county councils in Scotland with regard to this matter, and only yesterday I was talking to the clerks of the county councils within my very large constituency and they both expressed themselves as very much in sympathy with the principle of the Amendment which was to have been moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay) and which, I understand, was unfortunately, not in time to be placed upon the Order Paper. There is no

    203
    doubt, and the Secretary of State must realise it too, that the county councils are very conscious of the powers which have been given, and which perhaps are going to be given by this Measure, to housing associations. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to say something to allay our feelings on the matter.
    Mr. Johnston: On the somewhat precise allegations made by the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay) I have no information. I have no notice of those allegations and, therefore, I am not in a position to reply, but this much I can say. I personally consulted the Association of County Councils, the Association of Cities and the Convention of Burghs on this matter, and I know personally that there is strong support—I do not say that it is unanimous, in view of what my hon. Friend has said, and it is known that there are difficulties—for a Government organisation, a non-profit making organisation working with Government money, to go into hard-hit areas and build houses, and break down, where they exist or are suspected of existing, contractors' rings and prices, and to act as Government agents in the national interest. They are disinterested public men who are only acting in the public interest.
    I would say on the precise Amendment which has been moved that most explicit assurances have already been given to the county councils, the burghs and the cities, that in no case would the Association go into an area of a local authority without that authority's knowledge and concurrence. The trouble at the moment is that there are more requests from local authorities for aid than otherwise.
    Mr. McKinlay: What does the right hon. Gentleman actually mean by "aid"?
    Mr. Johnston: We had authority to build houses in 1943 and 1944. There are areas, county council areas too, where they have not yet got the acceptance of contracts although a year and a half has elapsed. I have had requests from areas to come in and help, and I can conceive of no more potent weapon that a Government or a State could have than to have an all-party non-profit making organisation willing to go in to help areas which are temporarily in difficulties of that kind.
    204
    As to the precise terms of this Amendment, may I say that no housing association could go into a local authority's area and build houses without the knowledge of a local authority. The local authority is in command of the water supplies, the local authority is in command of the drains, the local authority have all the information about it. But the last thing the association want to do is to quarrel with the local authorities—indeed they want to assist the local authorities. I am perfectly certain that there is the greatest goodwill towards those associations from over nine-tenths— I will put it as high as that—of the local authorities in Scotland to-day.
    As for giving the local authorities the right to say what numbers of houses are to be built and in what areas, may I put this to the Committee: it would defeat the whole aim and object of this Bill if there is to be a sort of Dutch auction, or competition, or struggle with the wealthier areas like Edinburgh, who have no rating difficulties at all. If it is to be a struggle for areas to get their fair whack as against other and more needy areas, then the whole purpose of this Measure is defeated. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member who moved this Amendment will not pursue it. I will give him this assurance, that in no case whatever will the Housing Association go into any area unless with the concurrence of the local authority concerned. I repeat that I am amazed to find that there is any opposition or criticism, because I have seen personally all local authority associations on this matter and I had no hint whatever and have had none yet—except what I have heard today—that there is the slightest difficulty in the minds of any local authorities in the matter.
    Mr. Thomas Fraser: The Secretary of State said that a housing association could never go into a county council area or a local authority's area without the knowledge of the local authority, and he seemed to me to say a little earlier that it could not go in without having some consultation with the local authority. Could he give us an assurance that the association will always have some consultation with the local authority about the type of houses to be erected? The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay) mentioned the Lanarkshire scheme as giving some cause for

    205
    concern. The Secretary of State must know that the association completed about 100 houses in Lanarkshire something like six months ago, and those houses are becoming very near to being uninhabitable to-day. Whenever it rains, the rain runs straight through and across the floor of all these houses. I understand that the tenants and people living in that part of Lanarkshire protested to the local authority, who, I understand, blamed the Special Housing Association which, in turn, I am led to understand, have passed on the blame to the Ministry of Works because the houses were built to their specification. It seems to me regrettable that there should be this "passing of the buck," and, in my submission, at least some responsibility for the type of houses should always lie with the authority that is nearest to the people. With all due respect I suggest that the local authority should at all times accept some responsibility for the housing of people if that housing is to be done from public funds. I hope my right hon. Friend can give some undertaking that there will be some consultation with local authorities with regard to type and so on before any scheme is proceeded with by the association.
    Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I had intended to raise the point which has been raised by my hon. Friend behind me on the Motion that the Clause should stand part of the Bill but as it has been raised it will probably save time if I say a few words about it now. I think it is evident that in some parts of Scotland houses have been built by the Scottish Special Housing Association which have not come up to standard. The point I wanted to put to the Secretary of State is this: Has he or any local authority any say as to standard and if houses are built by the association which do not come up to standard, which are faulty, who is the person who is going to call them to book? Someone ought to have the power and if it is not the local authority is it my right hon. Friend himself?
    Mr. Johnston: As I have already said, as regards precise instances or criticisms of the Housing Association's efforts I cannot speak to-day except to say that happened to see in the Press that there were complaints by Lanarkshire tenants about Maycrete houses, a new type of construction with which the Housing Association were urged to experiment. I
    206
    do not blame them at all for experimenting with anything and everything that technical experts and other Departments say should be experimented with; there must be trial and error. I believe that is now being remedied. On the point raised as to whether there will be consultation, whether there is consultation, and, if so, is it effective, I think the answer is generally "Yes." The Housing Association tries to raise the standard, tries to do the best it can with materials and labour which are not always adequate in war-time. As to whether local authorities give their concurrence to the Association before there is any building, I would like to give the most affirmative answer on that. There may have been a "slip-up" somewhere, but I cannot imagine the Association going to Lanarkshire, Dumbartonshire or any other county where water supplies and drainage are owned by the local authority, without the local authority knowing all about it and without having approved of the plan. But if any case is brought to my attention I will see that it is taken up forthwith with the Housing Association.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: I am reluctant to prolong this Debate but with respect my right hon. Friend has not answered the case I made, or dealt with my Amendment. I will present him with the telegram I received from the County Councils Association dated 1st August. I present that telegram to my right hon. Friend now. He may have seen the Association since that and have exercised his usual charm. My right hon. Friend wants to persuade us that this Special Housing Association would never do anything wrong, harmful or disagreeable but I would read the words of the Clause. They provide that the Secretary of State should make to the Association
    "payments in respect of such number of houses provided by the Association in such areas as he may determine."
    It is these words in this proposed Act of Parliament to which I object, and nothing that the right hon. Gentleman has said alters my objection in any way, is giving the central authority power to step over the local authorities in the exercise of one of their most cherished and most important functions, the housing of the people in their area. It is not enough to say it means that you must not leave it as a scramble for a number of houses,

    207
    and therefore money, as between rich Edinburgh and poor somewhere else.
    There is the question of sites. I want an assurance that the question of sites shall be discussed with the local authorities before the right hon. Gentleman issues any directions to any outside body. It is intolerable for the Scottish Office, no matter how sympathetic the Secretary of State for the time may be, to have power to say to an outside body, "Go and build houses in that part of Lanarkshire without any necessary agreement with the Lanarkshire County Council." It is intolerable that the Scottish Office in effect shall select tenants to go into houses irrespective of the wishes of the local authority. I am not suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman or the Under-Secretary would do that, though the higher the Under-Secretary rises the less he seems to remember his own local authority associations and loyalties. I am surprised that the Under-Secretary should be supporting a Measure of this kind, he who has stood so strongly for local authority privileges and rights in the past. It is the words of the Bill to which I object and, unless the right hon. Gentleman can give me an assurance that he will reconsider this before the next stage of the Bill, I shall have to divide the Committee.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Scottish Special Housing Association may adopt Local Government Superannuation (Scotland) Act.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. McKinlay: I think this Clause pretty well gives the whole show away. The difficulty of securing staff because of the lack of superannuation conditions seems to suggest that the staff best qualified to deal with this matter is drawn mainly from the service of local authorities, and a competent person in the service of a local authority who has had experience of housing administration would think twice before going into the service of this body. They would not be even temporary civil servants. The body exists, I suppose, with the good will of
    208
    the Secretary of State for the time being. If I were a superannuated official of a local authority with technical knowledge of house building or of the administration of housing I do not know that they could induce me to go into the service and thereby sacrifice the superannuation that I had already contributed.
    I am sorry the Committee is so thin because I intended taking this to a Division. When is a local authority not a local authority? When it is the Scottish Housing Association. I cannot understand how you can possibly link up this Association with the local government superannuation scheme. I could see the sense of the Minister saying, "This thing has come to stay and the full-time staff will assume the status of temporary civil servants, or even permanent civil servants if those who are permanent would permit such a change taking place without their passing the necessary examinations." While it may be desirable to attract the best people, it is more than desirable that we should get an explanation. If this is not part of an organisation created for the purpose of superseding the local authority in some of its functions, I do not see any reason why a modified scheme under the Local Government Superannuation Act should be applied to it at all. I feel very sore about this Clause. This is not a new attitude. If you look at the evidence of the Whitson Committee which sat in 1934, you will find that there were devil's advocates determined to advocate taking the building and the letting of houses out of the hands of the local authorities and giving them to housing associations. No wonder I am suspicious, and I should like my right hon. Friend to give a little more information on this Clause.
    Mr. Johnston: The Clause seems to me to be a perfectly simple one. It enables the Scottish Special Housing Association to adopt the Superannuation Act and make provision for its employees. There are not many employees now, but there may be more in the difficult times in front of us. This provision has no sinister purpose behind it. There is no attempt to undermine local authorities. At every stage in this Measure local authorities have been consulted, and I can assure my hon. Friend that the very able ex-town clerk who resigned his office to assist here and the other officers who are run-

    209
    ning the Special Housing Association have no ulterior motives whatever. There is no attempt on anybody's part to undermine the authority of local authorities. I repeat that this is an extra weapon in the hands of the Government for the purpose of aiding local authorities who are in difficult housing areas to augment their housing provision, and, as far as I know, it is welcomed by people in every sphere of local Government in Scotland. This Clause was designed simply to provide for the officials and staffs, such as they are, of this Association.
    Mr. McKinlay: It is seldom I annoy the Front Bench, but I am just feeling like it at the moment. Can we have an occasion during any stage of the Bill to discuss this matter? I cannot understand why the Local Government Superannuation Act should have been seized on for this purpose. It may be that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate is satisfied that you can apply
    210
    the Local Government Superannuation Act to a body which is not a local government body.
    If I can have an assurance that, during the further stages of the Bill, we shall have some information on what the modifications are likely to be, I am sure there will be no further trouble from this quarter. I am annoyed about the extension of the Local Government Superannuation Scheme to the officers of this association, because it is neither local nor an association. As a matter of fact, by its constitution, it can almost be disowned by the Government themselves. We are entitled to a little more information than we have had.
    Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and, 40 Members not being present, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER resumed the Chair; House counted, and, 40 Members not being present, the House was adjourned.

