Sitting of 11 December 1945

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    WALLASEY CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
    As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  BRITISH ARMY
  Mr. Lawson: I am not aware that the A.E.C. officers are being employed in C.M.F. on duties unconnected with education. There are of course certain administrative duties in connection with this scheme.
  Mrs. Manningasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that in H.Q., B.A.O.R., the Army Education Scheme as set out in A.C.I. has been so emasculated, both in the spirit and the letter, as to cause discontent among men and women personnel; and will he cause immediate investigation to be made into

  195
  this complaint so that the grievance may be remedied.
  Mr. Lawson: I am inquiring into this matter and will write to my hon. Friend.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Transit Camp, Folkestone
    Lieut.-Colonel Mackesonasked the Secretary of State for War if he will state the total number of all ranks involved in administering the transit camp in Folkestone; the maximum numbers accommodated in the camp during October; and if he is satisfied that it is more economical in overheads to have this camp located in scattered billets in civilian houses and hotels than to locate it in Shorncliffe Camp, which is two miles from Folkestone Harbour.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Lawson):Four hundred and forty-eight all ranks are at present employed; during October, the maximum number accommodated in the camp on any one day was 3,340, the total for the month being about 92,000. The camp is shortly being moved to Shorncliffe.

    British General Hospital, M.E.F.
    Squadron-Leader Segalasked the Secretary of State for War on what grounds the use of physical violence by nursing orderlies at the psycho-neurotic centre of the 12th British General Hospital, M.E.F., has been permitted upon
    184
    patients who are convalescent from tuberculosis; whether he is aware that several patients have already had their tubercular condition aggravated as a result of their treatment at this hospital; and what has been the result of his inquiry into the allegations against this hospital, details of which have already been supplied to him.
    Mr. Lawson: I am not aware that the conditions are as stated, but I have made inquiries and when the results are received I will write to my hon. and gallant Friend.

    Personal Cases
    Mr. Sparksasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Marine Batson, CH/X 108132, escaped from the Stakehill military detention barracks on or about 28th October last; and whether he has since been recaptured.
    Mr. Lawson: I am aware of his escape. No report of his recapture has yet been received by the War Office.
    Mr. Sparks: Will the right hon. Gentleman suspend punishment of recaptured men pending the publication of the findings of the court of inquiry?
    Mr. Lawson: That is another question.
    Mr. Proctorasked the Secretary of State for War if he will see that Private Greenwood, 14973322, is credited with his previous service in the Royal Navy for the purposes of demobilisation.
    Mr. Lawson: This has already been done, and his release group correctly assessed. He forfeited a short period of service whilst in the Royal Navy. This has necessarily been excluded.
    Mr. Sparksasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that 7649588 Private Lynham was called to the Forces on 28th July, 1945, was accused of being a deserter since 17th October, 1940, and punished with 14 days' loss of pay; and whether, in view of the fact that the first notice this man received directing him to report for service was dated 20th July, 1945, and that he had been continuously employed for ten years previously by his employers who were engaged on vital war work, he will take steps to cancel this punishment.
    Mr. Lawson: I am aware of this case. The soldier did not comply with an en-

    185
    listment notice ordering him to report on 17th October, 1940; it has been ascertained that this notice was correctly posted under the provisions of the National Service (Armed Forces) Act, 1939. He was ordered to join in July, 1945, following investigations, and did so. I see no reason to interfere with the award of forfeiture of pay for absence without leave, which was made in accordance with the appropriate section of the Army Act.
    Mr. Sparks: May I ask the Minister if he is aware that this man did not receive the original notice of enlistment, that he was informed he had served 18 months in an Army Training Corps and six months in the Royal Army Ordnance Corps, and that he was a deserter from the Army when, as a matter of fact, he had not been in the Army at all and the first enlistment order he received was dated 20th July, 1945?
    Mr. Lawson: All I can say is that in the circumstances I do not think this man got off so badly. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I will state the circumstances. I understand that it had been ascertained that the original notice was posted to him correctly. He elected to accept of his own free will the commanding officer's award of punishment rather than to go for trial by court-martial. He was awarded forfeiture of 14 days' pay for absence without leave from 2nd August, 1942, and in the circumstances he was not punished for desertion or absence without leave from the 17th October, 1940, to 1st August, 1942. His punishment for that period was barred by the Army Act. In the circumstances he elected to accept the judgment given.
    Mr. Bowles: May I ask what proof is demanded by the Act of Parliament in question, and, in this case, what evidence was accepted as to who posted the envelope, and when, and where?
    Mr. Lawson: That is a detailed question which, I think, would require a rather more detailed answer, and I would like to see it on the Paper.
    Mr. E. P. Smith: Can the Minister say why these notices, which are rather important to the men concerned, are not registered?
    Mr. Lawson: I believe, as a matter of fact, they are now, but I am not quite sure.
    Mr. Sparks: While thanking the Minister for the reply, I would again like to ask if he is aware that this man did not receive his original notice of enlistment, that he did not attempt to evade service, that he was continuously employed by his employers who were engaged on important war work for ten consecutive years, and whether the Minister will not consider cancelling this punishment, which I think is most undeserved and unfair?
    Mr. Lawson: In view of the facts of this case, I did investigate it to the best of my ability and I gave the answer on the facts supplied to me, but, if my hon. Friend desires it, and I would certainly desire it, I would like to discuss the matter with him so that he can put the matter in detail before me.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sharpasked the Secretary of State for War why 457963 Lance-Bombardier Gribben, No. 4 Liaison H.Q., British, B.A.O.R., was permitted to remain in the hospital of the Polish Field Ambulance, detailed to him by the hon. Member for Spen Valley, where sanitary conditions were deplorable, where there were no English-speaking personnel, and where he received no mail; whether Lance-Bombardier Gribben has now been removed to a British hospital and is receiving the treatment he requires; and if assurances will be given that British units will exercise proper supervision over the health and living conditions of men who are on detached service.
    Mr. Lawson: This soldier was examined by a Polish medical officer, was admitted to the Polish Reception Station on 15th November, and transferred to a British medical unit on 3rd December. On transfer his condition was good, and he seemed to be quite happy. The sanitary condition of the Polish unit was good, but the food was not up to British standards. It is not always possible for soldiers in small detachments to be looked after by one of their own medical officers, but the Polish units have been asked to transfer any British patients as quickly as possible.

    Demobilisation
    Mr. Asterley Jonesasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now

    187
    able to state the approximate dates of release of officers in Group 22 and subsequent groups.
    Major Bruceasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the reasons for the delay in demobilisation of officers in the Royal Signals falling in Groups 21, 22 and 23; whether he is aware that Royal Signals personnel in S.E.A.C. have recently had their leave stopped; and whether he is prepared to ensure that officers and other ranks in this corps are demobilised pari passu with those of other corps in the Army and that their normal leave facilities are granted them as in the case of other corps.
    Mr. Heathcoat Amoryasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is yet able to give specific dates by which the various groups of officers who have been held back will be released, so that these officers may make revised arrangements for taking up their peacetime careers and re-establishing their homes.
    Mr. Lawson: The revised dates for normal releases of officers are as follow: —
    Group 21— Up to 9th January, 1946.
    Group 22— 10th January to 24th January.
    Group 23— 25th January to 19th February.
    Group 24— Starting 20th February; to be completed at.a date to be announced later.
    These dates apply equally to the Royal Corps of Signals. I have no information regarding the stoppage of leave of Signals personnel in S.E.A.C. I am prepared to investigate any particular complaint.
    Mr. Jones: When will it be possible to announce the dates of release of officers in groups subsequent to No. 24?
    Mr. Lawson: I should like to see that Question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Stephen: Will the Secretary of State arrange with the Minister of Labour to publish another edition of the Demobilisation pamphlet, so that, with these changes, it may be brought up to date?
    Mr. Lawson: I will draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to that suggestion.
    Major Bruceasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware than an order was issued in India Command in the first week in November that all demobilisation and repatriation of British personnel in the R.W.A.F.F. would cease until all the Africans had been returned to their homes; whether he will give the reasons for the issue of this order; and whether he has any further comments to make upon it.
    Mr. Lawson: This matter has already been the subject of numerous Questions by hon. Members. I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend particularly to the replies I gave on 13th November to the hon. and gallant Member for Horn-castle (Commander Maitland) and on 4th December to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cambridge (Major Symonds).
    Major Boyd-Carpenter: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how long this is going on?
    Mr. Lawson: As a matter of fact, these men are being repatriated now. There is no standstill, they are now being repatriated, and as far as these officers and N.C.Os. are concerned, I think most people realise that they are the leaders of the men and are necessary until the repatriation is complete.
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that a number of men in release Group 23, serving in a unit of B.A.O.R., of whose identity he has been informed, have been notified that they are to leave for home on 18th and 19th December; and if, since the journey to the United Kingdom customarily takes at least four days, he will cause the departure of these men to be so expedited that they will be released from the Army not later than 20th December, the date officially announced as the latest for the release of Group 23, and thus be enabled to spend Christmas at their homes.
    Mr. Lawson: These men should be home by Christmas unless sailings have to be cancelled at the last moment, but I do not feel justified in taking special steps to get them home out of their turn.
    Mr. Driberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that they are not asking to be brought home out of their turn, but in

    189
    their turn, so that they can be demobilised with the rest of their group, and that they will not be home for Christmas unless he flies them home or takes some other special steps?
    Mr. Lawson: I have stated that the men will be home by Christmas unless something unforeseen happens to the transport.
    Mr. William Williamsasked the Secretary of State for War when he proposes to issue a statement regarding the release of members of the special communications unit, as promised in a letter dated 6th November, to the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth.
    Mr. Lawson: This question has been under consideration since the letter was sent to my hon. Friend. It has been decided that, since the need for them continues, the men must be retained either until they become redundant or until they qualify for release under the release scheme, whichever is the earlier.
    Mr. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the serious concern felt by men in this unit regarding the constant chopping and changing in the conditions of demobilisation, and in the amount of gratuities and leave granted to them, and will he have special inquiries made?
    Mr. Lawson: I am not aware of the facts stated. I will have some inquiries made, but these men are a special class. They will be released if they are redundant, but otherwise they cannot be released in advance of their group any more than other men.
    Mr. Williams: Will my right hon. Friend say why they are being retained, because my information is that there is not very much work on hand at the present time?
    Mr. Lawson: I will make inquiries on the point raised by my hon. Friend.
    Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Foxasked the Secretary of State for War how many of the 10,000 agricultural workers to be given Class B block releases are to be taken from the Army; what conditions with regard to the age and length of service categories of these men will be applied; and how many men will be released during the next three months, respectively.
    Mr. Lawson: I understand the Army quota is about 6,700. In selecting for bulk release the usual preference will be given to the earlier age and service groups but I cannot yet say how many groups will be affected nor how many releases will be made in each of the next three months. The latter depends largely on the numbers who happen to be serving abroad.
    Mr. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for War whether British men compulsorily transferred from the R.W.A.F.F. to the Indian Army are outside the provisions of regulations for release from the Army.
    Mr. Lawson: So far as can be discovered in the time available, no British Army officers or other ranks in the R.W.A.F.F. have been transferred to the Indian Army. Personnel of the Indian Army are dealt with under the Indian Army demobilisation scheme, and not under the Release Regulations.
    Mr. Janner: Will my right hon. Friend see if he can expedite the release of these men in India in view of the very considerable dissatisfaction that prevails in respect to their present circumstances?
    Mr. Lawson: I will note the suggestion made by my hon. Friend.
    Lieutenant W. Shepherdasked the Secretary of State for War why the release of officers of the R.A.P.C. is being deferred, despite the fact that in many offices their numbers arc increasing.
    Mr. Lawson: Pay Offices are under very great pressure because of the mass of extra work thrown on them by the release scheme. Despite the efforts made to obtain suitable officers to cope with the extra work, and as replacements of those due for release, it has been necessary to defer release in some cases.
    Lieutenant Shepherd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those conditions do not obtain in certain offices of which I have knowledge, and will he take action if I give him information of specific cases?
    Mr. Lawson: I am not aware of it, and I would be surprised if there was any slackness in these Pay Offices, because Pay and Records are kept fully employed in matters of demobilisation.
    Colonel Stoddart-Scottasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the Horsforth Urban District Council are unable to commence their housing scheme of 144 houses until their two surveyors, Captain Dean and Lieutenant Marsden, are released from the Army; that in October the Minister of Health recommended the release of both men; if they are to be offered demobilisation under Class B; and when they are likely to be released from the Army.
    Mr. Lawson: Both officers were in India. Release instructions were sent in October. I have no information as to the present position, but am making inquiries and will inform the hon. and gallant Member.

    Disabled Personnel
    Mr. Me Adamasked the Secretary of State for War if he will review his decision not to release from the Forces men who have suffered permanent disabilities through wounds, such as the loss of an eye, and who will be entitled to disability pensions on discharge, as in the case of Trooper J. Bernardo, who lost an eye in Italy on 10th February, 1945, and who is now serving with N.A.A.F.I. in Austria after being posted from the Reconnaissance Corps to the R.A.S.C./E.F.I. be cause of his disability.
    Mr. Lawson: No, Sir. It is still necessary to retain men who are below the highest medical category for certain types of work, and I am unable to make any exception in favour of the soldier named.

    Aliens (Release)
    Miss Rathboneasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that distress has been caused to some aliens who voluntarily joined the British Army by a recent Southern Command Order to the effect that aliens who are not residents of this country when joining the British Army would not be released in their age and service groups; for how long the release of such aliens will be deferred; and whether, after demobilisation, they will be given the same opportunity as other aliens in the British Forces to remain and take up work in this country, and to be considered for naturalisation.
    Mr. Lawson: As I have previously explained to hon. Members, soldiers are normally released in the country in which they enlisted, and I am unable at present
    192
    to make any exceptions in favour of men who claim that they intend to apply for naturalisation. The men concerned can be released under the ordinary rules as soon as their group is reached. Any delay is due entirely to their wish to remain in this country after release, a matter which is under consideration with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, in connection with his statement on 15th November.
    Miss Rathbone: Is it not both ungrateful and short sighted, in view of the impending decline in our population, to put impediments in the way of men who served us voluntarily and now want to become citizens of this country?
    Mr. Lawson: It is a matter on which I can do nothing personally. My right hon. Friend made a statement on this matter on 15th November to the effect that he was giving consideration to the matter.

    Temporary Officers (Civilian Clothing)
    Lieut.-Colonel Lindsayasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to announce the particulars regarding the entitlement of temporary officers to a civilian clothing outfit on leaving the Services.
    Mr. Lawson: Yes, Sir. Such officers will now become entitled to the outfit, where eligible, if they ceased to draw Service pay on or after 16th October, 1944. An announcement to this effect, inviting applications from the individuals concerned, is about to be made in the Press. In the case of temporary women officers the same procedure will apply, except that they will receive the allowance of £ 12 10s. od. instead of a civilian clothing outfit.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Why that particular date? Why was the line drawn there, because it is bound to cause some hardship?
    Mr. Lawson: I understand that it was really a question of administration. The further you go back, the more difficult it is to get hold of the people concerned. It is partly administration and partly a matter of supplying the suits, which is a very great difficulty at the present moment.
    Captain Crowder: Besides giving the announcement in the Press, could the Secretary of State arrange that the individual officers should be notified, as we are getting a lot of correspondence on this matter and the officers say they cannot get any satisfactory reply from their own Record Office?
    Mr. Lawson: I said that an announcement to this effect, inviting applications from individuals concerned, is about to be made in the Press.
    Captain Crowder: But cannot they be notified individually?
    Mr. Lawson: I said so.
    Mr. Lipson: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that equity should come before administration?
    Mr. Lawson: I said it is a question of administration and production.

    Coloured Soldiers (Discrimination)
    Major Wyattasked the Secretary of State for War why orders were given that no coloured soldiers should be admitted to a military dance at the Slade Club, Abbasia, on Wednesday, 17th October; why a Jamaican lance-sergeant was turned away from this dance and insulted, although accompanied by two white other ranks; and whether he will give instructions that no further orders discriminating againstany coloured soldiers in His Majesty's forces shall be issued in M.E.F.
    Mr. Lawson: I have called for a full report and will inform my hon. and gallant Friend of the outcome.

    Letters to M.Ps.
    Mr. Manningasked the Secretary of State for War if he will make it clear that commanding officers of forces overseas are acting improperly when providing in orders that soldiers' letters to Members of Parliament have to pass through orderly rooms to be censored.
    Mr. Lawson: There is no longer any unit censorship of soldiers' letters. If my hon. Friend knows of a case of the type referred to, and will send me particulars, I will have it investigated.
    Mr. Manning: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.

    War Decorations and Medals
    Major Digbyasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the depots of certain regiments have still not received a proper supply of Army Form B2068, on which all applications for the Defence Medal have to be made; and whether he will expedite the supply of these forms, in view of the fact that the war in Europe ended nearly eight months ago.
    Mr. Lawson: This form had to be revised owing to changes in the conditions governing the issue of awards, and it was delayed on that account. Distribution to Commands has now been completed.
    Major Digbyasked the Secretary to State for War whether he is aware that the depots of some regiments have only just received a proper supply of Army Form B2070, which is necessary for applications for all campaign stars; and what is the reason for this and the consequent delay in authorising soldiers to wear the ribbons to which they are entitled.
    Mr. Lawson: There has been no delay because of the fact that the relevant form was not available. Authority was given in June last for the issue of the campaign star ribbons on a provisional basis subject to verification later.

    Education and Vocational Training
    Flying-Officer Bowdenasked the Secretary of State for War why officers employed in the Army Education Corps in C.M.F. who are not being offered Class B releases, and are mostly schoolmasters are not being employed on E.V.T. but on administrative and staff work.

  Ordnance Depots
  Mr. Manningham-Bullerasked the Secretary of State for War whether the decision to concentrate ordnance work at three large depots is based upon military or economic grounds.
  Mr. Lawson: No decision has been given to concentrate the work at three depots, although it is hoped to concentrate it at about nine or ten, depending on postwar requirements. The depots are being selected on both military and economic grounds.
  Mr. Manningbam-Bullerasked the Secretary of State for War the number of persons now employed at Weedon Ordnance Depot who will cease to be employed there as a result of the transfer of work from there to Bicester.
  Mr. Lawson: The work of nearly 50 clerks is being transferred, but I understand that most, if not all, of those now employed on it have either accepted the offer of transfer to Bicester with the work or can probably be fitted into other posts at Weedon.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that those who have been employed for so long at Weedon have been faced with the alternative either of unemployment or separation from their homes and families?
  Mr. Lawson: I understand that a few of these men have resigned. It is not expected that there will be any difficulty in absorbing at Weedon those who wish to remain.
  Mr. Manningham-Bullerasked the Secretary of State for War if he will state the number of houses it is proposed to build at Bicester to accommodate civilians transferred there from other depots.
  Mr. Lawson: It is not within my province to build houses for civilian employees at depots, except for a few key personnel who must live on the premises. The civilian labour will be drawn as far as possible from neighbouring towns, but if any extra local housing appears to be necessary when the permanent establishment is fixed, I shall bring the point to
  196
  the notice of the civil authorities concerned. The accommodation of any transferred personnel will also be dealt with by the civil authorities.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: Is there any accommodation at Bicester for transferred personnel from Weedon, and are they now to be accommodated in a hostel on the site provided by the War Office?
  Mr. Lawson: I could not answer that question, I should like to see it on the Order Paper.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter at an early opportunity, I hope; on the Motion for the Adjournment.