  FRANCE (FOOD IMPORTS)
  FRANCE (FOOD IMPORTS)
  INDIA (UNITED STATES ENVOY'S REPORT)
  INDIA (UNITED STATES ENVOY'S REPORT)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Bathing Facilities
  Bathing Facilities
  Religious Films
  Religious Films
  CIVIL AVIATION (BRITISH POLICY)
  CIVIL AVIATION (BRITISH POLICY)
  HARVEST (RESULTS AND PROSPECTS)
  HARVEST (RESULTS AND PROSPECTS)
SCOTLAND
  Glasgow Schools (Essay Competition)
  Glasgow Schools (Essay Competition)
  Housing (Camlachie Division)
  Housing (Camlachie Division)
  Machinery of Government
  Machinery of Government
  Education (Scotland) Bill
  Education (Scotland) Bill
  Miners (Prosecutions, Edinburgh)
  Miners (Prosecutions, Edinburgh)
  LIGHTING RESTRICTIONS
  LIGHTING RESTRICTIONS
  SHOPS (HOURS)
  SHOPS (HOURS)
  EMERGENCY POWERS (REGULATION 16A)
  EMERGENCY POWERS (REGULATION 16A)
  DEMOBILISATION
  DEMOBILISATION
  CIVIL DEFENCE SERVICES (WEL FARE OFFICERS)
  CIVIL DEFENCE SERVICES (WEL FARE OFFICERS)
  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE (BRITISH OFFICERS, INDIA)
  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE (BRITISH OFFICERS, INDIA)
  WAR DECORATIONS AND MEDALS
  WAR DECORATIONS AND MEDALS
NATIONAL WAR EFFORT
  Lady Teacher (Employment)
  Lady Teacher (Employment)
  Employers and Workpeople (Prosecutions)
  Employers and Workpeople (Prosecutions)
  PENSIONS AND GRANTS
  PENSIONS AND GRANTS
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Combs
  Combs
  France (Trading Prospects)
  France (Trading Prospects)
  Port of London (Shipping Tonnage)
  Port of London (Shipping Tonnage)
  Fly Spray (D.D.T.)
  Fly Spray (D.D.T.)
  Bulbs (Prices)
  Bulbs (Prices)
  Manufactured Paper (Exports)
  Manufactured Paper (Exports)
  Furniture (Maximum Price Orders)
  Furniture (Maximum Price Orders)
  ROAD TRAFFIC (SPEED LIMIT)
  ROAD TRAFFIC (SPEED LIMIT)
BRITISH ARMY
  Enlistment (Gunner Curtiss)
  Enlistment (Gunner Curtiss)
  Miners (Demobilisation)
  Miners (Demobilisation)
  Bomb Disposal Units
  Bomb Disposal Units
  Auxiliary Territorial Service
  Auxiliary Territorial Service
  Wounded Soldiers (Hospitals, Location)
  Wounded Soldiers (Hospitals, Location)
  Home Guard
  Home Guard
  Tanks
  Tanks
  Pay {South-East Asia Command)
  Pay {South-East Asia Command)
  SERVICE PAY AND ALLOWANCES
  SERVICE PAY AND ALLOWANCES
  ESCAPED PRISONERS OF WAR (CREDITS, REFUND)
  ESCAPED PRISONERS OF WAR (CREDITS, REFUND)
  PRISONERS OF WAR
  PRISONERS OF WAR
  RUDOLF HESS
  RUDOLF HESS
  RICHMOND COLLEGE (REPAIRS)
  RICHMOND COLLEGE (REPAIRS)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  United Kingdom and United States (Double Income Tax)
  United Kingdom and United States (Double Income Tax)
  Income Tax (Farmers' Assessments)
  Income Tax (Farmers' Assessments)
  INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND
  INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND
  EIRE (DEBTS TO GERMANS)
  EIRE (DEBTS TO GERMANS)
  ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORY (EXPLOSION)
  ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORY (EXPLOSION)
POST OFFICE
  Postal Rates
  Postal Rates
  Telephone Service
  Telephone Service
  WAR DAMAGE COMMISSION (PAYMENTS)
  WAR DAMAGE COMMISSION (PAYMENTS)
  CIVIL SERVICE (POST-WAR RECRUITMENT)
  CIVIL SERVICE (POST-WAR RECRUITMENT)
  EVACUATION
  EVACUATION
  WAR DAMAGE (COUNTY COUNCIL PRECEPTS)
  WAR DAMAGE (COUNTY COUNCIL PRECEPTS)
  MASS RADIOGRAPHY APPARATUS
  MASS RADIOGRAPHY APPARATUS
HOUSING
  Development Work
  Development Work
  Buildings (Conversion)
  Buildings (Conversion)
  HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION (LONDON)
  HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION (LONDON)
  MOTOR DRIVING LICENCES
  MOTOR DRIVING LICENCES
  CEYLON (CONSTITUTION)
  CEYLON (CONSTITUTION)
  PALESTINE (TERRORIST OUT RAGES)
  PALESTINE (TERRORIST OUT RAGES)
  SEVERN BARRAGE COMMITTEE (REPORT)
  SEVERN BARRAGE COMMITTEE (REPORT)
COAL INDUSTRY
  Pneumoconiosis (South Wales)
  Pneumoconiosis (South Wales)
  Anthracite (Export to Italy)
  Anthracite (Export to Italy)
  Domestic Supplies
  Domestic Supplies
  Coal Commission (Chairman's Salary)
  Coal Commission (Chairman's Salary)
  Coalmines (Absenteeism)
  Coalmines (Absenteeism)
  Price Changes (Announcements)
  Price Changes (Announcements)
  Prices and Wages
  Prices and Wages
  PETROL RATIONING
  PETROL RATIONING
  DOMESTIC HEATING (GAS AND ELECTRICITY)
  DOMESTIC HEATING (GAS AND ELECTRICITY)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Canada (Beef Contract)
  Canada (Beef Contract)
  Sugar Allowance (Beekeepers)
  Sugar Allowance (Beekeepers)
  Essential Oils
  Essential Oils
  EDUCATION (ROAD SAFETY TRAINING)
  EDUCATION (ROAD SAFETY TRAINING)
Preamble
Reassembling after the Summer Recess, the House met at two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers.

  THE LATE LORD HARDINGE OF PENSHURST.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE(Lord Cecil): My Lords, since I last had the opportunity of speaking to your Lordships this House has suffered a grievous loss by the death of one of its most eminent and respected members, Lord Hardinge of Penshurst. There can rarely, I think, have been a servant of the Crown whose career in the variety of its distinction can compare with that of Lord Hardinge. Permanent Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Ambassador at St. Petersburg and at Paris, Viceroy of India—any one of these positions would have entitled him to be regarded as a successful man; but he occupied all these high positions, and occupied them with equal advantage to his country.
  What was the secret of his great record of achievement? He had, of course, outstanding ability, but I think that he had more than that. He had to a pre-eminent degree those attributes of courage, insight, and shrewd common sense which are the essential qualities of a statesman, and which indeed separate a statesman from the lower categories of officials and politicians. He was in the fullest sense of the word a wise man. Everybody respected him and everybody trusted him. During the later years of his life, when he had retired from active public life and his health was failing, he was still constant in his attendance in your Lordships' House. He did not take a prominent part in our debates; I think we all often wished that he would speak more, for we had so much to learn from his wisdom and experience. But there can be no one who had the opportunity of talking with him who did not come away strengthened by his serenity and courage.
  116
  A long life such as his was bound to bring him personal losses and sorrow. These losses he bore with characteristic fortitude. Nor did he allow increasing infirmity to interfere with his enjoyment of life and his interest in men and affairs, which he retained to the very end. He was a great Englishman, and I know that your Lordships will wish me to express your deep sympathy with his family on a loss which is not only theirs but the country's as well.
  LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I should like, in association with my noble friends, to join with the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, in his tribute to Lord Hardinge. There are few men in our time who have held a greater succession of high and responsible offices. I remember that Lord Hardinge, who for a time was Ambassador in Paris, was one of the representatives who assisted our Mission at Versailles at the end of the last war. I was not one of those who had the honour of personal association to any considerable extent with him, but I must say that I greatly admired the fortitude he showed in his attendance, even in his later years, at the debates in this House, which he attended with remarkable regularity. He was, I think, one of those great Englishmen to whom this Empire owes more than it is easy to assess, because his example of rectitude and patience inspired that respect by which the allegiance of all parts of our Empire is maintained. Looking through the list of Lord Hardinge's appointments, I realized that he must have acquired an unusual experience of men and affairs in a very intimate degree. One cannot but feel a certain regret that the crystallized experience of men of his character is not more available than it is for our guidance and help. I am quite sure that the tribute which the noble Viscount has paid is one in which every one of us will be anxious to join, with deep respect.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, the noble Lords who sit on these Benches desire to associate themselves with the tributes which have been paid by the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition to Lord Hardinge, whose illustrious career has been outlined by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. Lord Hardinge entered the diplomatic service as long ago as the year 1880 and until comparatively recent years he occupied a

  117
  succession of high offices in the service of the State. The most eminent of them was that of Viceroy of India in the years 1910 to 1916—years of great difficulty and indeed of peril, of which he himself had personal experience. In this House, where he was so regular an attendant, it was in the Indian debates perhaps that he took the greatest interest of all. This House and the nation will be grateful to one who for so many years rendered such distinguished public service with ability, authority and success.

THE LATE AIR CHIEF MARSHAL SIR WILLIAM MITCHELL.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, since the House last assembled, your Lordships will have been grieved to learn of the sudden death of a distinguished and important official of the House, Air Chief Marshal Sir William Mitchell, who for the last three years has held the post of Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod. Sir William was the first representative of the Air Force to hold this position, as it had previously been occupied either by a distinguished soldier or a distinguished sailor. His association with the Air Force went back to the very beginnings of the Royal Flying Corps; he gained his certificate as a qualified pilot in the summer of 1913; and when, at the outbreak of the last war, the four squadrons of the original Air Force went to France, he took part in No. 4 Squadron. By 1916 he was commanding a newly-raised squadron in the Battle of the Somme. In 1917 he was promoted to become what would now be called a Wing Commander, and served in the Battle of Arras, where he gained his D.S.O., and he rendered eminent flying service in various capacities right through the war.
Between the wars Sir William had a most distinguished career in India and at Aden and then, in 1933, he became Commandant of the newly-formed R.A.F. College at Cranbrook. His service in the Air Force carried him to the position of Inspector-General, which he held until his appointment three years ago to official service in connexion with this House. Although his services as Black Rod were so regrettably short, Sir William Mitchell had impressed us all with his attention to duty, his dignified bearing and his in-
118
variable courtesy. We sincerely deplore the loss of the official and friend who was always ready to be kind and helpful in arranging for the accommodation of visitors and in other ways, and who has now passed from the world at the early age of fifty-six. Your Lordships will, I feel sure, wish that a message of condolence and sympathy should be sent to his widow and his relatives.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I should like, on behalf of my noble friends to support the suggestion made by the noble and learned Viscount. It was not my good fortune, as it was if the noble Viscount sitting beyond the Gangway just below me (Lord Trenchard), to know at first hand the record of he service in the Air Force of one for whose loss we express our regret to-day, bit I do know that all my friends feel that we received from him constant and tactful helpfulness. We should like to testify how much we appreciated the ability and kindliness with which he discharged his duty to this House, and to associate ourselves with what the noble and learned Viscount has said.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, in every quarter of the House the sudden and unexpected death of our late Black Rod is deeply regretted. After many years in the highest posts of the Royal Air Force, Sir William Mitchell entered the service of this House, and it is pleasant to think that one of the Houses of the Imperial Parliament should have had as one of its principal officers a man who was Australian born. All of us have had experience on many occasions of his helpfulness and courtesy, and we all join in the expression of sympathy which the Lord Chancellor has proposed to send to his relatives.

THE LATE LORD ARUNDELL OF WARDOUR.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, I regret to have to announce to your Lordships the death of Lord Arundell of Wardour, who was wounded and taken prisoner at Dunkirk, and has died at Chester Military Hospital after repatriation. I am sure the House will join me in expressing sympathy with his relatives.

THE STATUTORY LIST
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I desire to ask a question of which I have given private notice—namely, whether the Government can make any statement as to the continuance of the Statutory List, the Black List, after the defeat of Germany.
THE MINISTER OF ECONOMIC WARFARE (THE EARL OF SELBORNE): My Lords, His Majesty's Government, after consultation with the Governments of the Dominions and India, have decided to retain the Statutory List for a period after the cessation of organized resistance in Germany. This will be necessary in order that the Allies may be able to retain their control over German commercial, industrial and financial enterprises outside Germany in the transitional period while effective Allied control machinery within Germany is being established. The List will also be necessary in order to identify and maintain control over persons who have acted, or are suspected of acting, as cloaks for German property abroad, and those who have assisted Germans to dispose of property looted from occupied territory. Moreover, certain neutrals who have gone out of their way to assist Germany during the war will be retained on the list in order that they may be clearly identified as enemies of the United Nations. Finally the list will be used in connexion with the further prosecution of the war against Japan.
It will obviously be possible to reduce the number of names on the Statutory List in certain countries more rapidly than in others, particularly in those cases where the Governments of the countries concerned have taken adequate measures to control enemy interests. His Majesty's Government hope that they will receive the co-operation of all Allied and friendly Governments in the execution of this policy. I understand that the Government of the United States have made a similar decision with regard to the continuation of the Proclaimed List, which is the counterpart of the British Statutory List.

OCCUPATION OF GERMANY.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, we now come to the main business on the Paper. As your Lordships know, there
120
are two Motions down, one in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, and the other in the name of the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Chichester. They are of course by no means identical in terms, but they both deal with a certain aspect of international affairs, notably the occupation of Germany. I therefore think it will probably be to the convenience of the House if we take these two Motions together, and I understand that this course is agreeable to the noble Lord and the right reverend Prelate.
LORD VANSITTART LORD VANSITTART rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether the occupation of Germany will be undertaken by all the Allied Powers and not merely by the three great Powers; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, Hitler often said that he would settle history for a thousand years of German supremacy. I think most of us, on a much more modest computation, would be prepared to compound for one hundred years of German humility—the quality no German has ever known or shown. Indeed in the last analysis, for the sheer lack of it, they have plunged the world into two terrible wars. After the first war they had ample opportunity, and indeed every reason, to learn this saving grace, but they would have none of it. Deliberately and intentionally they turned away and became again inflated—a nation of swollen heads and swollen souls that must be deflated lest they inflict a third war on us. Some are born humble, some achieve humility, others have humility thrust upon them. The Germans belong to this third category, and the thrust will have to be hard. That is the chief psychological reason for the Motion I am submitting to your Lordships to-day.
I am well aware that it looks to the future rather than to the immediate present, but we should endeavour to look as far ahead as possible. I am, moreover, aware that the immediate future bristles with practical difficulties, but in view of the considerations which I propose to submit to-day these obstacles should be overcome. What could be more for the greater benefit of mankind than that the Germans should learn respect for those whose very right to existence they have so long and brutally denied, for two hundred years in theory, for thirty years in bloody practice? I hope we shall take some account of that, for it is not likely