  Tanks
  Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will now cause a full inquiry to be made into the whole question of tanks and tank production during the war and render a report to this House.
  Mr. Lawson: No, Sir. As at present advised I see no advantage in an inquiry such as is suggested by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Stokes: May I ask the Tight hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that two reports have already been made to the Government which are so bad that they dare not tell the House of Commons; and is he not aware that, as a result of the gross inefficiency that went on, thousands of young men lost their lives and literally hundreds of millions of money was wasted, and will he reconsider the situation?
  Lieut.-Colonel Lindsay: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) was perfectly right in the representations which he made to the House on the subject of tanks, and that he performed a public service?
  Mr. Lawson: I have nothing to add to the answer I have already given.
  Mr. Stokes: In view of the very unsatisfactory situation, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter at the earliest opportunity in public.

  Hospital Cases (Terminal Leave)
  Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Secretary of State for War whether soldiers

  197
  who, on account of war injuries have to enter military hospitals during their 56 days' terminal leave can have such leave extended by the amount of time spent in hospital.
  Mr. Lawson: I am looking into this point and will inform my hon. and gallant Friend of the result.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In view of the satisfactory nature of the reply I have received may I give notice, Mr. Speaker that I do not propose to raise this on the Adjournment?

  Battle Dress (Dyeing)
  Mr. Garry Allighanasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that his Department prohibits discharged men dyeing the battle dress they are permitted to retain so that it can be used for civilian wear; and if he will have this prohibition withdrawn.
  Mr. Lawson: Yes, Sir; it has now been decided that the ban should be lifted and arrangements will be made accordingly.
  Mr. E. P. Smith: Does that apply to members of the Home Guard?

  Practice Firing, Norfolk
  Mr. Goochasked the Secretary of State for War if he will order the discontinuance of the practice firing from ground artillery and anti-aircraft artillery range at Stiffkey over Wells, Norfolk, town, marshes and foreshore so that the townspeople, especially fishermen, worm diggers, cockelers and others can have free access to the marshes, foreshore and sea at all times.
  Mr. Lawson: Firing by ground artillery will finish at the end of this month, after which only anti-aircraft practice will take place from this range.

  Jewish Personnel, Palestine (Posting)
  Mr. Piratinasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Jewish personnel in the British Army are being posted out of Palestine; on whose orders this is being done; and what steps he will take to end this religious discrimination.
  Mr. Lawson: I am aware of this instruction. It was issued by the War Office in the interests of the soldiers concerned,
  198
  and it applies equally to men of the Jewish and Moslem faiths.
  Mr. Piratin: Would the Minister explain to the House the reason for that instruction?
  Mr. Lawson: I should have thought that was obvious.
  Mr. Piratin rose —
  Mr. Speaker: Colonel Hutchison.
  Mr. Piratin: Mr. Speaker, may I follow-up the question?
  Mr. Speaker: I have called the next Question.

  Requisitioned Property
  Commander Nobleasked the Secretary of State for War what are the units which are necessarily accommodated in London, thereby preventing the derequisitioning of premises in Chelsea.
  Mr. Lawson: As the answer is necessarily rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the Official Report.
  Commander Noble: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of these premises are small houses which are in very great demand at present?
  Following is the answer:
  I assume the hon. and gallant Member does not want a detailed list of all the units— including many small detachments — which arc still accommodated in London. I can assure him that these units are under constant review to see whether their presence in London is still necessary. The major units in Chelsea are:
  The Air Trooping Centre, London District Assembly Centre, War Office M.T. Company, a Military Collecting Unit, Leave Hostels, Camp Reception Station and various A.T.S. units employed in London District and at the War Office.
  Essential work now being carried out by the units in London includes repair of bomb damage, removing air raid protections, assisting the General Post Office, erecting prefabricated houses and work for the community at large in addition to finding staffs for air trooping, leave and transit centres, and the several Military Headquarters whose units are still maintained in London.

  Personnel, Burma(Repatriation)
  Mr. W. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that in six weeks preceding the 22nd November, no releases under Python or L.I.A.P. had been effected; that in that period not a single boat had left Rangoon with release men and that the catering arrangements in Camp No. 5 F.A.R.H.U. are inadequate and unsatisfactory and have resulted in an outbreak of dysentery in the camp; and what steps is he taking to remedy these conditions.
  Mr. Collinsasked the Secretary of State for War if he will state the reason for the withdrawal of the troopships "Alcantara" and "Llangibby Castle" at Rangoon, with the resultant disappointment to British troops and to their families at home, who were relying on the pledge that they would be repatriated by Christmas.
  Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that at the end of November there were still many men belonging to release Group 23 who were held up at transit camps in and near Rangoon awaiting passage home; and what steps are being taken to speed up the repatriation of Army personnel from Burma.
  Captain Chetwyndasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the unsatisfactory conditions of the repatriation camp in Rangoon, particularly in regard to food and water supplies; and if he will take steps to see that personnel awaiting transport are given as-good conditions as possible.
  Wing-Commander Roland Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction among the men in No. 5 F.A.R.H.U. Camp, Rangoon, owing to the continued delays in their repatriation; and whether he will arrange for these men to return home as speedily as possible.
  Mr. Lawson: As the answer deals mainly with points of detail, I will, with permission, circulate it in the Official Report. But, as regards repatriation from Burma in general, I have no reason to think that any substantial number of men will be delayed beyond their due
  200
  date, or that, even in cases where delay does occur, it will be for more than a few days.
  Mr. Medland: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that up to four days ago no boat had called at Rangoon, and will he fly these men home for Christmas?
  Mr. Lawson: I do not understand the trouble about Rangoon at all. I have made special inquiries and I am hoping, according to the replies I have had from the Transport Department, that these men will be home in time according to the number of their group.
  Mr. W. Williams: Will my right hon. Friend say whether, in the course of his inquiries, it has been confirmed or otherwise that no boat has left Rangoon for six weeks? That is the main point of our Questions.
  Mr. Lawson: I have made inquiries upon this point and I am assured that these men will be home in time according to the group number.
  Mr. Driberg: Could my right hon. Friend say whether as much transport aircraft has been used, proportionately, for flying home these men from Burma as for the men in India Command?
  Mr. Lawson: From the answer that is being circulated, I understand that a ship left on 2nd December.
  Mr. Driberg: Could my right hon. Friend answer the question which I have just put? Are as many transport aircraft used for the men in Burma as for the men in India Command, proportionately?
  Mr. Lawson: I understand that they get their share of transport by air. They are sent to India for that purpose.
  Following is the answer:
  The "Alcantara" was suggested but was too big for this service and other shipping was provided. The "Llangibby Castle" was slightly delayed owing to essential repairs but sailed from Rangoon to the United Kingdom on 2nd December, less than a week after the due date. To offset any delay caused to men in early release groups, that ship was ordered to put in at Madras to take off any men who wished to travel the rest of the way by air. Subject to weather, men in Group 23 who travel by air should arrive home

  201
  within the prescribed period for release and even the remainder will not be more than a few days late.
  I have made no specific promise that troops would arrive home for Christmas, though I hope many will do so. The statements as to progress and plans have referred to the end of the year. In the six weeks ended 22nd November, three ships left Rangoon for the United Kingdom bringing over 5,400 men, apart from any men leaving for home via India. I had already called for a report on the conditions in the repatriation camp in Rangoon, in connection with a previous complaint. On receipt of this report I will arrange for such remedies as appear to be necessary.

  Leith Hill (Restoration)
  Mr. Toucheasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has considered the letter from the town planning committee of the Surrey County Council regarding the desirability of the restoration of the amenities of the preservation area around Leith Hill by the removal of temporary buildings and barbed wire entanglements; and what action is being taken.
  Mr. Lawson: Yes, Sir. I have called for a full report on all the obstructions remaining in this neighbourhood so that the situation can be thoroughly examined.
  Mr. Touche: Has any action been taken in this matter? I raised this question months ago.
  Mr. Lawson: I will give the hon. Member an answer as soon as possible.

  Ammunition Dumps
  Flight-Lieutenant Haireasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will now remove ammunition dumps on agricultural land.
  Mr. Lawson: As I have previously explained, very large stocks of ammunition are stored throughout the country and while every effort is being made to dispose of it as. quickly as possible, facilities for disposal are limited. Very little agricultural land is in use for this purpose and this consists entirely of headlands. Priority of clearance is being given to such land and the closest touch is maintained with local farmers.
  Mr. Benn Levyasked the Secretary of State for War when he will be able substantially to reduce the present term of overseas service for troops.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sharpasked the Secretary of State for War when he will relax the regulation that men in M.E.F. and C.M.F. must serve there for four years before qualifying for repatriation.
  Mr. Lawson: I cannot at present add anything to the reply I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for North Blackpool (Brigadier Low) on 9th October, so far as length of the qualifying period for overseas service is concerned.
  Mr. Levy: Can the Minister not even hold out some hope to these expatriates that somehow soon there will be a reduction?
  Mr. Lawson: That suggestion has my sympathy, but I want to see the lower qualifications working properly before I make a decision, as I want to keep my promise when a decision is made.
  Mr. Norman Bowerasked the Secretary of State for War why the 129th Field Regiment, R.A., has not yet been brought home, in view of the fact that the 36th L.A.A. Regiment, R.A., and the 123rd Field Regiment, R.A., which went out with them in the "Orion," in June, 1942, have both arrived in this country.
  Mr. Lawson: Units move according to Army requirements but this does not affect the repatriation of individuals. A unit which remains overseas sends home individually any men due for repatriation. Such men have to be replaced. When a unit is no longer required and returns home it leaves behind any men who are not due for repatriation, for posting as replacements to other units. Both the field regiments mentioned are still in India.

  Searchlight Stations
  Mr. Baldwinasked the Secretary of State for War how long it will be necessary to retain 48 searchlight sites in the counties of Hereford and Worcester which have been unoccupied for from one to two years and for which compensation rent is still being paid.
  Mr. Lawson: Three of these sites have now been released. Most of the remainder will be released as soon as satisfactory

  203
  arrangements can be made for the disposal of the hutting. These are proceeding and I hope that all will have been released by the end of January next.
  Mr. Baldwin: Is the Minister aware that there was no hurry about the release of these sites until this Question appeared on the Order Paper?

  Requisitioned Property
  Squadron-Leader Segalasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the proposal to revive the vicennial Preston Guild for the first time since 1922, he will undertake to restore to the county borough of Preston the use of its public hall within the next three months.
  Mr. Lawson: This hall is used as an Infantry Records Office and is a vital part of the release scheme. I regret I cannot offer any hope that this property can be released within the next three months.

  Accident, Cambridge
  Major Symondsasked the Secretary of State for War if he has yet received the proceedings of the Court of Inquiry into the accident at Cambridge on 22nd October, when a civilian was killed in collision with a tank; and what action he has taken or intends to fake.
  Mr. Lawson: No, Sir. I hope to have them within the next few days.

  Court Proceedings, Cambridge
  Major Symondsasked the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been drawn to the report of the proceedings at Cambridge Petty Sessions on 29th November, when the look-out man on a tank was fined £5 for procuring dangerous driving on 22nd October; and will he now give effect to the comment of the chair man of the bench that the Army authorities should make it quite clear whether they were going to take responsibility for such dangerous driving or whether they were going to make the men understand they must not do it.
  Mr. Lawson: I have no information on the proceedings at Cambridge Petty Sessions, but I have called for a report.

  Drivers (Safety Precautions)
  Major Symondsasked the Secretary of State for War on what dates within
  204
  the last 12 months, and in what form, he has issued instructions that military drivers must at all times conform to normal traffic signals and road signs; and what penalties are imposed for breaches of such instructions.
  Mr. Lawson: The instructions are brought to notice regularly each quarter, by Army Council Instruction, which provides for their repetition in summarised form three times a quarter in command, formation and unit orders. A court-martial in these cases may award as a maximum punishment either, in the case of an officer, cashiering, or, in the case of a soldier, two years' imprisonment with or without hard labour, or the punishment which under the civil law may be awarded for the offence.
  Major Symonds: Is the Minister aware that these instructions are still not being observed, and that it was stated in the court proceedings referred to in the second part of my Question, that even in the town where this regrettable accident occurred these instructions were still not being observed?
  Mr. Lawson: I have done all I can to emphasise this point upon the persons concerned. I may say that there was a detailed instruction sent out in 1942, and attention was drawn to this on 3rd March, 2nd June, 1st September and on the 1st of this month with instructions to the units who introduced the original A.C.I.
  Mr. Stubbs: Can the Minister say whether local authorities receive information from his Department that the military authorities must obey the traffic regulations, and if not, why not?
  Mr. Lawson: All I can say is that I have emphasised this matter as much as I can, and I cannot do any more than I have done.
  Major Bruce: What action does the Minister take when cases come to his notice where the instructions have beer disobeyed?
  Mr. Lawson: I have stated what the penalties are on the men who have disobeyed them.

  E.N.S.A. (Charges)
  Mr. Gerald Williamsasked the Secretary of State for War on what basis it has been decided that, as from January

  205
  next, troops will have to pay sums varying between 6d. and is to witness cinema entertainments provided by E.N.S.A.; whether any estimate has been made as to whether such charges are necessary to cover the cost of the provision of the entertainment or whether a substantial profit is envisaged; and whether he will make a full statement on the subject.
  Mr. Lawson: This represents a return to normal peacetime procedure. The charge is intended to cover the cost which, in the case of E.N.S.A. cinemas, at present falls on N.A.A.F.I. funds.
  Mr. Williams: Is the Minister aware that these charges are very nearly as grave as those charged in this country after tax has been deducted, and is it right that these charges should be made to troops after already being subsidised by N.A.A.F.I.?
  Mr. Lawson: I think I ought to make it clear that this arrangement does not at present apply to India and S.E.A.C. and only to the 35 m.m. films and not to the 16 m.m. films.

  War Department Constabulary
  Mr. A. Edward Daviesasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the abolition of the qualification for recruitment to the War Department Constabulary, that applicants should not be below the rank of war substantive sergeant in the Regular Army, so as to enable suitable applicants of all ranks to be considered.
  Mr. Lawson: No, Sir, except for Regular soldiers of the Corps of Military Police, in whose case the rank of corporal is regarded as qualifying.
  Mr. Davies: Is the Minister aware that there are many excellent men who did not attain the rank of war substantive sergeant in the Regular Army, but who could adequately fill these posts and should have some preference in recruitment?
  Mr. Lawson: I am told that in actual practice and from experience it has been found that the rank qualification is an almost essential preliminary test in these matters.

  Far East Casualties (Notification)
  Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that, on the liberation of Changi Jail Camp, Singa-
  206
  pore, in August last, comprehensive lists of all those who had died in the camp were handed over to the British military authorities by the British personnel engaged regularly in the administration of the camp, but that in some cases the relatives of those whose names were in these lists have not yet been notified officially of their deaths and are only now learning of them informally from returning survivors; and if he will explain this delay.
  Major Tufton Beamishasked the Secretary of State for War on what date the detailed records, compiled at Changi throughout the Japanese occupation, of men who were killed in action in Malaya in 1941–42, or who died of illness in captivity, left Singapore by air; on what date the detailed list of casualties during this same period for Thailand, left Thailand by air; when these records arrived in this country; and why the next-of-kin of casualties recorded in these lists were in some cases still without information as to the fate of their relatives on 27th November.
  Mr. Lawson: As the answer necessarily deals with several points of detail, I will circulate it in the Official Report.
  Mr. Driberg: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he has really gone into this matter, because it has caused a great deal of distress among the relatives of the men concerned?
  Mr. Lawson: Yes, Sir. I have given considerable attention to this matter.
  Following is the answer:
  Altogether, upwards of 400 lists of casualties have been received since the end of hostilities in the Far East, and without considerable inquiry I could not give the dates on which particular lists were despatched from Singapore or Thailand. The Changi records reached the War. Office on 16th November, having been preceded by numerous other individual and unit lists comprising much of the same information. All these lists have been or are still under examination at the War Office and very substantial progress has been made in notifying the next-of-kin. The lists vary very widely in their accuracy and in the details furnished, and in some cases considerable investigation is necessary before relatives can be informed. This, in conjunction with the large numbers involved, has affected to

  207
  some extent the speed of notification. In the great bulk of cases next-of-kin have already been notified, and I hope to deal with most of the remainder in the very near future, but hon. Members will appreciate that official notification cannot be undertaken lightly where discrepancies exist, particularly when they may be capable of clearance by further investigation.

  Personnel, Berlin (Entertainment)
  Mr. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for War in view of the recent order banning British troops in Berlin from all German theatres and cinemas what arrangements are to be made to provide adequate alternative places of entertainment reserved for troops alone.
  Mr. Lawson: The ban, which is not new, was imposed for medical reasons. Adequate entertainment facilities exist at two theatres— one a German theatre, with evenings for troops only— and seven cinemas. I understand that these are rarely completely filled. The troops also have access to American shows.

  Mails (India Command)
  Lieut.-Commander Braithwaiteasked the Secretary of State for War what is the average time now required for the transit of mails from the United Kingdom to India Command.
  Mr. Lawson: The average time taken between the base post offices in this country and India is 5.3 days by air and 29 days for parcels by sea. The time of transit between the base post office in India and the unit varies according to the unit location.
  Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: If I send the right hon. Gentleman information from the unit which alleges it has received no mail from home since 18th October, will he look into it?
  Mr. Lawson: Yes, Sir.

  271st Battery, Far East
  Mr. Keelingasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has considered the evidence sent him that the 271st Battery arrived from the Far East recently without adequate arrangements being made, either beforehand or during the succeeding five weeks, for proper housing, messing or winter clothing; and whether he has any statement to make.
  Mr. Lawson: Yes, Sir. I much regret this incident, which was due to the very late arrival of information regarding the draft. The arrangements made were the best that could be improvised at short notice, but I realise that this did not prevent discomfort to the troops concerned. I am taking steps which I hope will prevent a recurrence.
  Mr. Keeling: Does the Secretary of State not think that five weeks after the unit arrived is too long an interval before arrangements could be made?

  PRISONERS OF WAR

    Distinctive Flash
    Mr. Belcherasked the Secretary of State for War if he will consider issuing a distinctive flash to repatriated prisoners of war.
    Mr. Lawson: Flashes worn on battle-dress are regimental and not individual distinctions, but I am looking into the whole question.

    Spanish Nationals
    Brigadier Fitzroy Macleanasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has yet reached a decision regarding the Spanish Republicans at present held as prisoners of war in this country.
    Mr. Lawson: I hope to make an announcement within the next few days.
    Brigadier Maclean: Does the Minister realise the great dissatisfaction that is being caused in wide circles by his failure to make up his mind on this question?
    Mr. Lawson: I told the hon. Member that I will be in a position to make a statement on this matter within a few days, and I do not think it will be unsatisfactory, either.
    Mrs. Leah Manning: Is the Minister aware that British intelligence officers recently visited the camp and took the names of men who wished to go to France, and told the other men, who did not want to go to France, that they will have to stay in the camp, and remain in this country? Was it on his instructions that this was done? It has caused very great dissatisfaction.
    Mr. Lawson: That is rather a different matter. I should like to see that down

    209
    on the Paper. I must say that this question is extremely complicated and is not as plain—[Hon. Members: "Why? "] There are a good many sides to it and I am hoping the answer I will give later on will give a good deal more satisfaction.

    Exchange Rates
    Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now able to announce any change of policy affecting the rate of exchange of charitable contributions made by officers and other ranks prisoners of war.
    Mr. Lawson: I regret that I am not yet in a position to make any announcement on this Question about which I have been in communication with the hon. Member.
    Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now able to announce any change of policy affecting the rate of exchange of saving from pay received by repatriated prisoners of war who worked in the camps as batmen, orderlies or otherwise.
    Mr. Lawson: Yes, Sir. Such savings are now being treated as savings of working pay and converted into sterling at the preferential rate of Rm.15 to the £.
    Mr. Turton: May I ask whether other ranks should apply for the balance due to them, or will it come through the usual channels?
    Mr. Lawson: I think I had better see that question on the Order Paper.

    GALLANTRY AWARDS (FRENCH SUBJECTS)
    Colonel J. R. H. Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for War whether any King's medals for courage arid associated medals have yet been awarded to French men and women who aided our nationals during the German occupation.
    Mr. Lawson: A list of recommendations for various awards, including the King's Medal for Courage in the cause of freedom, is now with the French Government, and we await their reply. Some awards other than the medal named have already been granted.
    Colonel Hutchison: In view of the time which it has taken to reach this stage, may I ask the Minister whether we must
    210
    anticipate an equivalent lapse of time before these awards are finally made; and will he expedite the matter, because it is of real value between the two nationals?
    Mr. Lawson: I take note of the point and benefit by it.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Could other countries, such as Holland and Belgium, be considered broadly in this list of decorations?
    Mr. Lawson: I shall have to see that Question on the Paper.

    NEWFOUNDLAND(ELECTED NATIONAL CONVENTION)
    Mr. Maxtonasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to make a statement about the restoration of self-government to Newfoundland.
    Sir Alan Herbertasked the Prime Minister what is the policy of His Majesty's Government concerning the future of Newfoundland.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I propose, with Mr. Speaker's permission, to make a statement at the end of Questions.
    Later—
    The Prime Minister: In pursuance of the statement of policy made on behalf of the Coalition Government in December, 1943, which they fully endorse. His Majesty's Government have decided to set up in Newfoundland next year, as early as climatic conditions permit, an elected National Convention of Newfoundlanders. Elections to the Convention will be held broadly on the basis of the former Parliamentary constituencies. All adults will be entitled to vote, and candidates for election will be required to be bona fide residents in the districts they seek to represent. The Convention will be presided over by a judge of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland, and its terms of reference will be as follows:
    " To consider and discuss amongst themselves, as elected representatives of the Newfoundland people, the changes that have taken place in the financial and economic situation of the Island since 1934, and bearing in mind the extent to which the high revenues of recent years have been due to wartime conditions, to examine the position of the country and to make recommendations to His Majesty's Gov-

    211
    emment as to possible forms of future government to be put before the people at a national referendum."
    In order to assist the Convention, His Majesty's Government will make available to it when it meets the services of an expert adviser who could give guidance on constitutional forms and procedure; and they will also prepare for use of the Convention a factual and objective statement of the Island's financial and economic situation. This statement will be made available to Parliament at the same time.
    In the meantime it is, of course, most important that the series of reconstruction measures which the Commission of Government already have in hand or are planning to introduce should proceed without interruption, and these will be pushed forward as rapidly as possible. The Commission have a full programme designed to meet the more pressing requirements of the Island over the next two or three years.
    Our relations with Newfoundland have been so special and Newfoundlanders have played such a gallant part in the war that it would, I know, be the wish of us all to assure to any new Government which may take over in the Island the fairest possible start. But we must above all be careful not to promise what we may not be able to perform, and the special difficulties of our financial position over the next few years may well preclude us from undertaking fresh commitments.
    The object of the procedure which His Majesty's Government propose is to enable the people of the Island to come to a free and informed decision as to their future form of government. I know the House, which has always been solicitous for their welfare, will wish them well in the exercise of their choice.
    Mr. Eden: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept the support of my hon. Friends on this side of the House in the step which he has just announced which, if I may so, seems a wise one in the interests of Newfoundland itself? We hope it will have the result we all desire, for we all feel a sense of gratitude for the contribution that that country has made during the years through which we have just passed.
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Maxton: With regard to the Prime Minister's announcement, it seemed to me that it was the biggest blot on our democratic system that a nation that had self-government for many years should have it taken away. The Prime Minister mentioned that expert help would be sent out in the election of the Convention. Would he consider sending out now one or more additional Commissioners who would have the duty of assisting the islanders to prepare for the elections and the referendums?
    The Prime Minister: I will certainly ask my Noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Dominions to consider that matter, but I would have thought they could have gone ahead with the election preparations. The kind of help which they need and which we intend to send to them is the technical help on. constitutional and financial matters and so forth. If there were any need for more Commissioners, we would certainly send them provided we could do so.
    Sir A. Herbert: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, may I ask him if he will congratulate not only the present Dominions Secretary but his predecessor on the very wise and generous announcement of policy which he has made?
    Mr. Beverley Baxter: I am certain that the Prime Minister is aware that his announcement will be received with great satisfaction in Newfoundland. It is a matter of great credit for this Parliament. Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that never again will any Government in which he participates—I know it was not done by a Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member —allow a Parliament to be closed down, and the franchise of a people to be taken away within the British Empire; and that whatever happens, never again will any British Parliament— [Interruption.] This matter is more important than procedure — [An Hon. Member: "It was a Tory Government that did it."] This is a very important matter. My point is that this country imposed taxation without representation. I want only an assurance from the Prime Minister that never again will that be done.
    The Prime Minister: While I can certainly say that it is not the policy of this Government to take away representative institutions from any part of the British Empire, I am quite unable to pledge future Parliaments because Parliaments will do whatever they decide.
    Captain Marsden: Is it not the case that Newfoundland, while still having full Dominion status, asked for our help? Do I understand the Prime Minister to suggest that if such a Dominion came again we should refuse that help? I should be very sorry to think that would happen.
    The Prime Minister: I do not think it is a profitable thing at the moment to go into the history of this matter. We must look to the future rather than to the gloomy past.

    HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES (RECORDING)
    Mr. Gordon Walkerasked the Prime Minister if he will consider making arrangements for the recording of selected Debates in this House so that they may be later broadcast in part or in whole, by the B.B.C.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. This proposal has been considered on previous occasions, and I do not think that there is any substantial body of opinion in the House which would favour this course.
    Captain Blackburn: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the main reason why this proposal has been turned down in the past was not the low standard of Debate and attendance in previous Parliaments?
    Hon. Members: Oh.
    Mr. G. Walker: Would my right hon. Friend take into account that not only in this country, but abroad, many people are interested in our Parliamentary policy, and that this would be the most effective way of all of getting it across?
    The Prime Minister: I disagree with my hon. Friend that this would be the most effective way of getting it across. I do not think that a long day's discussion in the House would be listened-in to. There would probably be a rush to get to the best listening times, which might affect the Debates in this House. It would be very difficult to get the proper balance
    214
    between Members. All those matters have been considered over and over again and I do not think it would be good to do it.
    Mr. Baxter: Is the Prime Minister aware that his reply will be supported by all Members of good sense in the House?

    ROSYTH NAVAL BASE
    Mr. Kirkwoodasked the Prime Minister if he will consider giving time for a discussion of the Motion relating to Rosyth Dockyard, standing on the Order Paper in the names of the hon. Members for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) and Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood).
    [That this House is of opinion that Rosyth Naval Base should be retained and developed into a fully-functioning naval establishment and that consideration be given to the demand for a naval dock in the Clyde capable of docking the largest naval and merchant shipping built in the Clyde shipyards.]
    The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I regret that I cannot hold out any prospect of time being available for the discussion of this Motion.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Is the Minister aware that discontent is rife in Scotland because we have no representative in the Cabinet, and that we are being neglected, with the result that there is more unemployment in Scotland than there is in England? What has the Minister to say to that?
    Mr. Morrison: I can assure my hon. Friend that, in the regretted absence of the Secretary of State, Scotland has ample means of access to the highest quarters in the land. With regard to the idea of a Debate, I would suggest to the hon. Member that he might think of getting an opportunity on a suitable Supply Day when this subject might be discussed.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is not the Minister aware that we have never yet got a day allocated for general discussion of the situation in Scotland? We are always limited to a Supply Day when we are confined to certain subjects.

  GERMANY

    Hamburg (Military Government)
    Mr. Prittasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for what reason the Military Government in Hamburg is

    215
    employing Lieut.-Colonel Herbst, a former Nazi Party member since May, 1933, to take charge of docks and water police in Hamburg; and if, as this individual falls within the category of C1 compulsory arrest or C1 compulsory investigation, he will give directions for his immediate replacement from among the available anti-Nazi Germans.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): Herbst is not employed with Military Government, Hamburg. He was dismissed on the 18th October, 1945, because he was within the compulsory removal category.
    Mr. Prittasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for what reason the Military Government in Hamburg is employing one, Emil Kroger, formerly a Nazi Party member since May, 1933, a member of the S.S. and an official of the Berlin police up to the collapse of Ger many, to take charge of organisation and reconstruction in Hamburg; and if, as this man falls within the category of CI compulsory arrest or C1 compulsory investigation, he will give directions for his immediate replacement from among the available anti-Nazi Germans.
    Mr. J. Hynd: Kröger is not employed with Military Government, Hamburg. He was dismissed on the 12th November, because he fell within the compulsory removal category. There is evidence that he was not a member of the S.S.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) could be included in the compulsory category?
    Mr. Prittasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for what reason the Military Government in Hamburg is employing Major Westring, a former S.S. Obersturmbannf ührer, as a section leader on the Staff in Hamburg; and if, as this individual falls within the category of C1 compulsory arrest or C1 compulsory investigation, he will give directions for his immediate replacement from among the available anti-Nazi Germans.
    Mr. J. Hynd: Westring is not employed with Military Government, Hamburg. He was dismissed on the 12th November as he was found to have been a member of the Nazi Party from May, 1937, and a
    216
    member of the S.S. since 1940, with quick promotion between 1940 and 1943 and doubtful service in Austria and Russia. Before dismissal he was employed as a Section Police Officer in the Uniform Branch. He has since been arrested and has been prosecuted for wrongful completion of his Fragebogen. He was a Sturmbannfuehrer and not an Ober-turmbannfurhrer.
    Mr. Pritt: Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that persons of this character are being energetically chased out?
    Mr. Hynd: I think that the answers I have given to the Questions put by the hon. and learned Gentleman are sufficient evidence. I can assure him that persons subject to compulsory arrest and compulsory removal are being speedily removed from the Services. In fact, all the higher appointments to the police made since the capitulation are again under review to ensure that none but anti-Nazis occupy these posts.

    Military Organisations (Inter-Allied Inspection)
    Mr. Pickthornasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the result of the discussions by the Allied Military Commission in Berlin of the Russian proposal for inter-Allied inspection of German military, naval and aviation organisations in the British zone; and whether he will give full particulars of such units.
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what formations of German forces and of German military, naval, and air force staffs sill exist in the British occupation zone; how many men are involved; what arms they possess; and when will they be completely and finally disarmed and disbanded.
    Mr. J. Hynd: In reply to a Soviet suggestion that an Allied Commission of Inquiry should go into the British zone, Field-Marshal Montgomery stated that he was ready to agree provided that the Commission was allowed to visit all zones with equal freedom of movement and enquiry, and that similar Commissions were appointed to investigate other matters affecting the administration of Germany as a whole. After discussion, the Soviet proposal was referred to the Co-ordinating Committee composed of the four Deputies.

    217
    The Soviet proposal arose out of an allegation that the British authorities were maintaining Wehrmacht units fully armed in the British zone. The position is that some units and personnel of the former Wehrmacht have been retained for essential work, including dangerous tasks such as lifting mines. Others are awaiting transfer to the Russian and French zones. The shortage of British manpower due to the Release Scheme has made it essential to retain German staffs to see that British orders arc carried out. The rate of disbandment of these men and staffs depends on many factors such as the progress of the work and of the negotiations for transfer to other areas, as well as on transport facilities. These units have, of course, no armament. The total number of men involved is of the order of 520,000. Of former Wehrmacht personnel who fell into our hands at the surrender, some 75 per cent. have already been disbanded, and the process will be accelerated as much as possible during the coming months.
    Mr. Lipson: Does the hon. Gentleman's answer mean that there are no German armed forces in the British zone?
    Mr. Hynd: Certainly.
    Major Peter Roberts: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he will consider the advisability of going thoroughly into this question of investigation in all zones?
    Mr. Hynd: As I have stated, the proposition was put by Field Marshal Montgomery to the Control Commission, and the whole question has been referred to the Co-ordinating Committee for examination.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Defence Areas (Assistance)
    Lieut.-Colonel Mackesonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps the Government are taking to make it possible for traders, boarding house and hotel proprietors in defence areas to obtain adequate finance to reopen and re-equip their businesses.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvit Hall): I have been asked to reply. Loans free of interest are made by the Ministry of Health to local authorities in the coastal areas principally affected by the war to enable those
    218
    authorities to lend sums up to £150 to persons who were in business in those areas before the war. In addition, the ordinary facilities provided by the banks to their customers and, where somewhat larger amounts are involved, by the Industrial and Commercial Finance Corporation are available in suitable cases.
    Lieut.-Colonel Mackeson: Will the hon. Gentleman give sympathetic consideration to increasing the sum of £ 150, which is quite inadequate?
    Mr. Hall: This matter has been debated, and one cannot answer a question like that across the Floor of the House during, Question Time.

    Colonial R.A.F. Personnel (Income Tax)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that R.A.F. personnel who were recruited in the Colonies pay income tax to an amount not exceeding the tax which would be chargeable in their own countries, but that R.A.F. personnel from the Colonies who were recruited in this country pay income tax at full United Kingdom rates; that this discrimination operates harshly against those who volunteered for service early in the war and paid their own fares to this country in order to join up; and if he will take steps to alleviate this hardship.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: My right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot extend the concession to which my hon. Friend refers.
    Mr. Driberg: Can my hon. Friend say why not?
    Mr. Hall: Members of the Forces who come here from abroad are exempt from tax on the income that comes to them from the locality where they normally reside, but they have to suffer, as do other members of the Forces here, Income Tax deduction on pay which they receive from the British Government.
    Mr. Driberg: But can my hon. Friend say why volunteers, who came here early in the war to join up on their own account, should have to suffer more than people who were recruited in their own countries? May I have an answer?
    Mr. Oliver Stanley: Will the hon. Gentleman give an answer? It is very hard on some of these Colonial personnel

    219
    who made very great sacrifices to come over here.
    Mr. Hall: That has been going on for six years, and up to July we had a Chancellor of the Exchequer who did not belong to the Labour Party. I think that it is rather late in the day to put this Question now that the war is over.

    Ships' Masters (Income Tax)
    Mr. Jannerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether masters of Ministry of War Transport ships pay Income Tax on profits made by them on the sale of tobacco and bonded stores to their crews; and whether they submit detailed accounts of all such transactions on the completion of each voyage.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Such profits, if made by a ship's master on his own account, are liable to Income Tax and should be included in his Income Tax return. The reply to the second part of the Question is that practice varies.
    Mr. Janner: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to investigate cases where exorbitant charges have been made to see if proper returns are made in respect of taxes?
    Mr. Hall: If the hon. Member will let me have particulars of the kind of thing that he has in mind, I will certainly look into it.
    Mr. Janner: Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to consult with the Minister of War Transport to whom I have given particulars of these cases?
    Mr. E. P. Smith: Can the hon. Member say in what way this practice is carried on?
    Mr. Hall: In some cases, the company owning the ship runs a shop aboard the ship, and the master sells tobacco and cigarettes as agent for the shipping company. In the case of some other companies, the master does this on his own, and accounts in his own way, if he makes a profit, to the Inspector of Taxes. I am informed that a very close watch is being kept.

    Postwar Credits (Farmers)
    Mr. Dyeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what regulations govern
    220
    the payment of postwar credits to farmers in respect of their E.P.T.; and whether the same regulations apply to tenant farmers as to owner-occupiers.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: The provisions contained in Part IV of, and the Sixth Schedule to, the Finance Bill. These apply to farmers, whether tenants or owner-occupiers, as to all other traders.
    Mr. Dye: Is my hon. Friend aware that so far as tenant farmers are concerned, it is those who are well equipped with capital who have paid E.P.T., and therefore the condition that postwar credits should only be expended on further capital expenditure seems unnecessary and unfair?
    Mr. Hall: Obviously if they had not been paying E.P.T. they could not get refunds.
    Mr. Dye: I think my hon. Friend has misunderstood my question. The ones who have been paying it, so far as tenant farmers are concerned, are those who are well equipped with capital.
    Mr. Hall: I am sorry. I do not understand the point.
    Mr. Dye: Then I will explain the position to my hon. Friend later.

    CIVIL SERVICE (EX-SERVICEMEN)
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Ian Fraserasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if, when ex-Servicemen from the 1914–18 war become redundant in one Department of State, he will, by setting up a substitution board or otherwise, ensure them a preference for vacancies in other Departments.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: No, Sir. Arrangements already exist for transferring redundant staff from one Department to another wherever possible.
    Sir I. Fraser: Does the hon. Gentleman's answer "No, Sir" imply that he is not going to give a preference to those men for continuous employment? Is that what he meant?
    Mr. Hall: No, Sir. Ex-Servicemen, with others who are redundant, are transferred where that is possible.
    Sir I. Fraser: Do they get a preference?
    Mr. Hall: I said "No, Sir."
    Hon. Members: Why not?
    Sir I. Fraserasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if, in view of the fact that temporary service in the Civil Service is allowed to count at half rate for pension in case of civilians, he will apply the same rule to ex-Service men of the last war.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I regret that I cannot see my way to re-open this question.
    Sir I. Fraser: Why the differentiation between ex-Service men, who do not get their service counted, and persons, mainly civilians, who after a certain date do?
    Mr. Hall: I am afraid I cannot accept what the hon. and gallant Member says. This is an old story. It goes back to the last war. We have had numerous inquiries and commissions which have dealt with this. It is impossible at this stage to reopen the whole question.

  BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION

    Parliamentary Proceedings (Members' Broadcasts)
    Dr. Santo Jegerasked the Minister of Information whether his attention has been drawn to the non-factual broadcast on Parliamentary proceedings of the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) on 1st December last; and whether he will see that in future the impartial standard of these accounts of Parliamentary proceedings is maintained.
    The Minister of Information (Mr. E. J. Williamsh): In the series ' The Week in Westminster ' Members of the main parties are invited in rotation to broadcast an account of the week's proceedings in which they have taken part. Arrangements for these broadcasts are entirely in the hands of the B.B.C. I am informed that the understanding between the B.B.C. and the speaker is that he should give a broad personal impression of what he heard and saw in Parliament, but should not use the opportunity to state the views of parties or individuals other than those which have been expressed in Parliament during the week.
    Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Could the right hon. Gentleman state any fact which was stated in this broadcast which was inaccurate? Is he aware that Members on this side of the House thought that the hon. Member for Daventry gave a most favourable impression?
    Captain Blackburn: Will the Minister at any rate recommend that these broadcasts should, so far as possible, be confined to policy rather than to personalities?
    Mr. Maxton: Can the Minister tell us how Members who are capable of doing this are discovered? Are there employed, as by football clubs, persons who are known as "talent spotters "? I am aware of two eminent hon. Members who have been missed.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: On a point of Order. Is it not still the custom to give notice to a Member if one intends to make a criticism of his personal conduct? No notice was given to me.
    Mr. Speaker: It appears in the form of a Question, that is the trouble. I think that the hon. Member might have been informed.
    Mr. Nicholson: Is it not a fact that many broadcasts by Members on the other side of the House have been infinitely more biased? I cannot see any harm in bias.
    Mr. Speaker: That is a long way from the Question.