121
that the Germans will learn this humility from occupation by the Big Three alone. I understand that the French have applied for participation, and I support that request. I should be glad to know if His Majesty's Government do likewise and, if so, what scope will be accorded to the French request. In some respects that is less important from the psychological point of view, on which this application has no bearing, because the French of course took part in the last occupation. It would be more important, say, that the Poles should take part. For one hundred and seventy years the Germans have contemned and despised the Poles; they have treated them abominably for one hundred and seventy years. This contempt is a plague spot which must be cut out of German mentality.
If the application of the French and perhaps of the Poles is to be granted, what valid reasons have we for denying it in the other cases? I have seen suggestions that the other applicants, or potential applicants should be content with a token participition. From the psychological point of view—that is from the long-range point of view—such a solution would be absolutely useless. We need the genuine and substantial thing. As I have said, this humility will not be learnt by an occupation which is a monopoly. All that will happen will be that the Germans will again intrigue and hate, just as they did after the last war, and they will seek to prise asunder the corner-stones of peace List as they did after the last war. They might even succeed but for the mortar hardened by the suffering of all the occupied countries and not only of one. Again taking the long view, I submit that the new edifice of Europe may conceivably be better builded of bricks than of boulders. It would be asking too much to expect of the Big Three such omniscience as would ensure an infallible policy in respect of that. Nothing in experience warrants the assumption that size is the criterion of receptivity. There was a Big Three after the last war. Its members differed and drifted apart. The same thing might conceivably happen again unless they can bring themselves to regard their Allies as an asset and not as a difficulty. Therefore, on these two very wide grounds, and looking as far ahead as possible, I submit that Germany should he occupied by all the Allies, and
122
that as far as practically possible they should be associated also in the administration, at least in an advisory capacity.
I have another and even more cogent ground for advocating the Motion before your Lordships this afternoon. After the last war the British and the Americans very largely ruined the moral lesson to the Germans by unwise and unseemly fraternization, and that had the effect not only of ruining the moral lesson, but also of providing the planks and springboards for that German propaganda which was afterwards so grotesquely successful. I greatly hope that history is not going to repeat itself, but at the same time I have noticed some disquieting phenomena. I shall only enumerate enough of them to-day to make my point. Just before the Allies invaded Germany my eye was caught by a headline in one of our great papers. It covered an order issued by a Commander of the Home Guard in the South of England, the effect of which was to regard these, even though civilians, as being undignified enough to make advances to German prisoners. The Home Guard is not to touch it. On the very next day there appeared in one of our great newspapers a notice which also surprised me. It was a "write-up" of a distinguished member of this country who was being credited with being destined for an ultimate mission or commission in Berlin. And there I will pause a moment. I very earnestly hope that the Big Three are not seriously contemplating situating their commission in Berlin. Why should we go out of our way to set a fresh seal on Prussian predominance and on that over-centralized Reich which has presented us with two world wars when our whole policy and tendency should surely be, on the contrary, to disrupt and discredit Prussia and to disintegrate that Reich? And if indeed Berlin is contemplated as the seat of these missions, I think that in itself would be a symptom that the Big Three are not infallible.
I return to the terms of this notice. It said that this gentleman was being entrusted with a mission which among other things would be (and here I give the exact words) "to set the Germans on their financial feet again." Just that. In other words, conveying the impression that perhaps if aggression does fail it might not be so ruinously expensive. There was not

123
even a saving clause laying down that the interests and requirements of all Germany's victims should have an unquestionable priority. I am a little disquieted, as I think are a good many other people to hear of the expenditure in millions on the assistance already contemplated at Montreal on behalf of the Italians. I hope that we are not going to be in such a hurry as regards the Germans, if anything of that sort is contemplated to the detriment or to the disadvantage of the victim States. If so, there will certainly be a very great storm.
On the next day the Press were again full of accounts of the reception of the first of the Allied troops to enter Germany. It was indicated that they had been received with flowers and plums and pears and giggles and the assurance that 75 per cent. of the population had always been Anti-Nazi. But tucked away in quite an obscure corner of the same issue there was a little paragraph announcing that war correspondents were being armed with Sten guns to protect them against these overwhelmingly Anti-Nazi people! And on the next day again there appeared those really rather nauseating photographs of the fraternization of certain American soldiers with the civil population. Comment on that would be easy. I refrain, with one exception. There is here in London one of many committees on which all our Allies are represented and I happen to be in close touch with it. They sent me without comment the photographs of those fraternizations (and there were more than one) together with the photographs of the unrecognizable remains of the women and children roasted alive in the church at Oradour sur Glane. They might also have sent to me photographs of the great piles of clothing, men's, women's and children's and even babies', stripped from the corpses of the one and a half million Allied prisoners who were massacred at Maidanck and that was packed for transmission to the slave-owning, slave-driven population which now affects to be 75 per cent. Anti-Nazi. I shall deal with another further particular episode because I think it needs looking into badly.
Numerous other photographs were published by the Press and they produced such a storm of indignation that the United States authorities very properly issued an order that fraternization was to
124
stop. And here I wish to ask His Majesty's Government whether they have done, or will do, likewise, whether they will issue an order to all ranks of the British Army that fraternization is strictly forbidden, and whether they will at the same time make it clear that we are entering Germany not as friends but as conquerors, bent on reducing this German nation to sufficient humility and military impotence so as to make it impossible for them to behave in the same way again and to make it unnecessary for us to liberate Europe for the third time from their cruelties. I think that is not an unreasonable request. I hope at the same time that all our troops are receiving the right kind of direction in regard to this German nation and in regard to the German problem generally. From the few samples that have come my way I am very doubtful whether that is the case, but I refrain from more strictures because I recognize that a great deal of the evidence which has passed through my hands is not sufficient for me to form a definite judgment. At the same time I do notice from the Press that President Roosevelt had recalled an Army Order on the ground of its excessive lenience, and when I reflect upon some of the Germans who have been called in to go in an advisory capacity, I am not at all surprised at the President's disquiet.
What I have said I think will be enough to show your Lordships the inestimable advantage of having the cooperation of all our Allies in this matter. From them we need fear no ruinous out bursts of sentimentalism. There are appeasers in this country who, to take one single example, do not seem even yet to realize that for four years Dr. Goebbels has been trying to pump into the French that we shall forget and forgive and embrace the Germans as we did after the last war and that we shall also again let the French down as in their eyes we did after the last war. That is perhaps not so surprising because very briefly it may be said of the inter-war period that at the outset at least the French were chiefly pre-occupied by security and the British and French by conciliation as appeasement was then known; and we won the war and the peace was lost.
I have a further reason. It seems to me essential that the occupation of Germany should be prolonged. Without a

125
prolonged occupation I would predict that every other reform would ultimately collapse like a house of cards. Here I must be quite frank. I greatly apprehend developing pressure, beginning perhaps first in the United States and spreading here, to bring the boys home prematurely before full security has been reached, and whenever that agitation starts it will most certainly base itself upon some most disingenuous arguments such as the cost and burden of occupation, which will be misrepresented as being much heavier than the need for it will be. I would remind the House that up to the end of 1920 we only had 13,000 troops on the Continent and they were on the Rhine. Now, in the earlier years of occupation, the occupation will have to be massive, but it may well be that in certain circumstances to which I will allude, after those years something not so very greatly in excess of that figure will be all that will be required of the British and Americans. But such a relaxation of effort would only be admissible on one overriding condition and it is always the same. We always come back to it. That is that the occupation should be easier.
I am assuming of course that Germany will be completely and permanently disarmed; in other words that she will have no more an Army, Navy or Air Force and only a police force without military equipment. I am assuming also that we shall all set our faces against any transparent fraud such as a people's army or a militia. I should like to have from His Majesty's Government an assurance that no one of the three major Powers will lend any countenance to any fraud of that kind. It would be most sternly resisted in this country and would evoke a storm of indignation among all the weaker victims. I attach great importance to that point. I am further assuming that the possession of firearms will be made a capital offence in Germany and that the penalty will he rigidly enforced, for if it is not we shall be faced with a murder campaign even more extensive than that which raged, largely unknown in that country, in the early days of Weimar. But when we reach that stage it may well be that relatively light forces of occupation will be all that will be necessary to nip in the bud any attempt to prepare a V 10 war. It might be that a dozen mechanized divisions dotted about the country would be sufficient.
I presuppose also that the forces of occupation will be supported by a very extensive Inter-Allied Intelligence Service, and when I say "Inter-Allied" I mean All-Allied, for a great many of our European Allies are better informed than we are both as regards broad issues and personalities, and certain personalities may be much sought after by the police. They have had a hard, vivid, detailed experience of the Germans both as individuals and in the mass. It would be criminal to throw away those assets. In other words, the Allies will be not only willing but eager to bear their share. I hope that participation will be not only admitted but welcomed.
I come to a fourth ground which is just as important as the others and perhaps more so. It is a moral rather than a material one. The Moscow Declaration lays down very explicitly the principle of the sovereign equality of all peace-loving States, large and small. For what purpose? Again most explicitly for the maintenance of international peace and security. What on earth can that mean except participation in the preservation of peace by occupation? If it does not mean that at the outset it may come to mean mighty little later on. Here is our first chance this afternoon to show our sincerity. I have seen some signs of a campaign in a contrary direction, but I am going to say nothing of that to-day because I hope time will bring an improvement and a very rapid one. But again, looking at it from the broad and long-range point of view, it will be readily conceded that the equality of people is difficult to reconcile in the long run with any vital inequality of peoples. Differences of degree there must be—we all recognize that—but unless the Moscow Declaration is put into practice we may get back into the bad old world where small States were too far overshadowed by the great.
Personally I had hoped that from that bad old world we should have escaped for ever, but I cannot be wholly sure because even in this country there is a fashionable and somewhat ruthless school which holds contrary doctrines. I came across a very good illustration of the views of that school in a recent article by Commander King-Hall. He wrote:
"The last chapter in the history of the economic and political independence of the smaller States is being written in blood and tears."

127
Indeed! I think that before people give way to that rather callous confidence, they might do well to remind themselves of some truer words written by the greatest English historian of our day, the late Mr. H. A. L. Fisher, in which he said:
"Almost everything that is most precious in our civilization has come to us from the smaller States."
And he gave a most commanding and unchallengeable list of what those assets were. It is perfectly true that the Commander and his school concede the cultural independence of smaller States but that I think may be dropped. Cultural independence standing alone is nothing worth. If a man cannot call his soul his own, can he so call his pen or his brush?
I think it is in our own ultimate interest also to defend the interests of the less numerous. This island has a population of less than 50,000,000 and it is dwindling. If we once concede that mere quantity is the test of greatness, we in turn might sink in the scale. Alone this island is a cruiser-weight—the greatest cruiser-weight the world has seen—and it has happened in the history of the ring that cruiser-weights have won world heavyweight championships. We won that in 1940 and the fact was handsomely recognized at the opening session of the reconstituted Belgium Parliament last Thursday. But the British Commonwealth is an authentic heavy-weight and I think it will always be in the interest of peace that its component parts use their strength to see to it that the component parts of Allied Europe also receive due weight. By standing up for the letter and the spirit and the practice of the Moscow Declaration we shall be defending ourselves against the obsession of quantity. If we expect, as we do expect, equal collaboration among the Big Three, we must logically concede a large measure of it to those of less poundage than ourselves. Here again is our first chance this afternoon to show we mean the words we have not only said but signed.
Finally, although debates like this seem to be necessary, we are apt to be shooting into the dark or into the blue unless we are provided with a little more information from the Government than has been hitherto the case. In past years, when the war was in a very precarious state, we all were prepared to accept a considerable degree of secretiveness. We thought it justified. But in a few weeks we shall be
128
in possession of some of Germany's great cities. We shall have to be told certain things then, so why not now? What I wish to know this afternoon, and I hope I shall have some answer, are three things. I should like to be told who is going to occupy what. I think the time for that has come. I should also like to know, at least in broad outline, what are the instructions to the occupying and administering Powers. I would remind your Lordships that we have never learnt that in the case of Italy. To this day, those instructions have not been published, and I think that, now the war is drawing to an end, we can hardly be expected to put up with the same degree of unenlightenment in the case of Germany. I should like also to be told which Department is going to be responsible for this occupation and administration. Is it going to be one Department, or two Departments, or three Departments? I hope that it is going to be one. I trust, in opening this debate to-day, that it may end in the provision of a sufficient amount of information to enable us all to think more intelligently and with more illumination on this gravely important subject than has hitherto been the case. I beg to move for Papers.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER had given Notice that he would call the attention of His Majesty's Government, in connexion with the coming occupation of Germany, to the distinction between Germany and the Hitlerite State drawn by M. Stalin on November 6, 1942, and endorsed by His Majesty's Government on March 10, 1943; and move for Papers. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, the Motion in the name of the noble Lord who has just spoken, while in form concerned with the number of the occupying Powers, in fact raises the whole issue of the method and aim of the occupation—the very necessary occupation—of Germany. While I cannot vie with the noble Lord in the vehemence of his expressions, I hope that I do not tall short of him in human sympathy for the victims of the unspeakable tortures at Nazi hands in occupied territory. I have personal friends in all those lands, some of them intimate friends, and anything that lay in my power to do to alleviate their sufferings I would do most thankfully. Nor can any words be too stern in denouncing the perpetrators of the cruelties, who will, I hope, receive the punishment they deserve.
But there is both a long-term and a short-term view of occupation. I agree that Germany must be disarmed, that all Germans must be made to see their total defeat unmistakably and the horror with which mankind must view a nation capable of producing so much evil. And the Allies ought, in my judgment, to give real effect to the demand of the Governments of the occupied countries that individuals guilty of war crimes should be punished, and that whatever restoration of possessions, and whatever compensation for injury and outrage may be possible should be made. But these are not the sole, nor perhaps even the principal, purposes of occupation. There is a political as well as a military situation to be faced. The occupation ought to be regarded as a first step, and a first step of deep significance, in the rebuilding of Europe. Our first duty is the rebuilding of the suffering Allied countries. But so interdependent are the real interests of the different countries that for the rebuilding of Europe the rebuilding of all is indispensable. The interests of Europe are the primary concern, and the question we should ask when discussing the details of occupation should be: Will this secure the permanent welfare of Europe or not? When we have disposed of all the war criminals, however numerous, the chief problem remains—what is to be done with the eighty million German people in the middle of Europe? As hostilities draw to an end, as the real state of the Continent comes home to all, we shall see far more clearly the disintegration and exhaustion of Europe, and it will be the task not of the soldier but of the statesman to check the disintegration, to assist in the rebuilding of the devastated Allied countries, to release and direct any forces for the recuperation of civilization that may still be latent in Central Europe, and, above ail, to deal with Germany so as to make it humanly impossible for a European war to break out in the next fifty or one hundred years.
Are there any elements in that ill-starred country which give the United Nations ground on which to build? The Prime Minister said on November 12, 1939:
"Even in Germany there are millions who stand aloof from the seething mass of criminality and corruption constituted by the Nazi Party machine."
And it is pertinent to remind His Majesty's
130
Government of M. Stalin's distinction drawn on November 6, 1942:
"We have no such aim as to destroy Germany, for it is impossible to destroy Germany just as it is impossible to destroy Russia. But the Hitlerite State can and should be destroyed, and our first task, in fact, is to destroy the Hitlerite State and its inspirers."
His Majesty's Government endorsed that distinction, in this House, on March 10 last year. It is also pertinent to call attention to the thousands and tens of thousands of Anti-Nazis in concentration camps, killed before they got to concentration camps, and tortured and killed there ever since the Nazi régime began. It is pertinent, too, to mention the vast, far-reaching plot against Hitler's lice on July 20, by conspirators who Hitler declared on August 4 had dogged his steps not only since 1941 but ever since 1933.
I do not Wish, however, to rest my plea for practical discrimination in Allied policy in connexion with occupation between the Nazi gangsters and other Germans on the fact, which no one will dispute, that there is an opposition. I am more interested, front the immediate, practical point of view, in the problem and the possible response of the general population, of the bulk of the eighty million German people. The history of Germany in Europe is a very tragic history. In a remarkable book called Germany and Europe, published this summer by Benedetto Croce, one of the greatest living European figures and one of the foremost opponents of Mussolini, the author makes this distinction between Nazism and Fascism, his words being written only just before last Christmas:
"… There was … a deep and intimate difference between Nazism and Fascism, because the first was a terrible crisis which had been brooding in the history of Germany through centuries, and the second was a superfetation foreign to the history of Italy through the centuries and repugnant to the recent and glorious Italian history of the nineteenth century. The first had both a tragic and a diabolical aspect, nod the second, even in the midst of the crimes it committed, in the midst of the destruction and the ruins, kept an invincibly clown-like aspect, as anybody could see at first glance by contrasting the appearance of the two chiefs."
It is quite true that the present outburst of Nazism represents a centuries-old crisis in the history of Germany. There is an element of Hitlerite evil, tragic as well as diabolical, in the German people. It does happen that, in spite of the great