    Scottish Service
    Colonel Gomme-Duncanasked the Minister of Information whether, in view of the dissatisfaction in Scotland with the present system and quality of broadcasting, he will set up a Scottish board of directors for the control and development of this service in Scotland.
    Mr. E. J. Williams: I understand from the B.B.C. that the Scottish Regional programme, which was restarted in July last, has been widely appreciated by Scottish listeners.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is the Minister aware that he has been completely misinformed in this matter, and that the people of Scotland are highly dissatisfied with broadcasting as it is at present?
    Mr. Williams: I gather that the people of Scotland are no more dissatisfied than the people of England or Wales.
    Mrs. Jean Mann: Could my right hon. Friend say who in Scotland is satisfied with the B.B.C.?

    QUESTIONS AND ADJOURNMENT MOTIONS (MR. SPEAKER'S STATEMENT)
    Mr. Speaker: I have a statement to make. I have been asked to urge hon. Members to put down Questions for written instead of oral reply, when they refer to individual cases. This would enable more Questions to be answered personally by Ministers, which are of a more general nature or deal with matters of wider interest. It would appear that many Questions at present on the Order Paper could be dealt with equally well by correspondence with the Ministry concerned. I know that written replies are often not asked for, because Departments do not reply to these at once, because no time limit can be insisted on. I believe that fewer oral answers would be called for, if written answers could be dealt with more expeditiously.
    I also propose that, when we meet again in the New Year, in order to enable as many Members as possible to have a chance in the Ballot for the Adjournment, any Member who has been successful shall not be allowed to ballot again for four weeks from that day.

    TRUNK ROADS BILL
    Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee D.
    Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 48.]
    Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.[No. 37.]

    PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
    First Report from the Committee of Public Accounts (with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices) brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 38.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS
That they have agreed to— Isle of Man (Customs) Bill, without Amendment.
Police (Overseas Service) Bill, and Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Bill, with Amendments.

Police (Overseas Service) Bill
Lords Amendments to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed.[Bill 50.]
Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Bill
Lords Amendments to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 49.]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House). —[The Prime Minister.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  FINANCE BILL
  Order for Third Reading read.
  3.28 p.m.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  We are coming at last to the end of a long Debate on a long finance Bill, which contains 60 Clauses and 10 Schedules. It has been very amply discussed and I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, and the House, would not expect me to go over the whole ground again. I think it will suffice if I pick out and emphasise one or two of the principal points of the Bill.
  So far as indirect taxation is concerned, the Bill is chiefly occupied with the Purchase Tax and with motor taxation. With regard to the latter, I have reaffirmed in substance and recommended to the House the views formed by my predecessor. I undertook to keep my mind, at any rate half open, until the matter was further considered in Committee, but the discussion in Committee pointed to the view, and no Division was challenged on it, that, on the whole, the best plan was to adopt the proposed 100 cubic centimetre basis of taxation. That has been done. I hope that the industry, knowing where it is, will now get on with the job of producing motor cars, especially for export.
  So far as the Purchase Tax is concerned, I haw felt able to make a first step towards the exemption of a number of the more necessary articles, a wide range of domestic cooking and heating appliances, and refrigerators. I have received from all parts of the House during the passage of the Bill a number of suggestions for further extensions of Purchase Tax exemption, but I have felt able to accept only one or two—wireless sets for the blind, and certain articles connected with war memorials and intended to be used for that purpose. I was very glad to make
  226
  these exemptions, which were particularly desired. The time is not ripe for me to move much further with regard to Purchase Tax remission, but I have undertaken to consider, and I will consider, between now and April, all the many suggestions that have been made for further extension. I hope that it may be possible then—I make no commitment—to go further along this particular road.
  With regard to direct taxes, the discussion in the House and in Committee has mainly centred on the Income Tax and the Excess Profits Tax, possibly somewhat to the neglect of a number of other useful and important Clauses of a non-controversial character contained in the Bill, particularly those relating to double taxation which we hope to abate, and to the fixing of the appointed day under the Income Tax Act, 1945, which brings considerable reliefs and advantages to many Income Tax payers, particularly in business. These Clauses have not been subjected to-much discussion but that very fact indicates that all parts of the House have favoured their passage into law. We have had rather more discussion on the Excess Profits Tax to which the House will not expect me to add. The Finance Bill has also provided a number of Income Tax reliefs as from next April, such as the standard rate; the new two-tier arrangement reducing that standard rate of Income Tax at the lower level of incomes; and the new Surtax scale. These are the principal taxes affected, but, in addition, we have had long discussions on postwar credits in many aspects. It was generally accepted that these should cease at the end of this financial year, and after full discussion the House has approved the majority of my proposals without substantial amendment.
  I do not think that the House will wish me to cover again the old ground of earned income allowance and kindred matters. I would merely repeat in one sentence that there was never any commitment, that any Chancellor of the Exchequer would reconstitute exactly, the allowances as they were when the late Sir Kingsley Wood introduced the postwar credits-system. It was always assumed, and rightly so, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day would be reasonably free to make adjustments as between one allowance and another. The Leader of the Opposition said the other day

  227
  during the Debate on the Motion of Censure that hon. Members opposite were out to do the greatest good to the greatest number. I have tried to do this in this Budget. I have tried to follow the right hon. Gentleman's precepts in dealing with Income Tax and that is why I thought it better to clear 2,000,000 people entirely from taxation, and for the rest to provide relief which, even allowing for the postwar credits, give to 11,750,000 people more relief than they would have got under an exact reconstitution of the 1941 allowance. I have said this myself about half a dozen times, and it has been expressed by others at least as often. The fact remains that, under these proposals, everybody is going to have a larger net income next year, than they would otherwise have had, and I think that has met with general satisfaction. That is a matter of fact which no sophistry can bypass.
  With regard to Excess Profits Tax, it is very essential that industry, in reconverting to peace, should be assisted as much as is reasonably possible having regard to our commitments. That is why it seemed particularly important to stimulate exports. To do this, I have reduced the Excess Profits Tax in this, the first Budget in this new Parliament, to 60 per cent. and have made provision for the refund of 20 per cent., as the House well knows. We have had some discussions of a very interesting character as to the way in which we shall ensure that these refunds shall be used for the purpose for which my predecessor explicitly intended them—namely, to re-equip and build up businesses, and not merely to increase dividends or give short-term and immediate advantages to shareholders. We have considered at some length in this House all the necessary provisions and I think they will be found to be watertight and efficient. If, however, on re-examination, they are found not to be so, I shall always be willing to reconsider any of the details in order to see that we achieve exactly what is intended.
  This Bill brought forward within three months of VJ-Day, is, as I said when introducing it, only the first instalment of our peacetime financial programme. Within the limits of what it is wise to do just now, it has emphasised the importance of stimulating production in every possible way. Within the limits
  228
  of prudence I have endeavoured to give all the relief possible to taxpayers, but in the next Finance Bill to be introduced, according to the passage of the months, very soon—in April probably—a further advance may be possible along these lines where we have already made a beginning. It is, as I said when introducing my Budget, only the first step of this journey, and I ask that the Bill should be judged in this light.
  3.38 p.m.
  Sir J. Stanley Holmes: It was generally agreed that, when the Chancellor introduced his Budget on 22nd October, it had a good reception and a good Press. I think possibly there were a good many people in the country who felt there was nothing exceptional about it but, to use the words which the Prime Minister used just now with regard to Newfoundland, it was on constitutional lines and procedure and those people who are going to get some relief from it are, naturally, pleased. I think too, that throughout the Debates a pleasant atmosphere has been created by the Chancellor himself but as time went on— rather dully as I thought through the Committee and Report stages— I could not help feeling that there was far more disappointment about the Finance Bill which has now been completed, than there was about the Budget when it was first introduced.
  I venture to suggest that the Chancellor was so pleased with the response to his Budget, that when he went back to the Treasury he ordered a rubber stamp with the letters "No" on it, so that whenever he got, from time to time, an Amendment or a new Clause proposed he simply took his rubber stamp, used it, and then handed over the Amendment or new Clause to the appropriate Treasury official in order that the necessary information by way of reply might be furnished to him, or to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He has himself told us today that all the relief that he gives in this Finance Bill, is to the direct taxpayers. That, if I may say so, seems contrary to all the best precedents, and to the policy of his own party They have always argued that everything should be done by direct taxation, and that indirect taxation should be reduced to a minimum.
  Of course it was impossible to increase direct taxation. That had already been done by Lord Simon and by the late Sir

  229
  Kingsley Wood, who had imposed on the direct taxpayers the highest possible taxation which was of any value to any Chancellor Therefore, it is quite understandable that the Chancellor, in this Finance Bill, must first reduce direct taxation. But it docs seem to be unfortunate that he was not prepared to give a little relief in one or two ways to the indirect taxpayer. I want to refer in the first place to a new Clause, which was put forward with regard to the Entertainments Duty. This was to relieve amateur sport from a certain amount of the Entertainments Duty.
  Mr. Speaker: I would point out to the hon. Member that he is out of Order in talking about these things on the Third Reading, because they are matters which are not included in the Bill.
  Sir J. Stanley Holmes: With due deference, Sir, I would point out that these are in the Bill. What I would like would be to sec them taken out of the Bill. These sports clubs arc being taxed by this Bill. I think it is unfortunate that that is so, and I hope the Chancellor will certainly consider between now and April, if he can do something about this Entertainments Duty which is paid by the amateur sports clubs. There arc other people besides direct taxpayers —
  Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Member is putting the cart before the horse. He is saying that these things are being taxed, and therefore are in the Bill, and that they should not be taxed. It is not a point that can be made on the Third Reading, and is, therefore, out of Order.
  Mr. Oliver Stanley: Further to that Ruling, Mr. Speaker, would it be in Order, as the taxation is in the Bill, to address the House on the point that it is pressing on the clubs, and should be removed?
  Mr. Speaker: The point is that to do that would require amendment of the Bill under discussion, and that, as I have indicated, is out of Order.
  Sir J. Stanley Holmes: Perhaps I may test the matter once more by referring to what appears to me to be another unfortunate fact, and that is the Tea Duty, which is being continued at the same rate as last year. The relief in direct taxation has been given almost entirely, if one
  230
  might say so, to the male population. After all, it is the man of the family who gets the Income Tax relief, even if his wife has an earned income —
  Mr. Speaker: I think I could not have made my Ruling quite clear. The hon. Member is now talking about taxes which are already in previous Acts. He cannot talk about taxation which is in other Acts, and which has not been affected by this Bill, because in order to secure his point that would mean amendment, and it is for that reason that he cannot talk about it now. What he has just said comes under the same Ruling.
  Sir J. Stanley Holmes: Then I must confine myself to saying that the whole relief has, in effect, been given in direct taxation, and it seems unfortunate to me that there has not been some relief in indirect taxation, and that something has not been given to the housewives who have at least borne six years of a very hard life, and have done it very bravely. There should, too, have been a certain amount of relief granted in indirect taxation, which would have given the boys and girls a chance for games and for physical recreation which have been largely denied to them during the past six years, and which they may not be able to get for some years yet. I feel that what is disappointing in this Finance Bill is the fact that so little money is being saved between now and the end of the financial year. The hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) when he opened his Budget in April last put down his expenditure as £5,565 millions for the year 1945–46. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that he is going to reduce that expenditure by £ 90 millions between the time he took over and the end of the present financial year.
  Mr. Speaker: I must remind the hon. Member that we cannot discuss expenditure on the Third Reading of a Finance Bill.
  Sir J. Stanley Holmes: May I then add that I hope, at any rate, that when the Chancellor opens his Budget next April I shall be more fortunate in regard to keeping within Order, and shall have the opportunity of congratulating the Chancellor on having enormously reduced the expenditure of the country for the next year.
  3.46 p.m.
  Mr. Alfred Edwards: I want to address myself to two items in the Bill, and if I survive as long as the last speaker, I think I shall succeed in getting over the point which I want the Chancellor to bear in mind. I refer to Clause 3. I congratulate the Chancellor—I think that would be a safe way to start—on adopting the capacity tax in place of the old horsepower rating. This is a tremendous advance, which I think will help the motor industry, although I regret that he did not go further. Our main purpose is to help the export trade, and I am not satisfied that, by the concession he has made, British manufacturers will be able to get as large a share as they are entitled to in the export market. If he had adopted the idea put to him in Committee, he might have enabled the designers of cars to have absolute freedom of design to help them in their competition with America. I hope that, between now and his next Budget, he will lend an ear to those people who have advice to tender to him, because I think he has missed the one opportunity that any Chancellor has ever had, to free the designers of motor cars in this country and, moreover, to put the money which he receives from the tax where it belongs— the Road Fund. The Road Fund was raided, and the money taken away, in a very dishonest manner, and the time is coming when, if the Chancellor continues to raid that Fund, the safety of the nation will be imperilled.
  I had better get on to my next point, which concerns the Excess Profits Tax. Once more, I congratulate the Chancellor on reducing the tax to 60 per cent., and I would remind him again that, had he accepted advice, he would have removed the inequalities by which so many small people are paying tax today in order that big business may save some direct Income Tax. His own explanation was that if we helped the small people the larger people would have to pay more Income Tax. Of course they would; there is every reason why they should, too. During the past years the small business people have had no chance to get into production in competition with the big business men, and I hope that in his next Budget the Chancellor will take another look at the Excess Profits Tax and abolish it altogether. The other item is
  232
  the Purchase Tax. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not receive from the Purchase Tax anything like the amount he imagines he is getting. Nobody will buy a motor car today. People have to satisfy themselves with what they have, and I think the Chancellor is getting precious little out of Purchase Tax, while at the same time, he inputting a tremendous handicap on business. He would be well advised to abolish the, Purchase Tax on motor cars and give industry a chance to survive.
  4.50 p.m.
  Professor Savory: I was present in the old House of Commons, sitting under the Clock, when Sir William Harcourt introduced his famous Budget in 1894. That is now well over 50 years ago and I have rarely missed since that date hearing the Chancellor open his Budget. If listening to Budget statements makes one a financier, I have surely by this time begun to qualify. Of all the Budgets I have heard I am bound to say that this one has caused me the gravest possible misgiving, on account of the very great seriousness of the financial situation, and I strongly object—and here I am sticking very closely to the Bill—to the Seventh Schedule to the Finance Bill. I strongly object, at a time like this when the nation is faced with such a financial crisis, to this immense remission of taxation, and especially to the remission of Income Tax. The Chancellor has stated that these remissions amount to no less than £322 million, and he has boasted that 2,000,000 people who formerly paid Income Tax will not now pay it. I believe that the broader the base of taxation,' the better it is for the people, and perhaps I might be allowed to give a personal reminiscence in this connection.
  Before the last war I was lecturer on the English language and literature in the University of Marburg, Prussia, and I received the magnificent salary of £75 a year. There was at that time in Germany a "pay as you earn" system. At the end of the first month the porter brought me the few marks to which I was entitled, and in great fear and trembling, and with every kind of polite circumlocution, I pointed out that I thought he had made a slight mistake, as I seemed to be short of a few marks. He replied, "The bursar of the University of Marburg never makes a mistake. You have

  233
  forgotten the Income Tax." With a salary of £75 a year I had to pay Income Tax. Anyone with an income of 1,000 marks a year— that is to say £50— had to pay Income Tax. In this Bill it is now proposed to raise the exemption limit from £110 to £120, with an immense loss of revenue.
  I want to give the reasons why I oppose this Budget on its Third Reading, and the reasons are these. I would ask the House to contrast this remission of £322 million of taxation with the fact that the food subsidy has now risen from £200 million to the staggering figure of £300 million per annum. I would ask the House to contrast the gigantic total of the food subsidy with the fact brought out in this Budget that, if everything were taken after taxes from incomes in excess of £2,000 per annum the Chancellor would only gain £60 million. I feel I cannot insist too often on the fact that there is now—and I would call the attention of our hon. Friends opposite to this—no such thing as an unlimited pool of wealth in the hands of the rich upon which the Chancellor can continue to draw. No, you have already killed the goose which formerly laid the golden eggs.
  The latest figures showing the financial position of the country are given in Command Paper 6709, published on 6th December, 1945. We there learn—and I am opposing the recklessness of the Budget on these grounds—that the net income from overseas investments in 1945 will be less than half of that received in 1938. Almost all the marketable United States' dollar securities of United Kingdom nationals were complsorily acquired for sale in order to finance the purchase of munitions.
  Mr. Speaker: These arc considerations which should have been put forward on the Second Reading. Such considerations are now completely out of Order on the Third Reading.
  Professor Savory: I should like to have your guidance, Mr. Speaker. Am I not allowed to give the reasons why I am opposing this Budget on the Third Reading?
  Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member's reasons are to be found inside the Finance
  234
  Bill, yes; if they are all over the place outside the Bill, I am afraid, no.
  Professor Savory: I would like to point out that I am opposed to this remission of taxation on account of the very precarious state of our finances, and I wish to give various figures showing how precarious those finances are.
  Mr. Speaker: All that hon. Members may discuss on the Third Reading is how money is going to be raised, not how it is going to be spent or how serious our financial situation may or may not be. Those considerations are quite out of Order on the Third Reading of the Finance Bill.
  Mr. Oliver Stanley: Would it be out of Order to call attention to the fact, for instance, that in one's own opinion the Finance Bill proposes to raise too much money, and point to the disastrous consequences which that might have on the national finances?
  Mr. Speaker: I do not think we ought to go very far in that direction. That would be really becoming a Second Reading Debate and not a Third Reading Debate.
  Professor Savory: I shall obey your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and adhere to my very strong objection to this enormous remission of taxation. We are now informed, for the first time, of the fact that the total United Kingdom losses of national wealth are of the order of £7,300 million, and the most serious feature of this is that the newly created external liabilities amount to £3,455 million, to which the Chancellor yesterday added another £100 million, incurred during the period between 31st July and 30th September. We also learned that on the basis of a £75 million deficit in 1946 it would not be safe to base policy on the assumption of a further deficit of less than £500 million to provide for the two years 1947 and 1948. This leaves us with a cumulative deficit which will be of the order of £1,250 million, or even higher.
  In order to meet this deficit the Chancellor has insisted, and everyone knows that it is essential, that we should increase our exports. I find that, assuming the volume of our exports in 1938 to be represented by 100, our exports were only 29 in the first nine months of 1944, and 42 for the first nine months of 1945.Let

  235
  us just take a few figures, and I am sure this is relevant to the Budget. In the first nine months of this year we only exported 262 motor cars instead of 33,000 in the corresponding period of 1938. India and Australia only got one motor car each. During the same period we exported only 90 gramophones as compared with 31,000 in the corresponding period of 1938. Again we exported only 13 pairs of silk stockings instead of 63,000 pairs in 1938.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member cannot discuss questions of silk stockings at the present time. He is getting very far away from the question of the Third Reading of this Bill.
  Professor Savory: I must apologise. I am just coming to my conclusion. With this serious financial background in view, I should like to read the fine words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in opening his Budget. I shall abbreviate in order to save time. He said:
  " The Committee may take for granted that next year there will be increased expenditure, both to extend social services and to carry out a number of other constructive tasks. Family allowances will begin to be paid next year. …Increased old age pensions and other improved benefits will begin to be paid. … There will also be increased expenditure on housing, on education … and expenditure on Colonial Development and welfare."
  The Chancellor concluded with this most eloquent passage:
  " To do all these things and to do them well, as part of a coherent plan, steadily accomplished stage by stage during the lifetime of this Parliament—such shall be our aim, such shall be our pledge and our pride. We shall do these things." —[Official Report, 23rd October, 1945, Vol. 414, c. 1885.]
  No, Mr. Speaker, they will not do these things because before they attempt half of them, they will be brought up by the threat of national bankruptcy. They are living in a fool's paradise. This rake's progress will bring them to a catastrophe even worse than that to which they brought the country in 1931, when a blow was struck at British credit from which it has never recovered. Do they suppose that this extravagant expenditure is going to be financed by the Debt which they are about to contract in the United States? Congress is restive at the thought of being obliged to provide for wildcat Socialist expenditure over here. I implore the Chancellor in the interests of
  236
  the country to draw back before it is too late and save this country from the financial abyss in which he is about to plunge her.
  4.3 p.m.
  Sir Arnold Gridley: We have had a light touch introduced into this Debate, but I am feeling a little anxious, lest I trip over some of the boulders that lie in the path of those who speak on the Third Reading of the Bill, and I hope that I shall not make it necessary for you, Mr. Speaker, to rise during the few minutes I propose to occupy the time of the House. I should like to say, first, that, on the whole, the Chancellor has met us on this side of the House fairly well. We have by no means got all we had hoped to get, but, on the other hand, I am not sure that we should have been justified in expecting that we should get all we had hoped to obtain. Still, I think I can say that industry does feel that he has, to some extent, followed in the footsteps of his predecessor and that he did go a very considerable way, by changes in taxation, to facilitate the postwar development of industry and accelerate postwar employment, which we are all anxious to further to the utmost of our ability.
  One matter which we discussed under Part V of the Bill was double taxation. I raised the point during the Debate on that Clause which the Chancellor promised to consider. I think he agreed with me that we have not succeeded in carrying out the intentions which lay behind these double taxation Clauses. Let me give a concrete example; probably there are many like it. I know of a big undertaking in this country in which half the capital is owned in America and the remaining half is divided into three parts and is held by three great undertakings in our Colonies and Dominions. America holds one half and these other undertakings hold the remaining half between them. What happens is this. The company here in England makes profits and distributes dividends to its shareholders, and the dividends on the American capital go out to the U.S.A. after being taxed. They form out there part of the income of the American company, in which there are a considerable number of British shareholders by reason of the capital structure which I have described. The profits made by the American company come back to

  237
  this country, to the British shareholders, and are taxed. There you have a case of double taxation which is not yet met. I agree that it may be rather complicated to remove this double liability, but it is a case, I think, which the Chancellor would be justified in looking into further.
  I would like to say a word next on the discussion we had yesterday on the year 1945, which the Chancellor is adhering to as the date from which these E.P.T. refunds may be used for postwar purposes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has a great many things to look at between now and next April. It was suggested by my right hon. Friend the former Financial Secretary to the Treasury, or perhaps it was my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for the Colonies, that the Chancellor would have a great many Christmas cogitations, and I am not sure that he will not have a great many Spring chickens; but the Chancellor will have a good deal to. think about, in connection with the many points raised during the Committe stage and on Report, between now and next April, and I would ask him when he is applying his mind to the Clauses we discussed last night whether he will consider this: Industrial undertakings, as the Clause stands, will not be allowed to bring into refund account for the purposes of postwar development expenditure prior to April, 1945. I think I am right in that. If the Chancellor adheres to his proposal will he not be imposing considerable injustices on other firms who have carried out expenditure for precisely similar purposes but at an earlier date, very frequently because they have been asked or urged to do so by Government authorities, and sometimes partially with Government financial assistance? We may create considerable anomalies between one firm and another if the year 1945 is adhered to. Therefore, I ask the Chancellor to look at this matter again. I think it was not one of the cases to which he promised to give re-examination, but he has frequently told us that he keeps his mind flexible on many of these matters, and I suggest that flexibility might be applied here. That is all I want to say on the Third Reading, and I would repeat, although not everyone will agree with me, that I do feel the Chancellor has gone a good way to meet us on this side and T thank him for it.
  4.12 p.m.
  Mr. Warbey: Not being an experienced Parliamentarian, I fear that I cannot hope to avoid the manifest pitfalls of a Third Reading Debate, but I shall rely upon you, Mr. Speaker, to pull me up very gently, and very firmly, if and when I do transgress. I wish to refer to something which is in the Bill and has already been mentioned: the proposal to introduce a cylinder capacity tax on motor vehicles. Like the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Mr. A. Edwards) I hope that the Chancellor will regard this as a transitional measure for the transitional period through which we are passing from a war economy to what we hope will be a normal peace economy. There is a very unusual feature about this tax. It is not purely a fiscal one. It is not a question simply of raising revenue, of distributing reliefs and incentives, but it is a tax which, by its form, has a very special effect upon engine design and, therefore, upon the capacity of a whole industry not only to meet the needs of the home market but also to make a contribution to our export trade. At present the form of tax probably does not make a lot of difference, because in the export trade we have a sellers' market, but that state of affairs will only last for perhaps a couple of years, and after that the motor industry must know what is the form of tax on which they are to base their decisions in regard to design and other matters affecting their permanent export policy.
  I believe they are prepared to make their contribution, but I suggest to the Chancellor that he should, in view of the special effect of this tax, set up a small committee of experts to examine its effects and to make recommendations to him for a possible revision. The Committee might consist of economists of automobile engineers, of persons with general experience in the trade and manufacturing industry, and, of course, of other persons who have not a special interest in this particular industry. That committee, which might be set up possibly in collaboration with the Board of Trade, would be in a position to investigate the effects of the tax and the various proposals made by the manufacturing interests and by the consumers, and then to report upon the probable effects of this tax, or other forms of tax, upon the trade, upon our home market and, above all, upon our export trade. I hope the

  239
  Chancellor will consider this suggestion seriously, because in his hands lies a great power—by his decision about the form of this tax—to influence employment in a very important industry.
  It is an industry employing scores of thousands of workers and in my own constituency directly or indirectly affecting the welfare of probably one-third of the population. I hope the Chancellor will review this matter in the light of the national interest rather than as a result of ex parte statements and bargaining which are probably not the most satisfactory method of arriving at a conclusion on a matter which so much affects the country as a whole, the interest of the workers, and the balance of our foreign trade.
  4.15 p.m.
  Major Peter Roberts (Sheffield, Eccles-all): I would like to have an assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that one small but very important point is covered in the Bill. Will the Chancellor give an assurance that the Bill covers the 20 per cent. refund of Excess Profits Tax to colliery companies and other companies which are to be nationalized, and therefore, will be unable, because of what the Government have done, to put back that money into the re-equipment of their business? By Clause 38 (1, a) the Government will become the person who will Te-equip the industry, and therefore they will obtain the right to purchase by compensation or other methods from the colliery companies, the road hauliers, and so on, the right to the 20 per cent. refund in order to re-equip the business and get it going. The Chancellor will appreciate that a large amount of money is involved. To put the matter bluntly, will the Government get the right to put the 20 per cent. refund Excess Profits Tax into the businesses which they take over, or will those businesses be deprived of that amount, and if so, will the compensation be payable to the owners concerned?
  4.17 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Smiles: I want to raise one matter, and in doing so I shall try to avoid being called to Order by you, Mr. Speaker. I had intended to raise the matter yesterday, but unfortunately the 'plane from Ireland came down in a fog near Chester
  240
  instead of at Croydon, and I did not have an opportunity of raising the matter during the Report stage. I wish to refer to the Purchase Tax as it affects churches. A great many churches had some of their vessels destroyed in the blitz. When they replace those vessels, they will have to pay the full Purchase Tax on them. I have sent papers on this subject to the Financial Secretary, whose replies to me have been very sympathetic, but he has not given me any satisfaction. I put it to the Chancellor that when a church has to purchase a piece of silverware, which is clearly a work of art and which will never be resold again, he might take the opportunity of excluding that article from the Purchase Tax in future.
  4.19 p.m.
  Sir Peter Bennett (Birmingham, Edgbaston): I wish to support the plea that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) to the Chancellor to consider, between now and the next occasion on which he introduces a Budget, the point that has been made about the hardship imposed upon people who started reconstruction work before April, 1945. I raised this question in the days of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor and obtained from him a promise that those industries which had already started reconstruction would have their postwar credits allowed against the work they had already put in hand. The Chancellor took that point up, and has given us the Clause which makes it clear that this will be allowed, but he has inserted the date when I brought the matter up— April, 1945. From that date onwards he will honour the promise that was made. When I raised the matter, however, I pointed out that the reconstruction had already started..
  I feel that the Chancellor is taking rather a positive stand in this matter, whereas we feel that he should take a negative one—a rather unusual request from us. When the late Sir Kingsley Wood promised that these postwar credits would be available in certain conditions, he approached the matter from a negative point of view. He said there were certain things which must not be done with them; they must not be used for paying dividends or for bonus shares. Industry has always felt that as long as that was not done, they would be allowed

  241
  to use the postwar credits in the process of developing their business. During the war, certain companies have made alterations, at the Government's suggestion, knowing that those alterations would help in the postwar period. Now the Government say that those companies have to spend the little capital that is coming back to them on doing all that over again. The firms want the money now to pay the extra cost of their stocks caused by the change in money values. They want it in order to have extra working capital, which they will need. I ask the Chancellor to reconsider this matter, and to see that people who have already done the work are not handicapped in this way.
  We also asked the Chancellor whether he could not enable industrialists, as they spend that money, to have a simple means of obtaining a certificate from the Inland Revenue that they were inside the regulations and not to have any sort of contingent liability overshadowing them. Probably the Chancellor will think this is a matter which can be done by administration. Last night the Financial Secretary said that the door must be left open to chase people who do things which they ought not to do. I am certain the Inland Revenue have all the powers they need to do that. The large majority of people arc honest and straightforward. They do not want to have contingent liabilities. I hope the Chancellor will find a way in the regulations to enable people to rule their accounts off and to know that, unless something very unforeseen turns up, the accounts are finished.
  I appreciate the point that was made in an earlier Debate by the hon. Member for West Coventry (Mr. Edelman). I appreciate the point he was making of the great value of the motor industry to this country, but I do not feel that the Chancellor needs any more committees to advise him. The question is in his hands. He has told us that he wants the present amount of taxation. In the years to come, or in the months to come —we prefer the shorter period to the longer—when the Chancellor has reached the stage at which he does not need the same amount of taxation from the country and is prepared to reduce the amount which he asks the industry to put into the Exchequer, that reduction will be better than any committee, and will enable
  242
  the motor car designers to design larger cars, because the public will be in a position to buy them. That is the whole point. The matter is in the Chancellor's hands. He gave us a hint, when he answered my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley), that these taxes are not like the laws of the Medes and Persians, and that the day may come when he will be able to do a little more to help the industry by way of a reduction in taxation. That is the time to which we are looking forward. That is the only thing which will enable the industry to produce larger cars in quantity, because people will be able to afford to buy them. This will give us the output, and enable us to sell more cars abroad.
  4.25 p.m.
  Mr. I. J. Pitman: I wish to raise two points. According to Clause 15, the allowance for lower taxation ceases at £125, so that the full rate of tax of 9s. starts at £125, whereas under the old rate the reduced allowance of 6s. 6d. continued up to £165. The effect of this is that £40 of the earlier income of the workman will come on to the higher rate sooner. I deplore that. I think it will have a very discouraging effect upon working men, and particularly upon over-time earnings, that, at an earlier stage of their excess income over their allowance than in the past, they will have to pay the high rate of 9s. instead of 6s. 6d. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer is under the impression that he can put that right in the Income Tax tables by some dodge, but I think I am correct in saying that differences in the gradation of rate of that kind cannot be coped with by the existing P.A.Y.E. tables, and that any attempt to put this right would have to be done by considerable notice in advance. Therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to wait until April to put right what I think many of us consider to be a very unfair and wrong part of this particular taxation proposal.
  The other point with which I want to deal has reference to Clauses 38, 39 and 40, dealing with the treatment of Excess Profits Tax refunds. I very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett) when he says, in effect, that this country is most fortunate in having a first-class Inland Revenue Department and a

  243
  first-class set of companies who, between them, collect and pay up tax on an astonishing scale. Credit is due to both sides, and it is by co-operation and respect from the Inland Revenue to the companies and from the companies to the Inland Revenue that that good result is achieved. I very much fear—in fact 1 can safely predict—that the effect of the uncertainty and, as I see it, the misconceptions underlying Clauses 38, 39 and 40 will be very damaging to this mutual co-operation and respect and so to the country in the long run. Those Clauses are based on a major misconception, which, I suspect, has already been found out in another connection, namely, that you cannot put your finger on one of a number of sixpences that are handed over to somebody and say to him that one of those particular sixpences shall be used for one particular purpose only. One of the detailed misconceptions is on the question of bonus shares. Bonus shares are not a distribution. If a company has £40,000 in the bank and gets an Excess Profits Tax refund of £10,000 it then has a cash balance of £50,000. If it capitalises that as a bonus, that is the only way in which within the existing law the objective of the Chancellor and of the House can be achieved; that is the only way in which to ensure that the amount permanently remains part of the capital structure of the company and so permanently undistributed. There will be in the coming years many occasions on which there will be perfectly good bonus issue stories. I have been looking very closely into the matter and I cannot find a bad bonus issue story.
  I cannot understand what is worrying the Chancellor and hon. Members opposite. The fact is that bonus issues of capital against a refund tie up the money so that it cannot be used for distribution. It becomes part of the capital structure of the company, and cannot be distributed. This inquisitorial panel, or approving panel, can hardly be called an advisory panel, because its functions, as defined in those Clauses, appear to be to inquire and approve. The setting up of that and above all, the wide open door which these Clauses give to people to get round them, is something which is most damaging to the tax structure of this country. I very much deplore those particular Clauses.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The Chancellor of the Exchequer always succeeds in introducing into our Debates a very happy atmosphere of generosity and accommodation but invariably his genial demeanour is accompanied by sedulous refusal of most of the concessions for which we ask. Today I notice, with some regret, that his characteristic friendliness does not extend as far as good manners. I have not been long in this House, but I always thought it was the custom of the Chancellor, when winding up on the Finance Bill, to pay some tribute to his hon. Friends who have sat through the Debate and borne the heat and burden of the day. The Financial Secretary opened the Second Reading Debate with a wholly admirable speech. He subsequently sat here through the long Debate on the Committee stage and when we asked him to intervene and give us a concession he got up, said "No" nicely and sat down again. Likewise the Solicitor-General has greatly distinguished himself during the Debate. He gave us long and learned disquisitions on the state and operation of the law, for which we were grateful. It seems to me that both hon." Gentlemen deserve some meed of praise from the Chancellor and in the absence of it, it perhaps falls to me, as a humble Member of this House, to express our thanks to them.
  I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Queen's University, Belfast (Professor Savory) in deploring the fact that the Chancellor has excluded 2,000,000 persons from the taxation system of this country. Hon. Gentlemen opposite invariably express the utmost keenness about subjects which concern political education. It will not redound to their credit in the end that they have been associated with a Measure which excludes from taxation altogether a large part of the community. The Chancellor nods his head. He apparently agrees with me. If that is so why has he done it? Is it not good policy to demonstrate to the people of the country by practical, direct taxation that they have some responsibility, however slight, for the expenditure which is involved in providing them with security and with the many services they now enjoy? It is wrong and unwarranted of the right hon. Gentleman to associate the exclusion of those 2,000,000 people with a remark passed by the right hon.

  245
  Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition when he said that everything should be done for the greatest good of the greatest number My right hon. Friend was speaking in another connection altogether —on demobilisation. I regard it as absolutely deplorable and a piece of popularity-seeking of the most short-sighted kind that the right hon. Gentleman has thought fit to exclude these classes.
  Let me say a word in regard to earned income relief. It is astonishing to find the Socialist Party emerging as champions of the rentier. I always thought that they disliked inherited wealth. Many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite come from the professional classes. A great part of their political doctrine is built up on dislike of the rentier class, which to them is something of a parasite in industry. Why is it that we have not had the distinction between entrepreneur and rentier drawn by hon. Gentlemen opposite? Is it because they have suddenly become altruistic about themselves and their profession and do not wish to push their type forward? I cannot believe that this is the case. The Chancellor has admitted in his speech on Second Reading that taxation bears hardly on enterprise. It is the enterprise of these professional men that we sorely need today and it is wrong and even stupid, to put them into the same class as people who receive their income from unearned sources. I hope that in the course of the next six months, when the Chancellor has had an opportunity to think out the whole matter again he will consult his hon. Friends from the professional classes and will make us some concession in the Budget next year. I turn to the Surtax provisions, which I regard as a profound mistake.
  Mr. Jack Jones: Before the hon. Member leaves the question of. advocating that the very poor should pay tax —
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I left that point some time ago.
  Mr. Jones: The hon. Member is advocating that they should have a stake in the country be it ever so small. Would he tell the House how he ties it up with the poor not having to do at all with small savings?
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Perhaps I may develop that argument on a later
  246
  occasion. I am not sure that on the Third Reading of the Finance Bill, the discussion of small savings would be in Order. But perhaps I may avail myself of the interruption to give due warning that some of us on this side of the House will raise the subject of the organisation and direction of savings when the Motion to extend the National Loans Act is taken after the Budget next April.
  I was speaking about Surtax. When the scales of Income Tax were raised during the course of the last 20 years it was always argued by successive Chancellors that it was right that Surtax should be proportionately higher. The principle was established that if another shilling was put on the Income Tax scale, then the Surtax payer should pay something in excess. But the moment that the present Chancellor sees fit to reduce Income Tax, he abolishes that principle altogether. He says, "No, we will make a concession to the Income Tax payer, but the Surtax man can stay exactly where he is." I dub that as class legislation of the worst order. The result of it will be felt by the country to an increasing extent as time goes on in lack of enterprise and enthusiasm, and in suspicion of the motives of the Labour Party.
  One of my hon. Friends on this side of the House said the Chancellor had been accommodating. He has to the extent of forgoing Purchase Tax on wireless sets for the blind and on war memorials in churches. But scarcely more than that During the last few days on the Finance Bill we on this side of the House have been seeking for concessions of all sorts and kinds for the hard-pressed people of this country and we have been met with stolid refusal. We have asked for remission of entertainment duty. There was the suggestion made yesterday for the re-equipment of hotels. We asked the Chancellor to extend the housekeeper's allowance, likewise to raise the children's limit from £50 to £60; again with regard to a constant medical attendant. On whisky we asked for a concession and the Chancellor refused it; we asked for the repayment of postwar credits for pensioners and that was refused; we asked for greater earned income relief and for the reintroduction of the 1940 Surtax rates to which I have referred. There was a whole series of technical Amendments associated with