131
German names in philosophy, culture, music, science and art, which have done honour to Europe, the German people, so terribly docile, yield at times to its fateful spell. The German people need a new spirit and a new way to make them less likely to yield. It cannot be denied, however, that there are periods in a nation's history which are more favourable than other periods to such a surrender, and there can be little doubt that there was one such period between the two world wars. To indicate what is in my mind, it is enough to quote the considered opinions of two great British thinkers whose authority is beyond dispute, and who have historical and political experience, one opinion given eight years before Hitler came into power and the other a year after the outbreak of this war. The first is by Mr. H. A. L. Fisher, the second by Lord Lothian.
This is what Mr. Fisher, whom the noble Lord has just described as the greatest historian of our day, wrote at the time of the Weimar Republic in March, 1925, in his preface to the History of Modern Germany by G. P. Gooch:
"Gooch has enabled us to realize by how narrow a margin of public confidence the Republic survives, and how easy it would be for the Allies, should they fail in a due measure of consideration for the real difficulties in which Germany is placed, so to swell the forces of monarchial and nationalist sentiment as to sweep away the Weimar Contitution and all that has been erected on its foundations. Were such a situation to be created, the future of Central Europe would be dark indeed."
This is what Lord Lothian, the British Ambassador at Washington, said in 1940, fifteen years later, in the last speech he ever made:
"The triumph of Hitler no doubt grew out of the despair which settled on Central Europe in the long years of the war, defeat, inflation and revolutionary propaganda, and out of the unemployment and frustration which followed the absence of any real unity in Europe, the sudden restriction of immigration overseas, and the attempt to combine the collection of reparations and war debts by the Allies with the imposition of unjust tariffs after the war. That was what gave Hitler his chance."
Blindly, wrongly, but understandably —that is what Lord Lothian means—the great mass of these eighty million people followed Hitler out of despair in 1933. I do not deny their responsibility, which is grave enough; and it shocks us that so great a number of people should be
132
so easily drilled and misled. But it is still true that Hitler used their despair to their ruin and to the unspeakable suffering of neighbouring countries. I am convinced, however, on a long-term view, that the future of Europe during the next fifty or hundred years depends on the way in which the Allies handle that great mass of eighty million people to-day. There is no doubt that they are face to face with a more awful despair. We get a shrewd idea of what they are thinking now from a report of the interrogation of 300,000 prisoners of war taken on the Western Front since June 6, given in the New Statesman for September 16. That report covers a cross-section of the German people. The prisoners questioned fell into three sections, of which the first two were quite small. The first consisted of the hard core of fanatical Nazis, irrational and many of them very young, under 26—the Hitler Youth. They present a great problem of their own. The second consisted of disillusioned Germans who had no interest in the Party, but still preserved a personal loyalty to Hitler. It was slightly larger than the first. The third comprised the great majority, who in various degrees were Anti-Hitler and Anti-Nazi.
The fanatical Nazis and the followers of Hitler must be dealt with and must be made incapable of carrying on their barbarous actions, but I suggest that this last body, the great majority of the eighty million Germans, should be the principal concern of the occupying Powers. They present us with what, in the main, is not a military but a political problem—and opportunity. All the more necessary is it to seize the opportunity in view of Hitler's diabolical plan of conducting the closing stages of the war in so atrocious a fashion as to make a settlement between Germany and the Allies so very much harder. It is therefore good news that General Eisenhower has given orders everywhere in the country he has occupied to destroy the Nazi organization, to destroy the S.S., to destroy the Gestapo. All this is essential, but something positive in addition is required—a policy for the future of Germany; and I suggest that there is an immediate military argument in favour of this. It is commonly expected that while the Wehrmacht will surrender perhaps at different places and at different times,

133
Hitler, Himmler, the S.S. and the Gestapo will never yield, will go on pursuing a guerrilla warfare underground, hoping to succeed, like the Maquis. But there are two things essential for the success of an underground movement, first, a fighting ally outside, second, a sympathetic and supporting population inside. The former is wanting, the Allies should and can prevent the latter by political action. Goebbels is already denouncing the approaching British Army as sadists intent to quarter, hang, or burn alive every German. The known character and magnanimity of the ordinary British soldier is quite sufficient answer to such vile propaganda.
But, in addition, it would be extremely well to make plain to the German population that the Allies have a constructive and positive plan for the future of Germany and of Europe. Whatever we may wish, so long as there is a bitter and disintegrated eighty million people in the centre of Europe, so long as they remain antagonistic to other countries in Europe, so long as their moral attitude is unchanged, just so long is the peace of Europe in danger. That it is a very, very difficult problem I am only too well aware. But change can only come, so far as Governments are concerned, through political, including economic, action by all the Allies. There are rumours from America of a plan for Germany to destroy it as an industrial State and transform it into an agricultural country, made up largely of small farms. To imagine that such a plan is consistent with peace and security in Europe, or can have happy results on the economic situation in Europe, would be an idle dream.
Once again let me stress the interdependence of all European countries and our prime duty to assist the rebuilding of the countries that have suffered at the Nazis' hands. Once again let me urge for this very reason that while the working out of the peace treaties must come a good deal later, it is the intention and the aim of the occupying Powers for the future that is all-important. Of course, as I have already said, Germany must be disarmed, purged as quickly and completely as possible of the Nazi gangsters and the Gestapo, the war criminals must be punished and Germans shown their unmistakable defeat. The maintenance of order and
134
the supply of ordinary economic needs are urgent, but it is at least as important to liberate the liberal forces within Germany, to make plain to the people in occupied Germany that, while they are adamantine on military security, the Allies do desire to encourage whatever democratic influences can make good; that it is their firm intention, subject, to the same overriding military security, to let the rule of freedom, in government as well as speech, begin as soon as they can.
Therefore, so far as concerns the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart's question, whether all the United Nations are to take part in the occupation or only the principal three, I would say it is not so much the number of the occupying Powers as the spirit and aim of the occupation which counts. The recovery of Europe must be the governing consideration. But, I should like to ask, would all these nations wish to join in the occupation? Their own reconstruction problems are heavy enough. Though there may be exceptions, the people living in the smaller European countries realize the necessity—the factual necessity—of regarding Germany as a part of Europe, fitting into the framework. Therefore, finally, while I note the application of the French Government for a share in the occupation, to which the noble Lord has alluded, I salute as of good augury a statement made by Georges Bidault, the French Foreign Minister, the head of the French resistance movement just after the liberation of Paris. This is what he said:
"German soldiers! I am the chief of the French resistance movement. I come to wish you a good recovery. May you find yourselves, to-morrow, in a Germany and a Europe equally freed."
It is to that good recovery and the coming of freedom as the indispensable condition of permanent peace in Europe that the whole method and purpose of the occupation should from first to last be directed.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, although the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord are running in double harness, if I may use that expression, they seem to stand for two very different points of view, and I believe I am voicing the opinion of my noble friends on these Benches when I say that we are on the side of the angels, which presumably is the side of the right reverend Prelate, in view

135
of his cloth. I will very briefly explain why. The two speakers have opened up an immense subject; they could not have chosen a greater subject. Whether it was opportune for Lord Vansittart to raise this question at this moment is for him to judge: I should have thought myself that it was a little premature, judging by the military situation at the front. But in his speech, which did not deal very much with the subject of his Motion, as usual he dealt with the whole history of Germany in the past and its history in the future as he would like to see it. We have here, as members of your Lordships' House, when we discuss these matters to think chiefly of the future state of Europe and the future peace of the world. The danger as I see it is that when a settlement is made—and I hope it will not be an early settlement, a settlement made when pressed for time—it may be a settlement influenced and directed by passions and emotions. The passions and emotions of the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, are very noble, but I would rather like to see a little cold realism, such as we had from the right reverend Prelate, when the final settlement comes to be made.
May I give the sort of thing I have in mind? Lord Vansittart deplored very much the photographs of American soldiers sitting down peaceably in German farmhouses. Thousands of people in this country share that view. I and most of your Lordships, I suspect, have had a large postbag about that. There are two aspects we can take of that matter. What I would do would be to reproduce these photographs in large numbers and drop them in the interior of Germany. I make that suggestion to Lord Sherwood—have these photographs reproduced as well as they can possibly be reproduced, in immense numbers, and drop them over German cities beyond the firing line. The whole propaganda employed by Goebbels, as the right reverend Prelate reminded us, is that we are advancing into Germany to murder, rape and destroy. If we can show the Germans that what happens is that Americans exchange their good coffee for good German fruit, that may have an excellent effect inside Germany. May I put this other consideration? We are now on the threshold of Germany. We only see the opening moves of the battle. Lord Vansittart talks as if it were all over and
136
that all we have to do is to arrange the armistice.
LORD VANSITTART: I never said the war is over. I said the end of the war is in sight, which is a very different proposition, and I do not think anyone will deny that.
LORD STRABOLGI: There may be a long vista in front of us, a long and bloody one. May I put this question direct to the noble Lord? If he were conducting the strategy of this campaign, would he like to have inside Germany a Fifth Column helping him, or would he prefer to lose a few thousand more young men by agonizing death rather than have the assistance of Germans inside Germany in gaining victory over the Nazis?
LORD VANSITTART: The answer is easy. I for one have been waiting for five years for a Fifth Column in Germany, and it is not there yet.
LORD STRABOLGI: The noble Lord does not know that a Fifth Column is not there. It may be there, and if we have not taken all steps to find a Fifth Column in Germany there is something wrong in our direction of the war. I will tell the noble Lord where there is a Fifth Column. There is a Fifth Column fighting in that heroic battle at Arnhem —men who were born German subjects and who joined the paratroops as Anti-Nazi patriots and share the heroism, ardours, and sufferings of our own men and the Americans in these terrific battles for the bridges over the Rhine estuary. That is one place where your Fifth Column is. You could have found a Fifth Column in the Thaelmann Battalion in the International Brigade who were fighting the Germans and the Fascists in Spain when I and one or two others were protesting, almost as lone voices, that that was the beginning of the European war and when Lord Vansittart's silence was only too obvious.
LORD VANSITTART: I am sorry to interrupt again, but during the time the noble Lord reproaches me with my silence he knows very well that I was a public official and had no right to say anything. I had not even the right to write a letter to the newspapers. The noble Lord should not make statements like that.
LORD STRABOLGI: The noble Lord could have resigned if he disagreed with

137
the Government's policy. That is where the war against Hitler began—in Spain. That is where the German Fifth Column was fighting on the side of democracy against the Nazis and Fascists in Spain.
I still say that the noble Lord's Motion is premature because the battle is only beginning. I have consulted with my noble friend Lord Addison and others of my noble friends on these Benches, and as regards the composition of the Armies of Occupation we believe that all the Allies should be invited to participate. To that extent we agree with the terms of the noble Lord's Motion. If he had stuck to that I would have been very glad to support him right through. There is a practical reason for that as well. Obviously the French must be included. Lord Vansittart agreed, and I am sure we all agree, on that point. But there is also another practical reason. If you have help from all your Allies—and it is a very fine and magnificent army of Allies now —you will have in the first place more British and American troops to use to finish off the Pacific War. Obviously the campaign of the Nazi leaders will be, if they can, to tie up as many of our troops and American troops in their own country for as long as possible so as to keep them from the Pacific. Secondly, you will be able to get those of your own men who are to be demobilized home. After all, we have been fighting longer than anyone else except the Poles. For these practical reasons we consider that the occupation of Germany should be shared.
Now may I come to another practical difficulty? This was touched upon by the right reverend Prelate. When you are inside Germany you must somehow or other find machinery of administration which you can man with Germans. If you try to carry on all the functions of government and local government by foreigners, as we shall be in Germany, the task will be impracticable. You have to find some Germans whom you can trust to carry on. I do not think there will be any quarrel with that. Even Lord Vansittart talks of a German police force. I should like to have heard where he proposes to recruit his police from. From the Hitler Youth, from the Brown Shirts, from the S.S. and so on? There must be a German civil police if you can get it but, according to Lord Vansittart, these police must not be armed. Lord Van-
138
sittart anticipates a campaign of murder and assassination as in the time of the Republic, but these German police are not to be armed.
LORD VANSITTART: Again that is a complete misrepresentation of what I said. I said they were not to have military equipment. After the last war the German police were armed with machine guns, cannons, and artillery. Surely you are not going to allow that again? They were simply camouflaged Regulars. I said they must not have military equipment, and that is a totally different thing from having an armed policy.
LORD STRABOLGI: If we can get an Anti-Nazi police force we should give them all the lethal weapons they can use. That is a practical problem teat will have to be solved. If this underground war is going on, and if we .can get the help of German people who are Anti-Nazis to help to suppress it, our task Will he very much easier. If they are merely sulky neutrals, it will be all the harder and the occupation will be more severe and more lasting, and more casualties will be suffered by ourselves and our Allies. I do wish we could have a little common sense brought into this matter. I wish that Lord Vansittart and those who talk like him would put themselves in the position of the Allied Generals who will have to administer, under military control, certain districts of Germany. They will have to find German functionaries to help them in the administration of the country, German police to keep order, and German Fifth Columnists to help to put down the last vestiges of the Nazi underground movement inside Germany. That is a practical policy and much more important than some of the considerations which find their way into these debates. I do suggest that.
The other matter upon which I would like to spend only a moment is this. The right reverend Prelate spoke about the problem of the Hitler Youth. Thai is a ghastly problem. I confess I do not myself really know how we are to deal with it. I also have seen some of those Hitler Youth people, rather undersized specimens who at present surrender to our soldiers in France and the Low Countries. I have heard a great deal about their mentality. At present it seems pretty hopeless to know what to do with them. It will be a matter of exercising

139
patience over a long term period and of re-education by their own German neighbours and fellow citizens. That is my own view of the matter. How long is this occupation of Germany going to last? Lord Vansittart says one hundred years.
LORD VANSITTART: I never said anything of the sort. That is a tissue of misrepresentations.
LORD STRABOGLI: I took down the noble Lord's words—" it is likely to be a long business, one hundred years."
LORD VANSITTART: I never said that. I said the occupation must be prolonged and that it would be defined by experience.
LORD STRABOLGI: How long does the noble Lord think it will last?
LORD VANSITTART: That will be shown by experience, not by sloth or sentiment or treaty stipulation.
LORD STRABOGLI: The only experience we can go on is the experience we gain during the occupation and a great deal will depend on how the occupation begins. I am entirely in agreement and so are my noble friends on these Benches as to the necessity of the most drastic treatment of those in Germany and any others in high places who are found guilty of crimes, and I was very much disturbed to read in the newspapers lately reports concerning the supposed legal difficulties about bringing Hitler and others who are Ministers to justice. I hope there is no truth in that at all.
I think there is no difference of opinion between us with regard to the occupation itself. I tremble to think of a policy which deliberately sets out to occupy a country like Germany with its eighty millions of people over a prolonged number of years. I do not see twenty-five years being more than the outside minimum and that will give time for a new generation of Germans to grow up. Surely the object of that occupation, as the right reverend Prelate has said, should be to make Germany somehow or other a good neighbour in Europe. I entirely agree, and I have said so before in your Lordships' House, that Germany must be deprived of arms, including aviation of all kinds, both civil and military. If that is done and you have an
140
Allied aerial force always ready on the outside of the borders of Germany which can be the nucleus of an international police force later on, that should be sufficient to enable you to curtail and reduce by degrees the number of troops actually in Germany. What you require are sufficient troops, for purposes of intelligence, to supply information as to what is going on inside Germany. I suggest that that should be the aim. The process cannot be hurried. The whole peace settlement cannot be hurried. This awful problem of dealing with the Hitler Youth part of the population must be approached in a realistic way and with great patience. These people are extraordinarily patriotic in a twisted kind of way, but somehow or other we have got to turn them into neighbours with whom we can live in peace.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, we have this afternoon two Motions on the Order Paper and I rather hope that His Majesty's Government may be able to accept them both in the sense of giving general approval to them. May I take first the Motion put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart? It suggests that the occupation of Germany should be undertaken by all the Allied Powers and not merely by the three great Powers. That proposal seems to me to be eminently reasonable subject to one proviso—namely, that all Allied Powers wish to take part in that occupation. I should like to see parts of Germany, or at any rate, certain towns and villages in Germany, occupied by French, Polish, Dutch, Norwegian and Belgian troops and indeed by some contingents from all of the smaller Allies if they are prepared to provide troops for the purpose.
My main reason for supporting this proposal is very much the same as that of Lord Vansittart. I believe that the presence of the men of these smaller nations would be most effective in destroying that legend or theory of the Herrenvolk which has taken so firm a hold on the German mind and which in my view it is essential should be eradicated. In the second place, it is desirable because it will continue to promote friendly relations between Allies who are undertaking a similar task and therefore will be facing the same problem. That is always conducive to unity. Again I agree with Lord Vansittart that it will afford a very valuable proof to the smaller

141
nations that they are not going to be forgotten in the new world which we are all so anxious to see established. My only criticism is that it is possible and indeed likely that certain remote nations such as China and some of the smaller Latin American Republics may find it impracticable to furnish even token forces for the task in question. But I rather assume that the noble Lord who sponsored this Motion will agree that no Allied nation should be forced to participate in the occupation against its will. In my view it would probably be wiser to limit the occupation to the forces of those nations who have actively participated in the war against Germany.
I do not propose to follow the noble Lord in regard to the numerous points that he raised which really fall outside the terms of the Motion on the Order Paper, although I am very much tempted to do so on one or two points. I should like to say with regard to the length and duration of the occupation, that in my view the occupation should last until every possible danger from Germany is removed and has completely disappeared. The other thing I feel is that it is premature for His Majesty's Government to supply the noble Lord with the information for which he has asked on three points, and I think it might be unwise to press for it. I feel that we must allow His Majesty's Government full discretion as to when they should announce decisions which must greatly depend not on ourselves alone but on our Allies as well and which must be concerted between the Allied nations.
I will now turn for a moment to the Motion in the name of right reverend Prelate. I have not been able in the past to agree with all the arguments he has used, but on this particular occasion, I think, if I may say so, they were extremely sound and that events will ultimately justify what he has put forward. When the occupation takes place it will be the first business of the Allied military authorities to endeavour to find non-Nazis or Anti-Nazis to place in charge, subject to Allied control, of the local administration of territories as they are occupied. That is the system which I understand was followed, and successfully followed, in Italy and I think it will have to be extended to Germany. I admit that the finding of such Germans will be far
142
more difficult than was the provision of Anti-Fascist administrators in Italy. In that country the Anti-Fascist movement was strong and had numerous adherents. As your Lordships probably know, there were very many nominal members of the Fascist Party. If you were a civil servant you had to be a member of the Party and it therefore happened that the wearing of a badge did not mean that a man or woman was really at heart a Fascist. The fact is, as I know from experience, that the whole system became a complete joke among many intelligent Italians both young and old.
It is going to be far more difficult in Germany. There is not the same strong Anti-Nazi movement, but I believe there may be a certain number of Germans who will be acceptable as administrators under Allied supervision, and in this sense, therefore, I think the contention of the right reverend Prelate is certainly justified. These Germans will have to receive the strongest support of the Allied military authority. Their task will be extra-ordinarily unpleasant, very difficult, and in fact really dangerous. I do not think you can really go further than that. We none of us can tell how far the whole German nation has been infected by the Nazi poison, but I fear that the contamination has gone very deep and that the only Germans of whom we can say "These people are definitely immune" are the Germans who to-day are in concentration camps or are refugees, or—alas, they are not very numerous—who have publicly resisted the Nazi doctrines and are still free. Apart from this I think the Allies when they occupy Germany can only learn by experience as the occupation progresses, and in my view suspicion and distrust rather than trust and confidence will have to be the guiding principle in each individual case.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I would not have troubled your Lordships this afternoon had it not been that I have had some experience of Germany and the Germans, having lived in the country for a good many years. It was fifty years ago almost to the day that I first went to live in Germany and during the fifteen years following I was in that country for several months every year, sometimes for more than half the year. During that time I lived with Germans and talked with them about all sorts of matters, including

143
the relations between our two countries. I found that the kind of talk which Germans in those days indulged in was in almost every particular the kind of talk which we heard before the war. The reason was that the Hitlerite Party, or the National Socialist Party, hold exactly what was the Prussian view which later was adopted as the German view. In fact Hitlerite Germany is an expansion of Prussian Germany.
The impression I obtained was that the uppermost impulse of the Germans—not the Austrians—was the desire to dominate other people. We heard all kinds of catchwords at that time which meant exactly the same thing as what the Germans mean now when they describe themselves as the Herrenvolk. They want to be the dominant nation in the world and to rule other people. We heard before the war that the Germans desired trade and Colonies and that at one time was said to be their main object, but I do not believe it was anything of the kind. What they wanted was to dominate and rule other people; in fact, to be the Herrenvolk. That produced the other main characteristic of the Germans—their jealousy of this country because they think we have done them out of their share of the world. They also have the same dislike and jealousy of other nations who have expanded and acquired what they now call Lebensraum but which they used to call "a place in the sun." Looking back to the days of the Great Elector and of Frederick the Great we see exactly the same desire to dominate and also the same policy of aggression which Frederick pursued in his conduct towards Silesia. In fact history shows that Prussia resembled in every particular Germany as we know it to-day.
I think we are inclined to lay too much stress on Hitler. He is looked upon as the originator of the German misdeeds, but I respectfully submit to your Lordships that though Hiller is called the Fuhrer, the Leader, he is really the follower. Hitler came to the front because he knew what the Germans wanted. They wanted to become the dominators of the world and when he put himself forward as the exponent of that policy the Germans—who at the time, as your Lordships know, were in a somewhat chaotic condition—jumped at him and accepted
144
him as leader. But he himself, as my old friend Sir Nevile Henderson wrote in his book, never originated any ideas; he took them all from other people. I think a leader cannot really claim that he is a leader when he is merely a follower of other people's ideas and adapts those ideas to his own ends. I think that when Hitler ceases to deliver the goods German people will cease to be satisfied with him and will throw him over without any compunction. But though Hitler will disappear, somebody else will come to the front. We do not know whether they will be of the Hitlerite Party or whether they will not, but of one thing we may be certain—they will be followers of the Prussian idea, and that will only be disposed of when much greater changes have taken place than have occurred as yet.
May I say one word in support of Lord Vansittart's eloquent plea for the participation of all the Allies in the occupation of Germany? In doing so, I would particularly refer to his observations regarding the undesirability of fraternization with the Germans, at any rate for a very long time to come. The Germans are capable of very great efforts in the cause of humbug. They are ready, I am sure, to sacrifice Hitler to-morrow if the thought should occur to them that they could get something by so doing. They would also be willing to make great friends of us or anybody else out of whom they thought they might be likely to get something. We recall how, after the last war, they showed themselves eager to establish friendly relations with us, but directly they found that they had a chance to break those friendly relations, feeling assured that there was a good prospect of success in their aggressive policy, they broke them off with avidity. I feel perfectly certain that if we were to say we were sure that a new Government in Germany disliked what is called the Hitlerite State (which I submit does not exist; it merely means the German State) we should be taken in again just as we were before. There is an old saying which we were taught at school: Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes, and I think that when we see ladies advancing with flowers as we enter Germany we should look upon them as being of Danaean extraction. I hope that the Government will remember past experiences in this connexion, and that, when