  247
  the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) for the benefit of industry and for the most part they have been rejected.
  What has been the main ground for this wholesale refusal? It has always been that it would add to the danger of inflation. I do not know whether anybody has attempted to sum up the cost of the concessions which have been asked for on this side of the House, but if they amounted to a tithe of what the Chancellor is himself spending at the moment, I should be amazed to find it so. He is spending money at the rate of £5,500 million a year. He goes so far as to say that there will be some reduction of that expenditure over the next few months but will not give us the information in the House as to what the extent is to be. In so far as there is a reduction in what he is spending is it not the very reverse of inflationary and are we not justified without being charged with inflationary intentions in asking for some concessions to be made against falling State expenditure? The danger of inflation is caused by the aggregate of Government and private spending. Given that the right hon. Gentleman himself cuts down his expenditure which he intends to do, is, indeed, compelled to do, he can well allow Members of the public to spend an equivalent amount without increasing risk of inflation. If we are not in a dangerous position today as regards inflation then we should be in no worse position if the right hon. Gentleman had pointed to his own reducing: expenditure and given us the concessions we asked for in the name of the public.
  Under this Government at the present time the power of choice of the individual is dangerously limited. In so far as we can get concessions on this side of the House for the ordinary taxpayer freedom of choice is increased and that would benefit the entire country. The Chancellor is using this colossal weapon of taxation and, as I said the other day, what practically amounts to enforced loans to create a dull uniformity in the country. It is encouraging the black market. There is no doubt whatever that while State expenditure remains high and while that is used to establish the kind of principles which are adhered to by the party opposite the black market in this
  248
  country will flourish exceedingly. One of the main ways in which the Chancellor can do away with the danger of the black market is to reduce, his own expenditure and allow greater freedom of choice to the public. If he does that, he will be adopting a course which is wise and right.
  I think that this is a bad Finance Bill. I think that we have not been well treated on this side of the House. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to consider well whether he cannot himself introduce next April some of the numerous suggestions we have put to him in recent Debates. If not, I believe he will meet with more determined opposition than he has yet had.
  4.44 p.m.
  Mr. Oliver Stanley: In the early part of this afternoon, under the strict guidance of Mr. Speaker, this appeared to be less of a Debate than an attempt to journey between Scylla and Charybdis, a passage which was only successfully negotiated by the Ulysses from Ulster, who appears to be so fatigued by the effort that he has now had to retire. It is inevitable that we should discuss the concluding stage of this interim Finance Bill in rather an unreal atmosphere. Normally, of course, the Finance Bill is by far the most important financial Measure of the year. To a great extent, as it is good or bad, it will determine our economic prosperity. In this case, these matters we are discussing today, important as they are, appear insignificant, compared to the matters of immense moment which this House is to proceed to discuss in the next few.days—matters of vast implication which may render all the Chancellor's efforts nugatory.
  There is, in regard to this Budget, this additional difficulty—that it is not this year's Budget that we are really discussing. We are really discussing next year's Budget on this year's figures, and that, of course, does create a considerable amount of difficulty, because, in fact, we have not been able to have, during these Debates, any estimates such as we should normally expect of expenditure or income relating to the year in which this taxation is going to take effect. With all those difficulties, we have had discussions which I would not say were long. The right hon. Gentleman referred at the beginning to "long discussions on the Budget." I think, thanks to our spirit of co-operation

  249
  and willingness on this side, the right hon. Gentleman will find that they have been really considerably less than precedent. I should have expected, if the right hon. Gentleman had been distributing gratitude to anyone, that we should have had a word of thanks for the willing assistance we have given. I cannot agree with one hon. Member who spoke from these benches that, so far as we were concerned, these discussions have proved particularly fruitful. It is true that, in the last stages, we did wring one or two drops of blood out of the stony heart of the Chancellor, and there was just an airy hint that we might ask again some time before next April. But when it came to his able assistants, the Financial Secretary and the Solicitor-General, we never got anything, I think, from them at all. In the hardness of their hearts, they very much belied their kind and, indeed, benign exteriors.
  The main objection that I have to this Bill is that it is difficult to relate its individual provisions to any one central economic theme. I am not going to deny that this Bill contains many concessions which will be welcomed after six years of strenuous sacrifice by a large number of people, but it does seem to me that the pattern of the right hon. Gentleman's Budget is a Victorian pattern—a Gladstonian pattern. It is an attempt, out of the money that the right hon. Gentleman has available, to dole out to the taxpayers whatever little personal assistance he can give them, having always in mind, of course, the consideration that the taxpayer is also the elector. I had thought that, at this period of our economic history, we should have had, instead of that, a Budget which was definitely and solely related to increasing the production of this country and restoring its industries. After all, it is on that, that the individual happiness and welfare of everyone is going to depend, rather than on a present of £1 here off the Purchase Tax or of £2 there off the Income Tax. That is what is going to decide the economic future of this country. That is going to decide the standard of life of the people; that is going to decide the rate of taxation which the Chancellor will have to impose.
  I find this Budget singularly deficient in a connected theme of that kind. Let me give one or two examples. Take first
  250
  the motor tax. I am not going to say that the right hon. Gentleman, faced with a choice between two ways of raising this taxation, has not in this Bill chosen the better of the two it appears to be the one preferred by industry. But no one can pretend that the treatment of motor taxation in this Budget has any real connection with the motor car industry, as one of our major exporting industries in the future. No one can pretend that this Bill really represents an effort by the Government to use the taxation of motor cars to establish the motor car industry as a great weapon in our export trade. Similarly, when we come to the earned income allowance, I cannot conceive how we can relate the necessity of stimulating production, initiative and energy with selecting, as the one class to be penalised —in proportion, let me put it—by this Budget those whose incomes are derived from labour, energy and efficiency. I am not going into the old arguments which we have had on many occasions. Although the Chancellor has returned different replies, on this point they have been, to my mind, invariably unsatisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman will agree that, whatever else has happened under this Budget, the relationship between earned income and unearned income has been upset, and it does seem to me extraordinary that a Budget devoted to production should have made that quite radical change in recent tax history.
  Finally, there is, of course, the question of the Surtax. I am still waiting to hear from the Chancellor—I may hear in the last few minutes from the Financial Secretary—what incentive to production, what economic gain, what additions to trade are to be expected from imposing another £7,000,000 upon the Surtax-, payer. I shall be interested to hear how that can be justified by the right hon. Gentleman, on the sole basis on which, I believe, a Measure of this kind should be justified today—that it will increase our power in the markets of the world.
  There is only one Clause in the Bill to which I want to refer particularly, and that is Clause 28. It is a Clause on which we have had some discussion. It deals with the question of deficiencies of profit occurring after the end of 1946. I feel here that a strong case was made that the date chosen, if not too early for the majority of cases, may prove too early for some. The right hon. Gentleman did give

  251
  some hope that, between now and April, he would look into this matter again, not with a view to extending the date, but of seeing if there was not some way in which hard cases could be dealt with. I hope that, by that date, the right hon. Gentleman will be able to find some relief for them.
  As one of my hon. Friends said, we have had to conduct the whole Debate upon this Measure under the threat of inflation. The right hon. Gentleman was able, at every inconvenient turn, to invoke in his assistance this terrible spectre of inflation. Apparently, Providence has willed it that the danger of inflation ceases at exactly that amount of tax relief which the right hon. Gentleman has decided to give, and that, if he were to exceed it by as much as an electric tea-kettle or a piece of wallpaper, we should fall immediately into the abyss. Of course, he would agree with me that the point at which inflation becomes a danger is not a static one. it can be moved forward or backward, and it can be moved, to a great extent, by the action of the Government. It is because of that, that the actual contents of this Bill are almost unimportant compared with the two great factors which are going to influence this policy—the rate of national expenditure and the rate of industrial reconversion. I know it would be out of Order to discuss, in any detail, these two points, but of this I am certain—that the whole task with which the right hon. Gentleman will be confronted in April, when he will have to give these figures, will be dominated by the success which he and his colleagues are able to achieve, in the intervening months, on these two great problems.
  I did say something on the question of expenditure at an earlier stage, and I was reproved—by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren), I think, in a military simile, which did not, perhaps, seem to suit him very well—for attacking the right hon. Gentleman opposite with a pea-shooter, because I had insisted that the main task was the elimination of these small items of waste. I still believe that to be true. I still believe that it is the man still in the Army when he need not be, the house requisitioned by a Government Department when not really wanted, the factory not released because of inertia on the part of a Gov-
  252
  ernment Department—it is these things, multiplied 10,000 times, which are really braking the Chancellor's progress I am sure we can rely on him to cause a real drive against what has become the vested interest of the individual Department.
  The other factor was the factor of re-conversion. To me, one of the poignant features in the Debates on this Bill was a little speech by the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Cobb), who, in a pathetic voice, asked why our industrialists could not turn over as quickly as those of America, and if we had not better take a lesson from her. Look at the difference. Our unfortunate industrialists cannot even blow their own noses without asking the permission of the President of the Board of Trade, and, before he gives it, the right hon. Gentleman has to consider, first, whether the handkerchief is not wanted for the export trade.
  Then he has to ask the ideological Brahmins of the party opposite whether, in a planned economy, it is after all right for anybody to blow their own nose, or whether it would not be better that somebody should blow it for them. When the answer comes finally, even if it is favourable, the unfortunate man is already dead of pneumonia—gone by a happy release to a land free of catarrh and of controls. [An Hon. Member: "What do they do in America? "] If I am allowed to say so, in America they are allowed to blow their own noses as and when they like.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The right hon. Gentleman must confine his remarks to the Finance Bill.
  Mr. Stanley: I naturally thought, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that as you did not rise to prevent the hon. Gentleman asking me that question, when I rose to answer it that I should be in Order, but I understand that both the question and the answer were out of Order. All of us on this side must hope that the events of the next few months will make the basis of this Bill an economic reality. We must all hope that not only will the events of the next few months enable the Chancellor in April to confirm the benefits that he has been able to give now, but that he will be able to extend them, because all of us, whatever our politics, must look forward to a time when the whole of our population can get some relief from those heavy burdens which for six years they have borne so uncomplainingly.
  5.2 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I think there will be common agreement in all parts of the House that this Bill has been well considered. It is very long, very technical, and many of its Clauses are highly complicated. Nevertheless, from the time the Chancellor opened his Budget, through the Debate on the Budget Resolutions, the Second Reading, the Committee stage, the Report stage and now the Third Reading, we have between us discussed this Bill in all its phases, and it appears to me that there can be very little left for me to say in a winding-up speech. On every previous occasion we have been delighted by a humorous speech from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) and I think it is only right and proper that we should have had another from him this afternoon just as we are about, as it were, to get rid of the body so far as this House is concerned.
  This is, as he said, no ordinary Finance Bill. Much of it appeared earlier in the year and was introduced by my right hon. Friend's predecessor. It is a clearing-up Measure and not an ordinary Finance Bill in the accepted sense of the word. When the hon. Gentleman who sits for the University of Belfast (Professor Savory) was referring to the first Budget he heard in this House in 1894, I began to imagine the kind of Budget that would have been. I think it could not have been anything like the kind of Measure that the House has to deal with today. Income Tax was much simpler then than it is now, and all the fine points which have been made from the other side of the House about Surtax would have been unknown to the House of Commons of 1894 All that is something new which has been introduced since.
  I am unable to reply to quite a number of the speeches because I think much of what was said was technically entirely out of order. They dealt with points which the speakers had hoped to include in this Bill but, unfortunately, have not been able to do so. However, something was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough East (Mr. Alfred Edwards) about the motor vehicle taxation and that matter was also referred to by quite a number of hon. Members in the course of the discussion. One of my hon. Friends on this side of the House
  254
  suggested that the Chancellor might set up a technical committee to watch the new taxation, to see whether it works smoothly, and to watch its effect on exports. It is not for me to indicate to my right hon. Friend what he should do but, knowing something of what has gone on in the last months and the divided counsel which the Chancellor has had from the motor industry itself on how the taxation should be levied, I really tremble to think what might happen, if, in addition, he set up a new committee charged with the duty of advising him on these matters. The plain fact is that both the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and his predecessor, have had to make up their minds in the light of varying points of view and the advice of differing experts. It is my right hon. Friend's view—I think history will probably share it—that he has done the correct thing in coming down, as he has, on the side of short steps and refusing to turn over to a straight petrol duty. That might by no means have helped the export trade, because the industry would have concentrated, and very properly so, on producing an engine using a minimum consumption of petrol. Therefore it may very well be said in the years ahead that in coming to the decision he has, and to which in fact his predecessor also came, he has taken the only decision really open to him. At any rate we shall have to wait and see.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol put one question to me about Clause 28. That Clause deals with the date up to which deficiency payments can be reckoned and at the moment, in the Bill, it is 31st December. 1946. In the discussions we have had there has been considerable pressure, particularly from that side of the House, to put the date further on, on the not unreasonable grounds to those making the point that 31st December, 1946, was not really far enough ahead to permit industry to readjust itself. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt with this point and I thought he met the criticism very fairly and very fully. I am here to say on his behalf that he cannot possibly alter the date.
  What happened at the end of the last war is still fresh, I hope, in the minds of all of us as to what happened under a similar tax. Much of the revenue accruing was never realised because no definite short date was fixed beyond which indus-

  255
  try could not go. Industry now knows that it cannot go beyond 31st December, 1946, but that does not mean to say that legitimate losses which are incurred will not come in for proper treatment. Terminal losses are covered in another Clause in the Bill, and the Chancellor has indicated that, whilst he cannot alter the date, the Inland Revenue will be very generous in the way it looks at what can be considered a terminal loss. I hope that with that explanation and promise the right hon. Gentleman opposite will be satisfied. He asked me another question which, paraphrased, runs as follows, "What fillip has the trade and industry of this country received, or will receive, from the extra £7,000,000 which the Chancellor proposes to raise from the Surtax payers?" I do not, of course, profess to follow all the thought-processes of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I would not mind venturing a guess that he did not look at the matter in this way. He had to consider it from a much more commonsense point of view. He was making, as from April next year, a reduction of is in the standard rate of Income Tax, and he could see when he looked at the figures, that some Surtax payers, those who enjoy high incomes, would under the is decrease in the standard rate have an increase in their own income of varying amounts up to £4,500 a year. He felt, and I think the House will agree with him—
  Mr. Stanley: How many would get relief of £4,500 a year?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: Not many.
  Mr. Stanley: Would any?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: Oh, yes. Those in the higher ranges of Surtax payers would get varying sums up to, as I say, £4,500 a year. Of course, many of them would get less; some would get £500, some £1,000, some £1,500, and so on. It would have been possible for a Surtax payer to receive—because of the drop of is in the standard rate of Income Tax—in the next financial year 1946–47 a net increase in his income of £4,500 a year and the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought that at a time like the present, when the rest of the community is suffering, as it is under the heavy burden of taxation, that that would be unfair. What he has done—and this is the answer to another
  256
  question which I think was put by the right hon. Gentleman or by the Noble Lord the Member for Southern Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke)—is that every taxpayer, Surtax payer or ordinary taxpayer, gets something from this Budget and Surtax payers may get as much as £350 a year net. So all of us gain, and 2,000,000 of those in the lower ranges, as has been said, go out of the Income Tax paying class altogether.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: That surely is fully admitted but the point is that it is not pro rata to their gross income and their liability.
  Hon. Members: Why should it be?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: That is the burden of what I am trying to say. If it were pro rata they would, or so it seems to the Chancellor, have retained next year, in proportion to people who have a much greater struggle to live, a much higher sum than they should or, to do them justice, many of them desire, to keep in these very difficult and hard times.
  The hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) and the hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett) put another question to me. A similar question was put by them to the Chancellor last night. I really cannot add anything to what my right hon. Friend said then. They desire the dating back of the refunds of monies spent on the re-equipment and development of industry to 1941 instead of to April 1945—the date fixed in this Bill. The answer which the Chancellor gave was that as this money is to be spent —and it was made perfectly clear by the late Sir Kingsley Wood and equally clear by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson)—that it must be spent for a definite purpose, namely, the rehabilitation of industry in the postwar period, for the objective of trying to rehabilitate this country in the markets of the world in the postwar years. Money spent away back in 1941 or 1942, when the war was in one sense hardly under way, could, of course, have been spent on equipment which was going to be used entirely in the after the war years. But if the money was spent then, the people who spent it should have been spending it on something of more use to the war effort than preparing for the postwar years. It is our view, therefore, and I think that it

  257
  is a right and just one, that 1945 is the correct date, and my right hon. Friend cannot see his way to alter it.
  Major Peter Roberts: Will the Financial Secretary answer a question which I put very definitely to him, and that is the question of the 20 per cent. refund E.P.T.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I took fairly full note of what most speakers said, but I did not want to weary the House by going through them one by one. I will do my best to answer the question put by the hon. Gentleman. As 1 understand it, his point was this: That certain traders are entitled, or will be entitled, to a refund on account of E.P.T. Normally, that amount will have to be ploughed back into the business and spent on redevelopment or re-equipment. Supposing that industry is taken over by the State, what is to happen to the refund? The short answer, so far as I can give it, is that if it is handed over to the trader before the particular industry is nationalised, he will have given the undertaking, and I have not the slightest doubt he will implement it, to use it in the business in one form or another. If he does not it will still be there, and it will then be for consideration, as and when that industry is taken over and compensation for it is arranged, as to what is to happen to the money.
  Major Roberts: The money will be available, that is the point.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: Of course it will, but whether the trader himself will spend it on equipment, or the State, or the corporation, or whatever the body may be which takes over the industry is a matter for consideration at the time, and in the light of the circumstances then existing. There is in this Bill, it seems to me, complicated though it is, evidence of the real desire of my right hon. Friend to help 'both the individual and the industry so far as each can be helped in these very difficult times. As my right hon. Friend said in his opening speech, V.J.-Day is not very many months behind us. This is not a Finance Bill of the ordinary kind; that will have to come next April. This Bill, however, does give to the ordinary taxpayer some hope that the enormous burdens laid upon him during the last six years are going to be lightened; and industry itself, with the payments that
  258
  are going to be made to it, will also feel that the Government does desire to assist it too after the six strenuous years that have passed. This Bill sees a beginning made in the direction of tax relief. It also is designed to prevent what we would all wish to prevent, and what is a very great fear with all of us at the moment, the tendency to inflation. The Bill is in fact the first instalment by a Labour Government in power of the better days that are to come not only for the individual, industry and the community as a whole.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  Wing-Commander Roland Robinson: Is there not someone on the Government Front Bench who can tell the House what this Bill does?
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with an Amendment.

  STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS, &c.
  Leave given to the Select Committee, to make a Special Report,—Second Special Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No.39.]

  STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS, & c.
  Sixth Report from the Select Committee, brought up, and read, as follows:
  Your Committee have considered the Potatoes (1945 Crop) (Charges) Order, 1945 (S.R. & O., 1945, No. 1493), a copy of which was presented on 3rd December, and are of the opinion that there are no reasons for drawing the special attention of the House to it, on any of the grounds set out in the Order of Reference of the Committee.
  They have also considered the Order in Council, amending Regulation 42CA of the

  259
  Defence (General) Regulations, 1939 (S.R. & O., 1945, No. 1451), a copy of which was presented on 16th November, and are of the opinion that the special attention of the House should be drawn to it, on the ground that it appears to make some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the Statute under which it is made.
  To lie upon the Table.
  Minutes of Evidence relating to the Order in Council amending Regulation 42CA of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No.40.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT(FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  5.20 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This Bill is a purely Scottish Bill corresponding to the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Bill for England and Wales to which the House gave a Second Reading on 30th November. Its purpose, like that of the English Bill, is to provide for an interim adjustment in the block grant payable to local authorities by increasing its amount during the present and the next two financial years.
  As hon. Members will be aware, the amount of the existing block grant, and the method of its distribution, were fixed by the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1937, by reference to the circumstances existing in the year 1935–36. In the ordinary course of events the amount of the grant would have been revised, and the method of distributing it reviewed, in respect of the years 1942–47. That revision and review would have been based on the circumstances of 1940–41. A further revision, relating to the circumstances of 1945–46, would then have been undertaken in time to take effect during the five year period 1947–52. It was apparent in the early years of the war, however, that circumstances were so abnormal and all facts by reference to which the grant is normally calculated and dis-
  260
  tributed were so disturbed that it would be unwise and quite impossible to tackle the revision which should have taken place in 1942. The grant originally fixed for the years 1937–42 was accordingly continued by the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1941, until such time as Parliament might otherwise determine. It is equally clear that conditions are still so abnormal and the future level of local expenditure so unpredictable that a revision of the grant for the five years 1947–1952 is at present out of the question.
  The level of rates in Scotland, as in England and Wales, remained fairly steady during the war years until about 1944, but it became evident from the returns received and summarised in the return published on 19th June that in the year 1944–45 rates generally had begun to rise, partly as a result of rising costs and partly as a result of the resumption of works or services postponed or suspended because of the war. The rise in rates over the level for 1938–39 amounted on an average to approximately Is. in the £in the year 1944–45. This increase in local expenditure is being maintained, and the rates are being increased in consequence, notwithstanding the additional assistance being given by grants in aid of education and other services. Some interim adjustment of the block grant was therefore thought to be essential, and it was agreed with the Associations of Local Authorities that it should cover, the years 1945–48. That is to say it should cover the last two years of what would normally have been the 1942–47 block grant period, known as the Fourth Fixed Grant Period, and the first year of the subsequent block grant period—that is, the period 1947–52—known as the Fifth Fixed Grant Period.
  Once this decision had been taken, that is, the decision to introduce an interim, grant, the first question was to decide what the total amount of the increase in Scotland should be. If it had been possible, the first step in arriving at this figure would have been to calculate what would have been the amount of the block grant payable in each of the three years in question had the normal revisions in respect of periods beginning 1942 and 1947 taken place. This, unfortunately, was out of the question, because in Scotland the necessary data were not available, and could only have been obtained

  261
  after very considerable delay by calling on local authorities for detailed returns. It was therefore decided, as a wholly exceptional Measure—and I want to impress on hon. Members that it is wholly exceptional—and without in any way creating a precedent, to increase the Scottish grant by the Goschen equivalent —that is eleven eightieths—of the amount by which the grant is proposed to be increased in England and Wales. This is an exceptional Measure and we do not intend that it should be taken as a precedent, but I would like to assure Scottish Members that I have enough information about the actual expenditure of the Scottish local authorities and other relevant factors to say that this method of arriving at the amount of new money is not un-favourable to Scotland.
  On this basis the block grant in Scotland will fall to increase by £1,375,000 in the present year, £1,512,500 in 1946–47, £1,675,000 in 1947–48. The amount of the grant at present is £6,827,000, so that the increase brought about by this interim grant amounts to 20 percent. in the first year, 22 percent. in the second and 24 per cent. in the third year. These increases represent an average rate relief, calculated on the 1944–45 valuation, of 7·7 pence in the £in the first year, 8·4 pence in the second year and 9·2 pence in the third year. Having arrived at the total amount of the new money to be given to local authorities in Scotland, the Government had next to consider on what basis that total should be allocated among the local authorities concerned On 30th November, when my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health moved the Second Reading of the English Bill, he explained that he was proposing a most complicated method of distribution, and he said that it was designed to give preference to the areas which on the basis of their level of expenditure and rateable value would, in his opinion, be rightly regarded as poor areas. We put the position before the local authorities in Scotland and found that there was general agreement among them. Their decision was quite unanimous that the English formula was quite unsuited to Scottish conditions and would not have resulted in the equitable apportionment of the new money. Consequently, that decision having been taken my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked the Associations to propose an alternative method of distribution. In
  262
  the course of time they submitted a scheme, and I am today moving the Second Reading of this Bill which gives effect to the proposals of the local authorities. The scheme is being given effect to in Clause 2 and the Schedule to the Bill. These provisions, although not based on any uniform principle, appeared to the Government to be broadly equitable, and it was therefore decided that Parliament should be asked to sanction them.
  The distribution proposed in the Bill having, as I have said, been proposed by the local authorities, is generally accepted by them. There are, however, one or two authorities who would have preferred to see the whole of the new money allocated on the basis of the figures of weighted population used in distributing a portion of the existing block grant. Others have asked for modifications designed to increase their own share of the total amount of the new money. The allocation of the new money on the basis of weighted population among the industrial areas and the large burghs would not however have been readily defensible, even if such a course had been acceptable to the Convention of Royal Burghs and the Association of Counties of Cities.
  My right hon. Friend would have found it difficult to have accepted such a proposal had it been made, but it was not made, and he has seen fit to accept the proposal made by the burghs themselves. The available figures of weighted population were calculated by reference to the circumstances of 1935–36, and since there is heavy weighting for unemployment, and in view of the considerable change of circumstances during the last ten years, these figures and the formula by which they were arrived at have become in good part obsolete, and could not have commended themselves to my right hon. Friend as the yardstick by which the new money would be allocated among the large burghs. It is true to say that under the provisions of this Bill that weighted population has been used in calculating the distribution among the counties of their share of the new money. In their case the degree of obsolescence of the 1935–36 figures and the formula is somewhat less than in the case of the large burghs.
  Of the other variations in the method of distribution proposed by individual county councils it is sufficient to say that none of them—and there were a few pro-

  263
  posals put forward by county councils—.produce results which over the country as a whole could be regarded as more equitable than the proposals of the Bill. I would like to give an assurance that when I discovered that there were some local authorities, particularly county authorities, who disagreed with the formula proposed in the Bill, I immediately convened a meeting of all the county councils when the whole matter was thrashed out. It became obvious at that meeting that no formula other than that adopted by the County Councils Association would have secured general acceptance among them. There was some sympathy for one or two of the county councils who were not getting out of this formula the amount to which they thought they were entitled. Generally speaking they did not criticise the total amount of the money. Their only concern was the method of distribution, and as I have said, the method adopted is that which commends itself to the vast majority of the county councils concerned. The distribution of the new money gives a substantial measure of relief to all areas, and should materially assist those whose needs, measured by their resources, are the greatest.
  It should be emphasised that this Bill represents an interim settlement of a problem of which the urgency and importance are fully appreciated. Steps are to be taken at an early date to review the block grant formula, and as the Minister of Health has already indicated, the Government have in mind that after various proposals which affect the functions of local authorities have been given effect to a more general review of local Government finance will have to be undertaken. The review of the formula will have to be done between now and 1947, and, as I have indicated, it is necessary, if we are to alleviate the position of the local authority at all, to have an interim Measure such as I have brought before the House today, to give some assistance to the local authorities; and as I have said, we are giving it for the period that commends itself to the local authorities concerned.
  If I might turn to the Bill for a moment, hon. Members will see that Clause 1 (1) merely fixes the total amount payable. Subsection 2 of the Clause ensures that in calculating the amount of block grant in
  264
  future fixed grant periods, the whole of the expenditure of local authorities, including what they get from new money paid under this Bill, and any other special grants, is taken into account. Clause 2, taken with the Schedule, decides the apportionment, and it is worth mentioning here that we have not made any adjustment in capitation grants to small burghs and landward areas, such as was provided in the English Measure. We have not provided for any adjustment because in consultation with the local authorities we were advised that it was not desirable to do so. There was no call for it, and in any case an adjustment would only have been made at the expense of the county authorities. Clause 3 of the Bill is somewhat technical, and merely applies certain provisions of the Act of 1929 to the new money, in the same way as they apply to the existing block grant. That is the Bill, and I anticipate that it will have an easy passage. The local authorities concerned seem to be generally happy about the amount of the money that is being granted in this Bill; the local authorities themselves decided the method of distribution; and for those reasons I anticipate an easy passage for the Bill through the House.
  5.39 p.m.
  Mr. J. S. Ċ Reid: Every Scottish Member must be well aware of the magnitude and urgency of the problem of local finance in Scotland, and although it is perfectly true that the hon. Member will get his Bill, it is essential that we should point out what a trumpery Measure it is compared with the problem which has to be faced. Under this Bill we are only getting less than 6s. per head of the population per annum, and this is supposed to be, in the words of the hon. Member, an interim settlement of our difficulties. Our problem is immensely worse than in England. In the document "Return of rates," to which the hon. Gentleman referred, it is made plain that the average for the whole of Scotland, good areas and bad, for 1944–45, was 12s_3d. in the £.That does not sound much to an English Member, and one of the troubles about our system of rating is that it sometimes does not sound much to us. If that is converted to the English method of reckoning rates it comes to over 17s. in the £over the whole of Scotland, and there have been further large increases since then,

  265
  Glasgow now has a rate of 17s. in the £. Again, that does not sound very alarming to those accustomed to the English method of computation, but when I say that for every £which the owner of a small dwelling house can keep in his possession after he has paid owner's rates, the local authorities take 26s. or more, that is a position unparalleled in any part of England, or indeed Wales, which has always been regarded as the most difficult part of the United Kingdom for local authority finance. Glasgow is far from being the worst area in Scotland. Several large burghs and a good many districts of counties are considerably worse. In many of them, if the English equivalent were taken of the rate now in operation, it would considerably exceed 40s. in the £. The hon. Member has explained that this Bill is not designed to meet the Scottish position at all. It is quite true that the data were not available. We cannot complain at the end of the war that we cannot yet design a Measure to meet Scottish problems, but let us be quite clear about this: This Bill is a purely interim Measure which simply gives to Scotland eleven-eightieths of what has been thought necessary for England, where the problem is very much easier than in Scotland. It was always easier in England, but whereas, as was explained by the Minister of Health in the Debate on the corresponding English Bill, the rates of local authorities in England have remained constant throughout the war, and in some instances have dropped, in Scotland the position is very different. In Scotland the expenditure started to rise from the year 1943–44. It rose in the year 1944–45 very materially and it is rising very materially again in this current year.
  I think it is worth noting the differences in the Explanatory Memoranda of the Bills for the two countries. In the case of the English Measure I read this in the Explanatory Memorandum:
  " The end of the war means that the expenditure of local authorities will start rising again."
  On the front of the Scottish Bill, on the other hand, I find:
  " …expenditure of local authorities is now rising."
  That is an understatement, because it has been rising for the last eighteen
  266
  months. Accordingly, a Bill which is designed, as this Bill is, merely to give the appropriate share of the money required for England, where the rise has not yet started, is plainly inadequate for Scottish needs. I shall not complain that the hon. Gentleman has not got a better bargain as yet, but I say that he will have to get a better bargain next time.
  If I may again take Glasgow as an example, because it is the place the figures of which I am most familiar with, the rise in rates since the beginning of the war has been 2s.6d.in the £—from 14s. 6d. to 17s.—against the Minister of Health's statement that this Bill was designed for a position where there has been no rise. And what does Glasgow get? Eightpence in the £, as against a rise of half a crown. In the English Bill, what does the corresponding sort of area get? In Merthyr Tydfil, where the position is very little worse than in Glasgow if you take into account the corresponding system of rating, it is 2s. 9d., and in West Ham, where the position is very much better than in Glasgow, it is 1s. 9d. Perhaps we have got to wait a little while in Scotland before we get proper treatment. We must not be in too much of a hurry, but that sort of thing cannot go on, and it will have to be cured, in my submission, pretty quickly. I welcome what the Minister of Health said in the Second Reading Debate:
  " It may be held by hon. Members in all parts of the House that a revision of the block grant formula alone will not be sufficient. …I am sure that is so."
  He went on:
  "it is also necessary to undertake a more fundamental examination of the basis of local government finance. …"—[Official Report, 30th November, 1945;Vol. 416, c. 1794.]
  I entirely agree with that but what I think is not suitable to Scottish conditions is the next paragraph, where he says that we ought to wait to see what will be the effect upon local government functions of the various pronouncements which the Government will be introducing in the course of the next few years. It may be that England can afford to wait so long. We cannot; and we cannot afford, during the interim period, merely to accept eleven eightieths of what the English Minister of Health happens to get from the Treasury on an argument from conditions which are

  267
  ever so much easier than they are in Scotland.
  I realise the difficulties under which the Joint Under-Secretary has been working. The Secretary of State, we all regret, has been through a pretty prolonged illness, and we are very glad he is now understood to be well on the way to recovery, and it would not be fair to ask his subordinates to raise complicated issues of this kind with the Cabinet in his absence. But I do ask the hon. Gentleman to get his right hon. Friend, as soon as possible, to treat this whole matter of local finance as one of great urgency, and to follow his own line and to refuse to drag at the tail of England. If England can afford to wait for some years, and if England's needs can be met by some comparatively moderate modification of existing circumstances, well and good, but we must have earlier and different treatment so far as our local finances in Scotland are concerned. I hope the Secretary of State for Scotland will make that perfectly obvious to his colleagues in the Cabinet.
  This would not be a proper occasion to enter into the possible remedies. It would be quite out of Order and I will therefore only say one thing on that. There is the Sorn Report, which has the assent of Members of all political parties, but does not carry us all the way; some people may think it does not carry us very far. But it is a good start, and I would hope, therefore, that if the Secretary of State is unable—as I am sure he will be unable—to devise a complete solution within the course of months—no one thinks it could be done—he would consider whether he could not make some progress on the lines of the Sorn Report, or something like it. Existing burdens, which already weigh upon us, will grow in extent. Estimates have been made of increased expenditure on education, and even if we put no more burdens on local rates, the amount of rates is bound to go up during the coming years. I doubt very much whether any reliefs that have even been suggested by Ministers, will counteract that inevitable rise. In face of that situation, I do not think that it is right that any new burdens should be put on local rates in Scotland, until we have some drastic modification of the existing system. We on this side reserve the right to object strenuously to the imposition of
  268
  any new rating burdens of any kind—any material burdens—on the Scottish local finances until there has been a very material alleviation of the position in one way or another.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Buchanan): May I interrupt to get to know what the right hon. and learned Gentleman means by that? He says he will reserve to himself the right to object strenuously to any new burdens. Does he mean legislative burdens, or the provision of new schools, which are an everyday burden on the local authorities at the present time?
  Mr. Reid: I thought I made that clear, I said the existing burdens, such as education, would necessarily grow, and they will grow. Schools are very necessary. Even more necessary are teachers, and they have to be properly paid, and we all recognise that. What I mean is that if the Government are going to carry out their social reforms, they must find some other method of financing them than off the rates, until they have remodelled the rating system to a considerable extent. I welcome social advances, and I realise they are going to be very expensive. But what I say is, that we have already exhausted the possibilities of rates in many areas and the Government are asking for collapse in local finances if they put any more burdens on rates before they have achieved their reforms. Therefore, in the intervening years—I hoped it would be months, but I am afraid it will be years —in the intervening period, I ask the Government to devise some other method of financing their reforms, rather than the method of putting 50 per cent. on the rates.
  To sum up, we agree that this Bill should be passed. We agree that so far as it goes, and it is not very far, it does meet a need. We cannot say that the Joint Under-Secretary ought, in this Bill, to have done any more. It would not be fair to expect him to do more. But we do say further action of a drastic kind will be needed in the immediate future, and we hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland, having returned in good health, to his office, will be able to tackle this question energetically and quickly, and if he does so, I too hope that we can give him our enthusiastic support.
  Mr. McLean Watson: I do not often agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. Reid) but I agree with him as far as this Bill is concerned. It is a miserable little Bill and does not meet the situation which we know to exist in Scotland in regard to local finance. The right hon. and learned Gentleman added that it was as much as we could expect, because we are still tied to the Goschen formula of eleven-eightieths of expenditure, and that limits the amount that can be provided under this Bill. But I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that we require something a great deal more drastic before we are out of our difficulties with regard to local finance in Scotland. I certainly did not agree with him however on this point—that we should strenuously oppose any changes that are going to mean additional expenditure to the local authorities. He instanced the new Education Act, which was passed before the end of the Coalition Government, as an Act which will cause a considerable increase in expenditure in Scotland. There are other Measures that have been passed, and other Measures coming along, which will undoubtedly increase our local expenditure, and we require, as the Joint Under-Secretary indicated, that the local authorities and the Government should sit down together and discuss the whole question of local finance.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead seems to have forgotten that the sort of speech he made this afternoon has been made before from the Opposition side. It seems to be the type of speech often delivered from the Opposition side. When a Member changes from one side of the House to the other, he changes his speech. The line that the right hon. and learned Gentleman took this afternoon, was exactly the line we took when the Local Government Bill of 1929 was before this House. We said the same things about the finances of the scheme, then that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been saying this afternoon. But we on this side agree with that view. That is the difference between us—we have not changed. We believed in 1929 that more money should have been put into that Local Government Bill, that we should have had a new formula, and not the
  270
  Goschen formula that was continued in that Act of Parliament, and that more money should be given to Scotland for local government purposes.
  Undoubtedly, local rates have been rising in Scotland. If the Financial Memorandum to the English Bill is correct, that local expenditure in England will arise only after the war has ended, whereas the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out we are not in that position in Scotland. Our local rates have been rising during the period of the war. In 1943, 1944, and this year, the whole tendency, both as far as large burghs and counties are concerned, has been for rates to rise. They have been rising the whole time, and they will rise more rapidly as soon as we put into full operation such Acts of Parliament as the new Education Act and others, which are bound to increase local expenditure. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary will convey to the Secretary of State the fact that we on this side of the House are just as anxious as the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead for a full and frank discussion between the Government and the local authorities, on the question of local expenditure. We must state here, however, that, so far as our social services are concerned, our local government services, they must not be curtailed. We want improvements, in addition to the Education Act, which will undoubtedly increase expenditure in Scotland. We have a huge housing problem to face and other things which will add to local expenditure, and the position in Scotland is really serious. It was serious, as a matter of fact, in 1929, and it is just as serious now, proportionately, as it was in 1929.
  I do not want to raise any feeling between county areas and burghs. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Second Reading of the Bill drew attention to the fact that the money which is available is to be distributed on a different basis from the block grant system. Under the Act of 1929, involving the block grant system, questions of unemployment and population had to be taken into consideration in apportioning the grant as between one local authority and another. The Joint Under-Secretary stated with regard to the money that is available, that no provision is made for that system which was

  271
  introduced in the Act of 1929, and that questions of population and unemployment were not to be taken into consideration in the allocation of this grant. I agree with that principle. The position today is different from what it was in 1929 so far as unemployment is concerned. There may have been, in certain areas in Scotland—for example, certain large burghs and industrial areas—cases of considerable unemployment in 1929, and that was taken into account when we considered that Measure. The position has been different during the period of the war, and, after all, this is a very limited Measure providing as it does for three years.
  I, therefore, agree that there could not be introduced into the distribution of this money that principle of population and unemployment in order to help what are called the poor areas to get a larger proportion of the grant. After all, what is the test of a poor area as against another area? Is it because a local authority has a higher rate? A local authority may have a high rate prevailing in its area, but that may be due as much to a low assessment or valuation as to actual poverty existing in that area. It is a question of assessment. If properties in the burgh have been considerably undervalued or under-assessed, undoubtedly there is a correspondingly high rate. So that the rate prevailing in any particular burgh is not a real test of the position in that burgh.
  I do not wish to speak very long because I know there are other hon. Members who wish to discuss an important matter of this kind. But I want to say that I thoroughly agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and I hope if he happens to change from one side of the House to the other before this matter is dealt with, he will not change his mind. I do not reprove him for changing his mind, because I do not think he was here in 1929 when we discussed the Measure now in operation. I agree with him that we do require to have this question of local finance in Scotland completely overhauled, and a proper understanding reached as between the central authority and the local authority. I know that hon. Members opposite and their friends in Scotland are very anxious to have the English system of rating introduced into
  272
  Scotland. I think that in days not far distant, we may have some very hot discussions on that particular subject. I suppose we shall be shown how the system of rating in Scotland affects the rating authority, and how another system affects it, but, whatever the system, as far as local rating is concerned, I hope there will be agreement on both sides with regard to the financial position of the local authorities in Scotland. We should have had a better arrangement in 1929. We have suffered as the result of an Act which was passed at that time, and we now require the block grant system to be overhauled so that more money will come from the central government and less from the pockets of the local ratepayers.
  6.6 p.m.
  Mr. J. L. Williams (Glasgow, Kelvin-grove): In attempting to address this House for the first time, I know I shall receive the sympathy and tolerance which have been extended to so many other hon. Members in the past few weeks. Like previous speakers, I wish to extend to the Minister my welcome of the provisions of this Bill. I know they will be welcome so far as they go, but in the estimation. of many people, the amounts will be too small and dissatisfaction will be expressed at the fact that we are still on the old unsatisfactory basis so far as local government finance is concerned. So far as I can see, we are continuing on that basis. I know there is a promise that the matter will be considered before very long, and I feel the sooner something is done the better, because there cannot be a very fair distribution if the basis of the distribution remains the same.
  There are a few points I would like to raise, but not those mentioned by the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Watson), such as the English or the Scottish systems of rating, or under-assessments and over-assessments. I leave those to the older Members. There are some points with which I am very much concerned. The question was asked in the last few days in connection with the English Bill as to when we would have a real costing system for the social services carried on by the different towns. Emphasis has been laid upon the need for having a costing system for a given service in every given town. There are some things which, it occurs to me, should be gone, into when the promise made by the