145
it comes to settling with the Germans when they are defeated, we shall bear in mind what happened after the last war, and do everything that is possible, with the assistance of our Allies, to make any future aggression, or any further attempt at hostilities, on the part of the Germans, an impossibility.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: My Lords, first of all I would like to thank my noble friend Lord Vansittart for bringing forward this Motion. I think it is very desirable that this subject should be discussed. Furthermore, I am beholden to other noble Lords who have spoken for expanding the Motion beyond the terms of the Notice on the Paper. With regard to this question of the occupation of Germany, I think we have to take many considerations into account in order to arrive at a correct solution of the problem presented to us. As to the Powers that ought to take part in the first occupation of Germany, I am convinced that the fewer Powers who participate the better. I think that ourselves, America and Russia, with perhaps France would be a suitable company to make a beginning. Other countries, especially those which have been brutally occupied by the Germans, will have quite enough to do for a long time to come in rebuilding their political machinery and re-establishing their economic life. That is the view I hold.
After the last war I had the experience of spending three and a half years at Cologne upon the Military Administration of the Rhine territories. I was in touch with Berlin over financial matters. I found that immediately after the last war the Germans had two main ideas in their heads. The first was that they must ingratiate themselves with the occupying Powers. The second was that they must never fail to put forward the belief that their mighty Army was never defeated, but that it was forced to give in owing to the falling away of the civil population behind it. If there is one thing certain now it is that we have got to show to the German people that their mighty Army has been absolutely and entirely defeated. That is why I maintain that we must not only occupy Germany with military forces, but that in connexion with any request that may be made for an armistice we must make it quite clear that there must be absolute surrender on the part of Germany. Once the fact that
146
the infallibility of the German Army is nothing but a myth becomes established in the minds of the German people we shall have made a great stride in the right direction. As long as they understand that the belief is a myth then we may look for a peaceful Germany—probably for many years to come. The entire mentality of the German people has for long been swayed by the wonderful feeling of admiration which all classes have for the military life. Everyone you meet in Germany looks up to the military caste. That outlook has got to be abolished.
With regard to matters of administration, in the local areas, these, of course, will be attended to by the Germans themselves—the local governing bodies acting under direct orders from the occupying Powers. As Lord Vansittart has said, we shall use the German police with their ordinary police armament, but without military armament. Those police will act —as they did after the last war—under our orders. They proved themselves quite efficient, and perfectly capable of handling the German population. At that time we had, as no doubt your Lordships will have gathered, two very distinct strata in the population of Germany. In the first stratum there were the industrialists, the upper grade employers, professors, doctors and better class Germans generally. Those people were abused by the under dogs of the lower stratum who had very strong Communistic feelings, and were continually attacking each other. We had to be on the alert, and we caught many gentlemen from Dusseldorf and other places who evinced a desire to gouge the eyes out of members of the better classes in Germany. Then again, we had to protect those very Communists against the action of German troops who came from Berlin to deal with them. In fact we had to see fair play as between the various interests concerned.
My own belief is that within a short time after the war ends the number of troops required for the occupation of Germany will be comparatively small, because the Germans will accept our orders. We shall be able to use mobile forces—armoured forces on the ground and the Air Force—and without great numbers we shall be in a position to control any rising of which any possibility may be evinced in Germany. The real control of course must be an economic control. We have got to control the various industries which

147
were used by Germany to make it possible for her to go to war, the machinery whereby she collected her various supplies, and the various chemical plants which she used to produce oil, rubber and other commodities.
Our control will undoubtedly have to extend to finance. We shall have to control the action of the Reichsbank in national expenditure. After the last war the Germans borrowed many millions of pounds from this country and from America, and used the money not for the social development of Germany but for the development of war factories and war potential. This control will have to be exercised by the Allies for very many years. Further than that, the means of communication, ports, railways, posts and telegraphs and Customs will all have to be controlled in the interests of the Allies. That is the only way in which we shall be able to get any payments towards making good the destruction which the Germans have committed and for the cost of our troops of occupation. We are not going to get the money from the German Government; we must get it by means of surcharges on the various industries and means of communication and so on. Last time our troops were robbed right and left by the disgraceful depreciation of the mark. The printing of marks took place in every city in Germany, and our troops were paid in these depreciated marks. I hope that our future administration will see that this does not occur again.
The noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, spoke of stopping fraternization. You cannot stop fraternization unless you allow the troops to have their families with them. When our troops go into a country, no matter what country it is, you will have fraternization unless they have their families with them. You must give the families of the troops proper quarters and let them live with their men in Germany, or what happened last time will be repeated. Some time ago in this House I advocated that very policy. When Germany is occupied by our troops, provision must be made for the families of the officers and soldiers to be quartered with them. There is a great deal of talk about our occupying the country for a period—ten, fifteen or twenty years. It will be necessary to occupy Germany as the Romans occu-
148
pied Europe in the old days, not for one but for several generations, unless we are prepared to face another war. I have heard people say that wars are not bad things for the nation, but for my part I abhor war and think it is a most dreadful and devastating thing for civilization. It is certain, however, that unless we control Germany through the generations we shall have another devastating war in Europe.
There is one very real fear which I wish to express. When we start to control German industry and finance and everything else we shall find that German industry, linked up with other countries, will move its activities into those other countries and carry on there. That is an aspect of industrial development which the Allies will have to consider very carefully. It is one of the means which the Germans will probably adopt to prepare for a third devastating war. We shall find factories in France, Belgium and other countries, and perhaps even in the United States, apparently controlled by nationals of the countries concerned yet really in the hands of German industrialists.
Finally, the control of the radio in Germany is absolutely essential. We all talk about a free Press and free radio, but the radio in Germany penetrates the German people to such an extent that by constant repetition they ultimately come to believe the falsehoods put out by Dr. Goebbels. That is one of the things which we shall have to control for many years to come. I hope that this devastating war will soon be over and our occupation in fact begin.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, we have listened to a very interesting speech from my noble friend Lord Hutchison, and I must say that I envy very much the brilliant imagination which he has preserved, not indeed to my age but to an age approaching mine. His conception is that Germany should be made a part of the British Empire in exactly the way in which the Romans made any country which they conquered part of the Roman Empire. That is a policy which I am sure that my noble friend the Leader of the House will welcome with both hands! Lord Hutchison thinks that it is not enough to have a few troops in Germany; we must have complete economic control. We must have there not only troops but their families, so that there will be a kind of colonization

149
of Germany. Above all we must have the destruction of all connexion between German industry and any industries outside Germany. I hope that my noble friend will not think me impertinent if I say that I regard those things as the dreamings of perpetual youth, but not as a serious contribution to a practical solution of our difficulties.
We have a much narrower point raised by my noble friend Lord Vansittart, and I agree, as I think that almost everyone who has spoken has agreed, that any Allied Power which desires to take part in the occupation of Germany must of course be allowed to do so. It would be a gross piece of impertinence, apart from anything else, if we were to say: "You were quite good enough to sacrifice your men and treasure in fighting with us, but when it comes to occupying Germany you are not the kind of people with whom we should like to be seen walking down the streets of Berlin." That is an attitude which we must not dream of taking up. Any Power which wishes to join with us in the occupation of Germany must be allowed to do so. And indeed I can see nothing but good in establishing from the very earliest moment the principle to which my noble friend alluded, that we must get into the habit of working in common with other nations so as to establish a genuine international system, and not a system which is really a domination by one, two or three of the great Powers. With all that part of my noble friend's speech I find myself in agreement.
There is one other point on which I very warmly agree with him, and that is that we ought to be given as much information as possible. Perhaps I may be allowed to say that the official world does not always recognize the desirability of giving information. I do not know whether my noble friend's experience of the official world, which is much greater than mine, would lead him to concur with that view, but that is the view which I have formed. I think that the reason for that attitude is that tradition on these matters goes back many years, to a time when all that mattered was what a few gentlemen in the Cabinet thought on the subject of foreign affairs. That is not the position to-day. If you are going to have any policy which will be lasting and effective you must have behind you the general body of public opinion in this
150
country; and that applies to other countries also. If you are to have that, it is not enough to have a secret confabulation and at the end of it to announce that a certain conclusion has teen reached. You must give people an opportunity of knowing as far as possible what the course of the discussion has been, and what the arguments are which have led to that conclusion. Unless they know that they will not accept the conclusion merely on the ipse dixit of a Minister, however distinguished. To that extent I am in agreement with my noble friend Lord Vansittart.
I admit that I have less sympathy with his view that it would be a great advantage to allow smaller Powers to take, part in the occupation of Germany because it would tend to produce a feeling of humility in Germany. I do not much believe in imposed humility: it is generally another term for hypocrisy, I do not think you will do much good in that kind of way. It is quite obvious that you must have prolonged occupation, or at any rate some considerable occupation, and that that occupation must he serious and carried out by sufficient forces. I do not think that the moral effect of it will be so favourable as my noble friend thinks. And, indeed, in this particular I have some doubt even of an observation that fell from the right reverend Prelate. He thought that a good deal might be done by the influence of occupying troops in bringing Germans to understand how atrociously they have behaved, and how bad their opinions generally are on international affairs. I shall be very much surprised if anything said by the occupying troops to Germans produced any real effect on their minds, any more than, in a parallel case, if Germans were in occupation of this country their opinions would produce any effect on English people. I am coming to that in a moment. But I am satisfied that the reconversion of Germany, which I think the right reverend Prelate considers is the thing we must aim at, must be done by the Germans themselves, and can only be done by the Germans themselves, and any attempt to do it from outside will simply fail.
The right reverend Prelate has given notice of a Motion in which he raises again the question of whether there is a good Germany and a bad Germany—I am putting it very crudely. I agree, of course, with him that it would be absurd to say

151
that all Germans think alike, any more than to say that of the people of any other country, or to say, as our friends on the Continent used to say, that all Englishmen have fair hair and prominent teeth. It is not true, nor is it true that all Germans think thoroughly wrongly on international affairs. But I do not think it very much matters. What matters to us is not what the Germans think but what the German Government think; and what we have to examine (and I think it is a very formidable fact that we have to face) is what has been the relatively consistent policy of German Governments—I will not go so far back as Tacitus, but at any rate for the last hundred or two hundred years. I agree with those who say that Nazism, the atmosphere of Nazism, is not a new thing. It is a re-statement, a very crude and violent re-statement of a view which has certainly been held in Germany about international affairs for a long time.
Let me just remind the House of the three principal features, as I understand it, of the Nazi point of view. I am not now dealing with the excesses of Nazism, I am dealing with its fundamental tenets. The first is what my noble friend Lord Onslow alluded to just now, the conception of the Germans that there ought to be a World State of which Germany should be the director—the idea of the Roman Empire, as my noble friend opposite said. "My country, right or wrong," was the view generally held. Well, I think that is true, and Lord Onslow's speech absolves me from making that point more elaborately than I have done. The second main contention is the divine right of the State. That is a very, very important matter. I see constantly, even now, in the reports of the trials that have taken place of German criminals in Russia, that they say: "Oh yes, it is a dreadful thing shooting women and children. It is quite true, we knew it was going on, but we were ordered to do it, and of course we did what we were ordered to do." That is, I think, almost the worst of the whole German thesis, and the thing that has been intolerable in this war and in other wars.
That is certainly not new. It is centuries old. I do not know at all whether I am right—I am speaking now on a subject about which I have very imperfect information—but it has always appeared to me that Luther took very much that
152
point of view. I was trying to find out what an orthodox Lutheran felt on such matters, and I came to the conclusion that there was not any very great difference. Their conception is that a State is created by God or by Heaven, that therefore it is of divine authority; that what it does in the exercise of its power as a State is divinely inspired, and that every subject ought to obey the State, whatever he may think as to the right or wrong of what is done. Well, that is destructive of all international morality, and indeed of a great deal more than that. That is the second point, and, as I say, it is a view that has always been held. And the third, the worst of all, is that there is no limit to the international action of a State except its power, that anything it can do and desires to do it has a right to do. That is equally fatal and equally disastrous.
I will not develop those points any further. But they lead to this conclusion, that as long as the Germans are governed by principles of that kind they are a danger to the world till you reconvert them, or neutralize those opinions in some way. Here you have a nation of seventy or eighty million people, very brave, very industrious, all utterly perverted, if my conception of their general morality on these points is right. That is a very serious matter. It brings us up against a threat to the civilization of the world. How are we going to remedy it? What are we going to do? There seem to me to be only two possible answers to that. One is extermination. It is logically true that if you could exterminate the whole seventy or eighty millions you would get rid of the difficulty; but of course that is fantastic and absurd, quite apart from its morality. And this is where I very greatly differ from Lord Vansittart. I do not think, if you are going in for a policy of extermination, that anything short of total extermination is of any use whatever. You exterminate 50,000 or 100,000 people: what is the use of that? There are those seventy or eighty millions. That small portion of them having been destroyed, the millions would be just as dangerous as they were before, and still more determined to secure their safety by war—because that is really what it comes to. And that is why I do not see any advantage in humiliating the Germans by marching through their country or anything of that kind. By all means, take

153
whatever measures are necessary to show them that they have been really and genuinely defeated. That is a fact that they must take into consideration when they settle what is going to be their future policy and action in the world; but I do not think anything else in the nature of punishment is likely to be of the slightest service unless you proceed to the extent of extermination, which is quite impracticable.
The only other alternative therefore is conversion. You have to re-educate the Germans. It is a tremendously difficult proposition. I was glad to hear the right reverend Prelate acknowledge the immense difficulty of the proposition. It is tremendous, but I am quite sure of this, that it has got to come from the Germans themselves. You have got somehow or other to persuade some section of Germans—the larger the better—that their past policy has been wicked (because wickedness is important from this point of view), has been wrong and foolish, and then say, "Go out and persuade your fellow countrymen that that is true." I believe there is extremely little that we can do to help. I am very sorry for it. I have tried to think whether we could establish some system of education from outside which might be of material assistance, but I cannot convince myself that it would be of any particular value. We can do some things. We can set forth our alternative. The Germans are entitled—anybody is entitled—to ask, "You reject the Fuhrer Prinzip, the conception of omnipotent government, what is your alternative? What do you suggest is the right way the country should be ruled? "We must be perfectly frank and say quite openly and clearly that our conception is, and must be, the substitution of Christian morality for the State, because, broadly speaking, the State does rule individual affairs at the present time. That is a big proposition to make good but we must try. I adhere warmly to what was said by Lord Vansittart about the great prestige of the British nation and British history. We have got to use it for that purpose. We have got a great position. We shall be listened to, even by Germans who totally disagree with us at the outset. I think they will accept—a proportion of them at any rate—the proposition that justice, freedom, and
154
good faith must govern international relations.
In connexion with that we are bound to punish all war crimes. I was glad to hear the right reverend Prelate say that that was also his opinion. It is essential. These crimes are too terrible. What Lord Vansittart said on the subject was a very moderate account of them. He does not always err on the side of moderation, but the massacre of Maidenck, if you cut it down by one-half or even nine-tenths, is still one of the worst things that have ever occurred in the whole history of the world. There are other cases just as bad. You have to punish them. You must show in some way not only that we the belligerents are indignant, but that the world itself is indignant that such Things should have taken place. I remember hearing the noble Lord, Lord Hutchison of Montrose, in a previous debate expressing a certain indifference as to how the prisoners were tried. There he makes a mistake. You must have an open trial under conditions that any fair-minded man would recognize as fair conditions. You will then have no difficulties. You wilt have an admission that they did in fact do these things. That cannot help but produce sooner or later a great effect on the public opinion of the world, even in Germany. Therefore I am strongly in favour of punishment of war crimes, but punishment after trial, and let the trial be as formal and precise and well-guarded as possible.
Beyond that I see nothing but the complete disarmament of Germany, the absolute physical prevention of Germany using anything like -aggression as her policy. That is far more important than any question of splitting up Germany or taking over her manufactures or anything else. You have got to take away the possibility of her making war. I do not believe that is an impossible thing to de nowadays because war can only be made by machines, and machines are bulky and elaborate and can scarcely be made without the knowledge of other countries, particularly if it is provided, as I hope it will be provided, that there shall be international inspection of German armaments and perhaps of the armaments of other nations as well. That disarmament seems to be the one solid guarantee we can have of peace apart from the ideal considera-

155
tions I hinted at earlier. That must persist until we are quite satisfied that no Germans, none of them, or no considerable body of them, any longer intend aggressive action in foreign affairs. That may last a long time. It is for the Germans to say, but until that happens disarmament must continue, and we must take care that it is a real and effective disarmament.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: My Lords, recent events have made the subject of this debate doubly urgent, and we are indebted to Lord Vansittart for raising it. He has the authority arising from vast experience, and I should like to pay my tribute also to the great generosity with which he has always been willing to place his knowledge at the disposal of those who sought his advice. But in his policy towards Germany I wish he would explain in more detail how he provides, say, for thirty years hence or fifty years hence. Such a policy as his assumes the continuance of public opinion in its present state. That is a practical point not much dwelt on in this debate, but raised with great effect in the recent utterance of the Liberal Party Committee. In the treatment of Germany can we be reasonably certain of the continuance of public opinion in support of a punitive policy? When the war ended in 1918 feeling was extremely bitter, but that bitter feeling faded in a very few years, and it would have been impossible to keep large British forces on the Rhine much later than the year in which they were actually withdrawn.
As to the durability of general anti-German feeling there is a recent illustration which is striking. Even in the middle of the present war it was possible for General Smuts to make an utterance which should warn those who rely on anti-German feeling being very durable. He spoke of the deep revolt brewing inside Germany and said that not the least of the forces gathering for the doom of Hitler would be the Fifth Column inside Germany. Lord Vansittart does not think General Smuts is right. General Smuts in his broadcast to South Africa in September, 1943, said that Germans have for centuries taken a leading part in most of the lines of European advance.
"They are not all Nazi monsters, moral perverts, or devil worshippers infected with the satanic virus of Hitler.… There is another and better Germany which must have
156
passed through hell in witnessing the brutal and lawless inhumanity of their people. A deep revolt is brewing inside Germany."
In view of the Nazi barbarities which have shocked the world so terribly it is indeed striking that General Smuts should feel he ought to say that during this war. He may be thought to be mistaken but it is not a question whether General Smuts is right, but whether Lord Vansittart's policy is practically possible in view of public opinion. Anti-German feeling will inevitably cool down.
Let me give another illustration from a recent utterance of the Archbishop of Canterbury and other Christian leaders. They said:
The treatment of Germany presents for Christians a moral issue of exceptional difficulty. It must be such as to remove once and for all the menace of German aggression, and secure full atonement for the appalling sufferings inflicted by Nazi Germany upon the peoples of Europe. Yet we must not lend ourselves in a mood of vengefulness, to breaches of basic human rights, or to punitive measures against the entire German people which will be repudiated as unjust by later generations, or will permanently frustrate the hopes of peace and unity in Europe. The future public safety and well-being of Europe must be the first aim of the peace in Europe, and no settlement will achieve that aim which does not set out as one of its goals the eventual reintegration of the German people into the European family of nations.
In this war we are particularly claiming to be a Christian people and I do not see how Christians can get away from the Archbishop's view, which is widely regarded as that of sound statesmanship and it will be still more widely held in the future.
The probable course of public opinion affects the aim which occupation will have in view and that again is relevant to the question of the forces to be employed which Lord Vansittart raises to-day. In judging this question we are apt to assume the continuance of Nazi Government till the surrender. But there are different possibilities which would affect the question. We have aimed at dividing public opinion in Germany against the Nazi régime and our propaganda, which began in the first days of the war by the distribution of leaflets, has achieved a great deal of success. We need never have despaired of a break in Hitlerite morale. Recent events have made that clear. Nor need we rule out as impossible the formation of an anti-militarist revolutionary Government. There is nothing which we should

157
more keenly desire because it would make the problem of creating an international anti-war organization, such as the Prime Minister adumbrates, far simpler. If, by good fortune, such a Government should come into being, the need for an occupation would not go much further than the holding of strategic points. The revolutionary Government would save the Allies a very difficult task.
But we must of course prepare for the survival of a militarist régime till that régime is compelled to acknowledge total defeat. Therefore the problem of general occupation must be faced. If the aim is to encourage a new outlook, we shall act in that case as we did in the Cologne region after the last war. We shall not destroy local administration but shall encourage normal development. On the other hand, if the occupation has a punitive character and if responsibility is crudely denied, the process of re-education will become more difficult. As the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, has just said, anything ordained by an enemy will of course be detested. The cost of the occupation which Germany is made to pay would have to be set against the work which Germany ought to provide for repairing the ruin she has caused in Poland and in Russia. In this country the withdrawal of a large force of men from productive work would delay our own recovery. The problem will be to make the occupation conduce to a change of German ambitions, and therefore it ought to aim only at the indispensable objects—for instance, to suppress disorder and create a local administration which would help to keep order, to destroy the Nazi forces, to liberate political prisoners, to control disarmament, to organize the return of prisoners of war, to deal with the displaced populations, to provide rehousing in ruined towns, to secure the surrender of war criminals, to ensure food supplies and to promote central self-government in place of military government. The aim will be to produce a Provisional Government that can be trusted by the Allies, so that the Allies need hold no more than strategic points, airfields and arsenals.
A great occupying force, as has already been said by more than one, speaker, will be unnecessary because the victorious Powers will have a monopoly of force in their hands outside Germany in case of
158
need. The duration of occupation will depend on the skill with which it is conducted. Lord Vansittart is anxious about the forces to be employed. I suggest that the forces required for the occupation depend on the political aims which are pursued. If the Allies despair of a European partnership such as the Prime Minister hopes for and look to indefinite domination then the occupation has a punitive character. But if the aim is a group of willing States (a European partnership, as the Prime Minister calls it) then the force used for occupation would be most suitably drawn from nations with the greatest experience and capacity to take a long view. Its work would be to foster the development of free institutions. It would aim at encouraging those elements in the underground movements, in the factories, the armed forces and the Christian Churches in Germany which have been opposed to the present régime and which will form the material for a Germany fitted to co-operate with a peaceful order. The task would be difficult. It would therefore need the most level-headed leadership. The scheme of occupation must fit in with the forecast of the Prime Minister that we must in time come to a European partnership, and the composition of the occupying forces which has been raised to-day must be viewed in the light of the future which the Prime Minister foretells.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, the two Motions which stand on the Paper to day in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, and the Bishop of Chichester, dealing both of them with the policy towards Germany, have, I think your Lordships will agree, produced an extremely interesting and indeed valuable debate. Lord Vansittart in his Motion asks a very simple, straightforward question. He asks whether the occupation of Germany will be undertaken by all the Allied Powers and not merely by the three great Powers. I have said that is a simple, straightforward question. But like a good many questions which are asked in your Lordships' House, it it very much easier to ask than to answer, at any rate at the present stage. I cannot help thinking sometimes as I listen to the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, in your Lordships' House, that since he has been free, as he said this afternoon, from official trammels he has become a rather engaging blend of elder

159
statesman and erafant terrible. But I am quite certain that there is more than enough in the noble Lord's make-up of the elder statesman for him to understand quite clearly that I cannot tell him to-day the answer to all the questions he has asked me, and for a very simple reason indeed. It is this. The exact form of the Allied occupation, with which his Motion deals, is exactly one of those questions which is, at present, under urgent examination between ourselves and other Powers concerned.
As was recognized by another very eminent diplomat in your Lordships' House this afternoon, the Earl of Perth, it would clearly be impossible for His Majesty's Government to make a unilateral statement about these matters until consultations have been completed on matters which are of equal importance to other nations as to ourselves. I have no doubt that in his heart of hearts the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, recognizes this perfectly well and that one of his main motives in tabling the Motion was not so much to elicit a definite declaration from His Majesty's Government as to give public expression to his own views and to the considerations which he holds, quite rightly, should be in minds of those concerned with this subject. That he has, in fact, done this afternoon, and I am sure everybody who heard him will have been impressed by the strength and sincerity of his feelings. The events of the last two weeks have, of course, already, to some extent, supplied the answer, at any rate in some measure, to the question he asked. As your Lordships know very well, Allied Armies which are at this moment converging on Germany and have, at some places, passed the German frontier, contain contingents not only from the three great Powers but from many other nations as well. But I recognize perfectly well that that is not a complete answer to the question asked me by the noble Lord this afternoon, because, as he made absolutely clear in his speech, he is concerned not so much with the position—at least as I understood him—while hostilities are proceeding. What he is really interested in is the period when Germany is defeated and the war has come to an end.
As I have already said, I have no doubt Lord Vansittart will not expect me to divulge in advance detailed plans which
160
are at present the subject of close consultation between ourselves and our Allies. But I can say this to him. It is the earnest desire of His Majesty's Government, as it is of Lord Vansittart and other noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon, that collaboration between the United Nations great and small, which has been so notable a feature in winning this war, should be maintained during the days of victory. We want to see all of them make their contribution, where possible, to a solution of the problems of the future, as they have made so great a contribution in surmounting the dangers of the past.
May I make this one proviso? It is inevitable, I think, that the three great Powers should bear the main burden. Just as they have played the leading part in conducting this war, so they must play the leading part in occupying Germany. Even when Germany is defeated, your Lordships should remember that we shall not be through all our troubles. There still remains the struggle against Japan, the last of the guilty Powers which has to be subdued. Some Allied countries no doubt have vital interests in the Far East which they will not be able to neglect. However, as the noble Earl, Lord Perth, pointed out, there are others, and especially those which have lately been occupied by the enemy, which will have innumerable problems of reconstruction and rehabilitation which inevitably call for full deployment of their manpower and of their resources and material. For these reasons, it is likely to be impracticable for every member of the United Nations to participate in the occupation of Germany. Even the European Allies, whose interest in the solution of the German problem is obviously equally as direct as ours, have many immediate preoccupations. Their territories have been ravaged and their man-power has been enslaved. Their first concern must evidently be to set their own house in order and grapple with the task facing them there. But while it is thus inevitable that Great Britain, the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics must carry the main burden of the occupation of Germany, I would make it quite clear in answer to the noble Lord's question—this is as far, I am afraid, as I can go to-day—that for their part His Majesty's Government would

161
have sympathy with the view that those members of the United Nations who have shared in the operations against Germany should make a contribution to the forces of occupation in Germany when the war is over. That is as far as I can go in answer to the specific question the noble Lord asked me this afternoon.
Other aspects of the occupation have not been dealt with so fully this afternoon. But I must refer to what, if I may say so, was the extremely valuable contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Hutchison. I do not say that I agree with everything that he said. I am afraid the admission of Germany to the British Empire would be a bad headache for the Dominions Secretary, though fortunately I think it is not a practicable proposition. But he also made some very realistic points about the actual occupation of the country. The noble Lord speaks with great authority on this subject, since he played a prominent part himself in the occupation of Germany after the last war. It is impossible for me to go into details; indeed I do not think he will expect me to do so this afternoon. But I fully recognize the importance of the points he raised and I promise that I will bring them to the proper quarters.
Now I would like to turn for a moment or two to the Motion which stands in the name of the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Chichester. This Motion, of course, has far wider implications than that of the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart. It raises in fact nothing less—as has been recognized this afternoon—than the whole relationship between the Nazi movement and the German people and the whole relationship between ourselves and our Allies and Germany. We all recognize how deeply the right reverend Prelate feels on this question and we also appreciate the deep sincerity with which he has spoken this afternoon. But I am still not quite clear—he will forgive my saying this—after listening to his speech, why he has reverted to this question today. Your Lordships know that the right reverend Prelate put down a Motion in almost identical terms—not quite, but nearly—on March 10, 1943. Indeed he referred to it in the Motion he put down for this afternoon. That Motion, a year and a half ago, led to what he himself described as a most impressive debate and evoked a declaration of Government
162
policy, made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor of which the right reverend Prelate himself said:
"The Lord Chancellor has answered the questions which my Motion contained quite plainly by saying that Hitler's régime can and must be destroyed and that the German people is not thereby doomed to destruction. I am grateful for that reply, and I am ,grateful also for what the Lord Chancellor Ins said about the encouragement which the Government give to the opposition in Germany, realizing that it is upon the merman people, with help from outside, that responsibility rests for a change of Government."
I had the impression—as I expect most of your Lordships did—from those remarks that the right reverend Prelate was entirely satisfied with the reply he had received and indeed, if your Lordships will look back at the report of the Lord Chancellor's speech, which if I say so in his presence was a very remarkable pronouncement which deserves reading and re-reading, you will note that he said this. It seems to me a complete answer to the speech the right reverend Prelate made again this afternoon. My noble and learned friend's words were as, follows:
"I now say in plain terms on behalf of His Majesty's Government, that we agree with Premier Stalin, first that the Hitlerite State should be destroyed, and, secondly, that the whole German people is not (as Dr. Goebbels has been trying to persuade them) thereby doomed to destruction. I put the two propositions with equal prominence and equal clearness and equal firmness. I want the right reverend Prelate to feel that if those are the questions he wants answered, answered they are, and on behalf of His Majesty's Government I am glad to have this opportunity of making both assertions with equal emphasis afresh."
I really do not know what the right reverend Prelate could want more than that. Perhaps he holds the views of the Bellman in The Hunting of the Snark:
"I have said it once, I have said it twice,
That alone should entourage the crew.
I have said it twice, I have said it thrice;
What I say three times is true."
That may be his reason. At any rate, I am very ready to repeat again to him to-day the words spoken by my noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack last year.
But if the right reverend Prelate, or anybody else, asks me to go further and to say, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, that we agree that the German people, as distinct from the Nazi movement, are in no way responsible for this

163
terrible war, I am afraid I could not do that. That would be impossible. No doubt there are many people in Germany opposed to the doctrines of Hitler. The right reverend Prelate himself gave us some moving details of them, and we all know that there are brave men who have been martyred in Germany for their convictions. But I do not think we can absolve the German people as a whole from guilt for what has happened in the last twenty or thirty years. Consider the rise of the Hitler régime. Ultimately, it was the German people who allowed Hitler to seize power and allowed him to use that power for the persecution and domination of his peaceful neighbours. It is the German people who have acquiesced in, and in some cases approved of, the horrible cruelties against the Jews and the peoples of the occupied countries. And it is the German people who are still fighting with fanatical zeal to keep Hitler in power. All this may come from one of those fundamental processes of the German mentality to which Lord Cecil of Chelwood has referred this afternoon. He said that one of the great principles of the Nazi movement was belief in the divine right of the State.
It may equally arise from a quality in the German character to which he referred in a passage in his speech in the debate on March 10, 1943, which I would like to recall to the House because I think it is a perfectly correct assessment of the German character—their docility. Lord Cecil of Chelwood said on that occasion:
"I think that this docility of the Germans is a very terrible danger to the peace of Europe. It means that if anybody gets hold of the Government in conditions such as those which prevailed before the war they are able to turn the whole strength of Germany, however much the Germans may disapprove in their hearts of that being done, to any form of aggression or offensive action they please."
Now, my Lords, I suggest that that is a profoundly true description of the German character, and with all deference to the right reverend Prelate I could not personally—and I do not think that other noble Lords would be able to do so either—accept his contention that the Allies were very largely, if not primarily, responsible for the rise of Hitler after the last war. As the Earl of Onslow, whom we are all so glad to see back in this House to-day, said, in a very wise
164
speech, German militarism is no new portent. This is, after all, the third time in seventy years that Germany has plunged Europe in blood. The Bishop of Chichester has said that they were driven to accept Hitler by despair, or at any rate that that was one of their main reasons for accepting him. Were they despairing in 1870? Were they despairing in 1914? Germany had never been more prosperous than she was in 1914, and I do not believe that the thesis advanced by the right reverend Prelate can be accepted as the complete explanation of these portents. We cannot hold the German people entirely guiltless of these continued aggressions. As a Belgian statesman said, at the opening of the Belgian Parliament, only last week:
"It was not Hitler who created the German people; it was the German people who created Hitler."
There are, no doubt, at present cases—and there will be more in the future—where the inhabitants of areas in Germany occupied by the Allies appear to welcome them with open arms. We have all been, I think, rather shocked at some photographs we have seen of Allied soldiers fraternizing with Germans. I think that Lord Vansittart will be glad to hear that the Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Forces, General Eisenhower, has issued to all Army Commanders within his Command a directive prohibiting any fraternization whatever with the Germans. Your Lordships may be quite certain that this order will have reached all British and American troops with the Expeditionary Forces, and I hope it will prove effective. But we ought not to be surprised at the apparent friendliness of the Germans in these areas. It is a very natural reaction. It is the reaction of Agag which prompted him to say to Samuel "Surely the bitterness of death is past." It has been a reaction of the inhabitants of occupied countries throughout history. It may mean, but it does not necessarily mean, that they have undergone any change of heart. On the contrary, in the present case I believe that there is accumulating evidence that the German General Staff, envisaging defeat, are already beginning to make preparations to win the next war. Therefore, whatever may be the present frame of mind of the German people, we can have no certainty that they would not follow new leaders into war, like sheep,

165
when the time came. That is no reason—and I agree with the right reverend Prelate entirely about this—for treating the German people with the savage cruelty with which they have treated other countries. That, in any case, would be quite contrary to our traditions and practice, and entirely contrary to the declarations of the Allied leaders. The aim of British policy, and indeed of the policy of the Allies as a whole, is, after all, not to establish a slave world but to establish a peaceful world.
If I were to be asked what is the solution of the German problem, I certainly would not be able to give an answer. I do not believe that anyone could give an answer with certainty now. Lord Cecil of Chelwood said in his speech to-day that he had considered the matter very carefully and that he had come to the conclusion that the only cure was reconversion. I do not know whether that is possible. It may very well be that hard facts even more than our propaganda may convert the Germans into a realization of the error of their ways. But, at any rate, this possibility of conversion, by whatever means, is yet another reason why we should, in the meantime, make it utterly impossible for Germany to embark upon another war, after this one is over, and why we should use whatever means are necessary to make certain that she cannot. That is the only course of wisdom: that, I am certain, is the stern resolve of the British and Allied peoples: and they will be content with nothing less.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I shall exercise my right of reply with the utmost brevity, because the hour is late and I do not wish to trespass unduly on your Lordships' time and patience. I have, however, one or two observations to make. In the first place, I am deeply grateful for the large measure of support which my Motion has received. With a view to economy of time, I shall confine my observations to the remarks of the two members of this House who have opposed me—the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, who, if I understood him rightly, associated his colleagues with him. Both Lord Strabolgi and the right reverend Prelate persistently spoke of eighty million Germans. There are not eighty million Germans; there are only sixty-eight million. You cannot reach a figure of
166
eighty million even by lumping in the loot of the seven million of Austria and the three million of the Sudetenland. Do not let us make our problem out to be worse than it is.
The right reverend Prelate alluded to Signor Croce. "I am glad that he did that, because Signor Croce is a very good illustration of the danger of trying to go too fast. A little while ago there appeared in this country a pronouncement signed by some very prominent people to the effect that Italy was now regenerated and might be treated as an equal. I think that it was perhaps in consequence of that that Signor Croce came out as claiming the pre-war frontiers of Italy. I do not know whether he seriously expects that the Sud-Tyrol is going to be left to Italy. I think we shall not have long to wait before some Italian claims the Italian Colonies. I hope that when that happens the Government will tell us, because it will be a milestone on the road and a rather significant sign.
The right reverend Prelate said that the great majority of the German prisoners were Anti-Nazis. I think the answer to that is that the devil is pretty sick, and we may now have the very devil of a monk on our hands. I should like to say a few words in an endeavour to dissipate a very long-standing and I think rather futile controversy. I remember a verse in a poem of Matthew Arnold's:
"Let the long dissension cease,
Geese are swans and swans are geese"
I was reminded of that a little in listening to the two speeches to which I am now replying. The noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, reminded us that the right reverend Prelate had already brought forward a Motion in this House on this very pronouncement by Marshal Stalin, made two years ago, when the prospects were a little less rosy than they are now. In speaking on that Motion, I remember that I pointed out that what the Russians were saying to the Germans and what they were saying of the Germans were two entirely different things, and I quoted a wealth of evidence to that effect, even at that time, which you will find in Hansard.
A good many years ago, a former member of your Lordships' House, having unwittingly aroused the mirth of your Lordships' predecessors, said somewhat acidly "I hear a smile". Even with advancing years I can hear a wink, and

167
a little while ago I heard the loudest wink in the world. It occurred in The Times of August 24 last, and it ran as follows:
"The time has long since past when any public reference to the Germans without the qualifying adjective of 'Hitlerite' risked the raising of official eyebrows."
The moment I saw that I thought that the Bishop of Chichester would not like it very much, and, being a very straightforward person, I committed the passage to memory in case the right reverend Prelate returned to the charge, as indeed he has done this afternoon. The Russians know very well indeed what the Germans are; they have suffered too much at their hands for there to be any doubt about that.
Passing now to the foundation of this controversy, a controversy which I think has gone on a little too long, I would recall to your Lordships a passage in the 18th Chapter of the First Book of Kings, where Elijah gave to the priests of Baal every possible opportunity to produce a miracle from their god. They cried aloud until the time of the evening sacrifice, "but there was neither voice, nor any to answer, nor any that regarded." That is the case with our propaganda. For years British, American and Russian propaganda of the type now relied upon by the right reverend Prelate has been calling to the German people, but there has been "neither voice, nor any to answer, nor any that regarded," because Baal—that is, the myth of the efficacy of the good Germans—is a false god. The truth is that to which the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, referred in his speech, when he quoted the President of the Belgian Senate as having said that Hitler did not make Germany, but Germany produced Hitler. That is what everyone in Europe knows and believes, and I do beg those who take a contrary view to beware lest they turn our friends into enemies by trying to make friends of our enemies.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, will the noble Lord permit me to interrupt him? He was good enough to interrupt me, and perhaps he will allow me to return the compliment. How does he explain the seven rather prominent Germans who were hanged a fortnight ago—the Mayor
168
of Leipzig and others—and the Generals who were hanged after suitable tortures?
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, they had rather different views as to how to wind up this war in order better to start the next. They were a little premature in their views. I have no faith in the people who were hanged, although the method of their execution was a terrible one.
LORD STRABOLGI: Is not that a Fifth Column?
LORD VANSITTART: No, a Fifth Column is that which opposes absolutely the whole system of militarism, of which Nazism is only an offshoot. These men also were militarists, but they thought it better to wind up this unprofitable business and get a fresh run at it a third time. I hope that we shall beware of making enemies of our friends in that way.
I come now to the speech of the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House. I have got a little out of him—not as much as I expected, but something to go on with. I welcome his assurance that as far as His Majesty's Government are concerned they will encourage the participation of the smaller States that desire to take part. I hope that at some not much later stage he will be able to furnish us with a good deal more information, for I think that Parliament has not had enough and is becoming rather hungry. With that, and subject to the possibility of pressing for more information at a later date, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, I should like to make three remarks. First, the statement to which the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, has referred as having been made on March 10 last year does seem to me to have a relevance to practical situations as they arise from time to time, and therefore to the occupation. Secondly, I did say in my speech that I regarded Germany as responsible for this war. Thirdly, the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, knows very well from inner experience that some of the chief organizers of the recent plot against Hitler laid information before the British Government some time before the present war.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT,1932.
Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section I of the Act to the

County Borough of West Bromwich;

Urban District of Whitchurch, Salop:

Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and ordered to lie on the Table.

ADEN COLONY (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1944.
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and referred to the India and Burma Orders Committee.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, in moving the adjournment of the House
170
there is one word which I should like to say. The number of noble Lords who wish to speak to-morrow on the Motion standing in the name of Lord Balfour of Burleigh on land use is so considerable that the debate will have to be continued on Thursday. I thought that I had better warn the House of that tonight. I should also say that on Thursday the first business will be the Committee stage of the Liabilities (Wartime Adjustment) Bill, whose passage through Parliament is a matter of some urgency. That will come first, and we shall then continue with the adjourned debate on the Motion by Lord Balfour of Burleigh.
Moved, That the House do now adjourn.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes past five o'clock.