  273
  Minister is implemented in regard to reforming the system of. local government finance. Let us take, for example, the policy of giving a service in an industrial town as against running a corresponding service in a non-industrial town. In the industrial town we will find a wide range of social conditions inseparably connected with the industrial development of the town, which will not apply to the same degree in the more commercial and less industrial towns. Take, for example, a town made-up very largely of working class tenements. How are we going to measure the cost of the maintenance of public parks in that town as compared with the maintenance of public parks in a town which is made up very largely not of tenements but of ordinary cottage dwelling houses? Take as another example a city or a town which is traversed by a big river. How are we to maintain a free system of bridges and ferries for that town as compared with another town which has no such problem to face? Again, we have one town blessed with educational endowments which have been handed down for hundreds of years, while another town has no such blessing and has to do without it. We find a great many such inequalities in relation to maintaining different services, and it is a point which has been overlooked so often in comparing the position of one town with another in regard to finance.
  There is also the point of securing equity in regard to the contributions of the ratepayers in the different towns. Both in industrial towns and commercial towns we come back to the fact that, in the main, values are based not on industrial or commercial properties, but on houses and shops—to the extent of 80 per cent. Many of those houses in the industrial towns are small and old. Here is a point which should be kept in mind in regard to values in all the industrial towns. A great many of the houses are substandard, and consequently their rateable values have to be substandard. As many as 20 per cent of the houses in some towns have only one or two rooms, with the result that the rents correspond with the size of the houses, and rateable values correspond to the rents. Yet, it is into those districts that we must put public money in the shape of public assistance, public health, public parks and open spaces, public baths and all the different services, to make up for the con-
  274
  gested conditions, until one is fairly soon convinced that nothing is as costly as poverty. I cannot speak with long experience of local government as can some hon. Members with whom this House has been blessed from the day when the Radical Mayor of Birmingham, Joseph Chamberlain, came to the House of Commons. From that day this House has not been without the value of great municipal experience. But my experience of local government has been only for a comparatively brief period. I know the Minister will say that it is not the intention of the Bill to remedy the points which I have mentioned. I will only make one pertinent point there; because of that, it will be much more difficult to effect a fair distribution of the moneys provided in the Bill.
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. Alexander Anderson: I feel myself happy tonight in being the first to extend the congratulations of this House to the hon. Member for Kelvin-grove(Mr. J. L. Williams), upon a well-informed and thoughtful maiden speech. I am certain that when he takes the opportunity of intervening more frequently in Debate we shall value his contributions, coming as they do from one who has a well-informed mind and a nice quiet method of delivery.
  I want, on behalf of the local authorities of Scotland, to welcome this little Bill, not because it is a good Measure—it is a mean little Bill—not because it deals adequately with the situation with which it is supposed to cope; but because it is at least some tardy recognition from the Department that the problems of local government administration in Scotland require help. During the six years of war the rates in England have been relatively static, whereas in Scotland we have had to face constantly rising municipal costs, increases in wages, increases in cost of materials and the provision of services of greatly increased size for the population. They have led to a steady increase in the costs of our municipalities. Today, we are faced with still greater increases, towards which we get only this sum of £1,375,000, from the Treasury. We welcome, however, that small amount. Actuarially, it may be according to the Goschen formula, but it bears no relation whatever to the actual needs of the local authorities of Scotland,

  275
  if they are to maintain the efficiency of the services which they are called upon to administer.
  The services which they administer are responsible for the health and happiness of 5,000,000 people in this Island. We welcome the Measure, too, because it gives us a promise that in 1947–48 the whole of the relationship between the local authorities and the Treasury will be reviewed. I would warn this House that if the central authority is to impose upon local authorities ambitious new measures, which may be highly necessary but will give us more costly services to administer, there will need to be a completely new orientation of the local authorities in Scotland in regard to the Treasury. Otherwise our ratepayers will be asked to pay rates beyond their capacity to pay and, what is even more serious, our capacity to attract to Scotland those lighter industries which we need will be jeopardised by the fact that the high rates will be a deterrent factor.
  Nevertheless, we welcome the Bill. All the local authorities in Scotland welcome it, but there are many authorities in Scotland who do not welcome the method by which the money is to be apportioned. I was very glad to hear from the Minister that he could not say that the money was being divided upon any principle. It was being divided by what he called, euphemistically and optimistically, general agreement among the local authorities of Scotland. Actually, the position is this: First of all, there is no principle on which this money is divided. It is a most haphazard business, in which certain local authorities have come out very well. It is divided, in regard to burghs, on population plus rateable value. In counties it is divided on weighted population plus rateable value. The results are sufficiently to be judged by themselves.
  When the Local Government Act, 1929, was passed, a formula was devised, an empirical formula if you will, but one which met the needs of Scotland and the wants of the case. It met that case so successfully that from then to now it has never been challenged. It was a formula, as may have seemed to some people, based entirely upon the unemployment factor. The weighted population takes into consideration many factors, for ex-
  276
  ample, the number of children under five in relation to the population. It deals with this very vexed question of rateable value, because one of the factors is a percentage when the rateable valuation per head is less than £12 10s. My burgh has a rateable value of £7 8s. per head, so even in that very formula there is an allowance for low and high rateable values. The formula also, very rightly, takes into consideration the question of unemployment. When people are congratulating themselves that the unemployment factor does not count, may I remind this House that, in my burgh today, the percentage of unemployed to the insurable population is 15 per cent., and that in Lanarkshire, industrial Lanarkshire, we can see the cloud of unemployment coming between us and the sun of prosperity? It may not be very long, unless this transition is short, before we may be very glad to go back to the weighted population formula, if local services in Lanarkshire are to be carried on properly.
  We had a formula which operated to everybody's satisfaction, but because this Measure was being brought forward hurriedly and because it was initiated under Coalition auspices at a time when agreement was more important than equity, we found the formula departed from. I do not stand up here for the old formula. I believe that some necessary alterations should have been made, but I say that the method by which this allocation has been made does not follow any formula. It does not adhere to any principle and there is no system whatever about it. The only way we can judge it in the West of Scotland is by asking, How does it work? I elicited from the Minister who is to reply, in answer to a Question in this House, certain significant figures.
  These show that if the formula is obtained by agreement, two bodies in Scotland are suffering most from this method of agreement. First, there is the position of the larger burghs. The only association to which the larger burghs can belong is that mediaeval anachronism the Convention of Scottish Burghs. A dozen large industrial burghs are islanded among all the rest of the burghs in Scotland. Those smaller burghs have been shorn by the 1929 Act of many of their

  277
  powers, and their interests are bound up with the counties in which they carry on their services. When it comes to the question of interest, they automatically go with the counties in which they are situated and not with the larger burghs, where they might normally have belonged if they had been free burghs.
  The result is that the Convention of Scottish Burghs can get agreement by a majority, but it is an agreement which has hurt the large industrial burghs. If we look at the actual facts elicited by this division we can see that something is completely wrong. We find, for example, that those burghs, generally speaking, with the lowest rates, the highest valuation and the least percentage of unemployed, get a larger sum, and that the industrial burghs get less. I do not want to make invidious distinctions but, obviously, from this method of allocation, it seems perfectly certain that the City of Edinburgh has become what I might call the spoilt darling of the Scottish burghs. I find, for example, that in 1945–46 the City of Edinburgh gets £79,990 more under the new method of allocation, while my industrial burgh, a hard hit burgh striving to produce decent citizens, to provide adequate services, to cover up the decline of coal and do away with the obsolescence of the heavy steel industry, will get from this generous method £8,000 less than it would have got under the old formula. The rates of Edinburgh are 8s. 3d. in the £, while the rates of Motherwell and Wishart today are 14s. 7d. With this process continuous for two years, in 1947 the City of Edinburgh is going to get £97,000 more than under the old formula, while my town's deficit is going to increase and we shall get almost £10,000 less. I do not care what the principle or lack of principle on which this thing is allocated; the figures themselves show that there is something wrong with the method of allocation.
  When we come to the provisions of Clause 2 we find that the Western counties, the industrial counties, are getting their allocation on the weighted population, which includes the density factor calculated by the amount of population to the mile of roads, a very heavily weighted factor. Lanarkshire, Dumbartonshire and Renfrewshire, three counties which may be classified as counties, but which
  278
  have wide open spaces will share, because they are classified as counties, in 47 per cent., which they secured after a most unsavoury wrangle with the burghs, instead of 53 per cent., but the bulk of those counties is urbanised. They do not get the benefit of the density factor in their weighted population, with the result that they get the worst of all possible worlds.
  An extraordinary position arises in the counties, where we can actually see how the system works The county of Dumfries, with a rate of 8s. 8d., where rates have fallen during the war by is. 4½d., gets a rating relief of 11·7d. in the £The county of Dumbarton, with a rate of 10s. 6d. in 1944–45, which even with this grant has risen by 10d. this very year, gets a relief equal to 5d. in the £. We find that Banffshire gets 26.2d., that Aberdeenshire gets 18d. for their relief while Lanarkshire gets 10·8d. allowance. The whole thing is crazy.
  I do not expect that at this late stage it will be possible to make much change. In any case, we have the rate for this year, and our ratepayers most reluctantly will have that money drawn out of them. I implore the Minister to consider the future two years. It is a shame, indeed, I say deliberately it would be a crime, against the industrial West of Scotland if this method of allocation is perpetuated for two more years. I am not here as a mendicant to plead for pennies for Lanarkshire nor am I here as a huckster to bargain with the Scottish Office, but we want this money allocated in accordance with equity and we do not care what the formula is. I can assure the House that there is a deep feeling of dissatisfaction among the larger burghs in Scotland, and particularly among these three counties of Dumbartonshire, Renfrewshire and Lanarkshire, at not having got a square deal. We look to this House and to the Scottish Office to see that, in the two succeeding years, we get a square deal.
  6.29 p.m.
  Sir William Darling: I am very interested in this subject from two points of view. I prefer to deal with the larger aspect first, on which we shall get the greatest measure of agreement. As the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr.A.Anderson) has quite

  279
  properly said, this is a miserable Bill, a contemptible Bill, and when I think of the promises, the expectations and the hopes that even I had of His Majesty's Government, I think they might have secured a larger measure from the Treasury than this miserable sum of £1,375,000.
  Mr. Gallacher: Is the hon. Member aware that the Bill is the product of a Tory-dominated Government?
  Sir W. Darling: I am grateful for the intervention. I am not aware of that, because I read on the Bill in front of me these words:
  " Bill presented by Mr. Secretary West-wood, supported by the Lord Advocate, Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Thomas Fraser."
  I shall believe that it is a Bill put forward by a Tory Government when I see the hon. Gentleman voting against it. I, like other Scottish Members feel keenly about this matter, and I think it has brought us unity in pressing upon the Government and the House of Commons the inadequacy of the 11/80ths allocation. I do not know if Englishmen have followed at all closely the history of Scotland during these war years. For most of Scotland it has been a period of depression and unemployment. It is known to this House that in 1939, when we wanted to set up our industries in Scotland, the factories were used for storage purposes, and we were not able to offer that share in the war effort which we would otherwise have been able to do. Do the English and Welsh Members of the House and those of Northern Ireland, know that we have had to export the greater part of Scottish labour to supplement the needs of England and Wales? Do they know that we have had to export our women folk from Dundee and from Lanarkshire in order to strengthen the industrial equipment of other parts of this island, and that this futile and foolish policy is reflected in this 11/80th grant? Unless this part of the United Island can be diverted from placing all its valuable economic and administrative assets in the South-East of England, we are doomed to extinction in the next war.
  There is some overwhelming passion to develop this great capital and county of London. There are 8,000,000 inhabitants in London, 3,000,000 more than in the
  280
  whole of Scotland. There is a tendency in the administration of the country to favour the development and redevelopment of the population of London. London was threatened by Julius Caesar, by William the Conqueror, by the Spanish Armada, by the first German war, and it was almost extinguished by the second German war. Yet you continue placing all your most valuable administrative and economic assets in the most dangerous and vulnerable parts of this island. You are continuing to do it. Now I am told that you are going to rebuild London. Scotland has been, and is being, placed at a disadvantage compared with the rest of the island. Let me remind hon. Members once more of what happened during the war, when our great ports were bombed out, when Portsmouth and Plymouth were attacked. The naval vessels were hurried up to Rosyth, and the Government pleaded with the shipping of the Clyde to get busy. It happened again and again in wartime.
  All the Scottish Members of this House have a duty to impress on this House of Commons that the allowance made from the Treasury of £1,375,000 under the 11/80ths grant, is contemptible and mean. There are, in my country, great human assets, great industrial assets, great social assets. It is not the least valuable part of Great Britain, and I appeal to those who speak for other burghs and parts of Scotland to cherish that valuable national asset and to reinforce it, stimulate it, to encourage it because it is indeed a very precious one. The first of my adjectives, applied to this Bill, is one which I am sure every Scottish Member will agree with in relation to the help which the Treasury is so niggardly in offering for Scottish needs and conditions and problems. It is contemptible, and mean; and the only gratification I have is the feeling that it will not be for longer than two years. The hon. Gentleman who introduced the Measure assured the House that this is an interim piece of legislation, and I am quite glad to accept it as such. It has been commented on that there are fairer schemes under this administration than under the previous one. They may be good or they may be bad, but the proposal is certainly not a very attractive one to me.

  281
  I have dealt with the larger Scottish aspect. Now I feel I shall have to descend to the domestic squabble for which we Scottish Members are perhaps better equipped. I would like to join with the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. A. Anderson) in congratulating the hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. J. L. Williams) upon his maiden speech. There are good and great men who come out of Glasgow, and I am delighted to join in congratulations to the hon. Member. The hon. Member for Motherwell fulminated against this Bill and compared his burgh with the Capital City. I have taken a lot of trouble to look out some figures which do not seem to bear, out the somewhat dismal picture he presented. I was going to rise, if I had the good fortune to catch your eye earlier, Mr. Speaker, to draw the attention of the House to the somewhat scurvy way in which the Capital City of Edinburgh has been dealt with, as compared with the lesser burghs and counties, and had some figures worked out which very substantially support that view. I should be glad to exchange these with the hon. Member for Motherwell, although 1 do not wish to score debating points in the argument which is bound to be based on these comparisons.
  I have here a chart of the apportionment of the Exchequer grant relating to the three years 1945–46, 1946–47, and 1947–48. I take Motherwell and Wishaw, because, although the hon. Member has not mentioned this, they go together in this matter. The apportionment per head of the population—and there is a good population in Motherwell and Wishaw—is £1 14s. 11d., whereas the apportionment per head of the population given to the City of Edinburgh is only £1. That is for the period 1945–46. If I take 1946–47, again Motherwell and Wishaw has £1 15s. 5d. and Edinburgh £1 0s. 7d. For the year 1947–48, in prospect, the apportionment for Motherwell and Wishaw will be £1 15s. 5d., while that per head of the population of the capital city will only be £1 1s. 3d.
  Mrs. Jean Mann: May I ask whether the hon. Member would agree to the weighted population formula, in exchange for half valuation, half population?
  Sir W. Darling: I would agree to the formula as submitted, but what I am
  282
  endeavouring to do is to answer the suggestion that the City of Edinburgh is very advantageously placed, in comparison with other burghs and other cities. This, I think, is the answer. It may not be a complete answer, but it is an answer which cannot be gainsaid. The comparisons need not stop there. Lanarkshire County for the year 1945–46 gets £2 0s. 4d. These are basic figures, which, as I said before, cannot be gainsaid. I suggest that what has been said of the apparent advantages which have been conferred by this formula upon the City of Edinburgh are unjustified by the figures. There are other ways of looking at this matter. The hon. Member for Motherwell, as a burgh treasurer, has, I am sure, the facility to manipulate figures to suit his several cases, and I have no doubt that he has had much experience in that direction, but let me quote some more figures. The rate burden per head in Edinburgh is £5 1s. 11d., but in Motherwell it is £2 19s. 4d. The grant in round figures at the present moment for Edinburgh, based on the £5 1s. 11d., is 1s. That based on Motherwell's is 4s. 4½d. In Edinburgh now we are to get is. 6½d. but in Motherwell they will get 5s. 0½d.
  It does seem to me that there is a grievance, if there is one at all, on behalf of the Capital City which, unlike Mother-well, has not had the continuous period of full employment which it has enjoyed during the last three to four years. Edinburgh is looked upon as a wealthy city. It is a frugal, a prudent city, which has always kept its rate burden the lowest of the United Kingdom, 7s. 11d. in the £, or at any rate it was until last year. That is usually not a demerit. Motherwell has other advantages for which I could speak, and so have other burghs in similar circumstances, and that is, that it is included as a development area. Factories have been built there, or are going to be built there. Motherwell, I think I am right in saying, is to have the services of the Special Housing Association to supply good housing. Edinburgh enjoys none of these advantages. We have never been in a development area, and we are not included up to now in the area in which the Special Housing Association is to operate. The other burghs and cities will benefit from the operation of the Trunk Roads Bill, but Edinburgh will not. Motherwell will benefit by the special

  283
  grants which the Lanarkshire education authorities will get, but Edinburgh will not be so advantaged.
  These are some of the factors which, in my opinion outweigh, even the arguments of the hon. Member for Motherwell. I think it would be unfortunate if there were to be any domestic squabbling about these matters. Edinburgh accepted the old formula and we are accepting the new formula. We think it is a fair one. Edinburgh has a prudent, frugal civic management that is not always seen in other parts of Scotland. The population of the City of Edinburgh may not be subject to the degree of unemployment of the industrial districts, but there is this factor. It includes a very large number of persons, I think very worthy ones, who have retired and are living upon fixed Incomes and who have suffered very severely from the incidence of Income Tax. They have to pay for social services which they do not require, and which they cannot use.
  This is the "new poor" of my city, and I think that they are entitled to some consideration. Edinburgh is not even solely a commercial or a financial centre. We have, however, in our midst, the burgh of Leith, and no part of this country has suffered grimmer unemployment, more continuous and more devastating, than the burgh of Leith. Consequently, I think we are entitled to say that this new formula is fair to other parts of the country; they are all getting more, much more, and none are getting less, and it is for that reason that I have taken the trouble to quote the example of the City of Edinburgh.
  6.44 p.m.
  Mrs. Jean Mann: I welcome this Bill, or rather the supplementation of the Exchequer block grant. I do not think there is sufficient of it, and what there is, is not equally or even equitably divided. However, what we have of it is I say quite acceptable. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Joint Undersecretary when he said that it should materially assist those whose need is greatest. Actually, the quarrel that the Lanarkshire Members have with this Bill is precisely that it fails to do that. The hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir William Darling) has just told us, in very strong and unmistakable terms, that he
  284
  is not pleased with what it does for Edinburgh, but who are those whose material need is greatest? I do not think it is Edinburgh—a very fine city, with crisp air and high winds, and a very clear atmosphere, uncontaminated by the dirt, smoke and depression of industry. In my constituency the sky is darkened long before one gets there because it is surrounded by industry, which is not even planned apart from its houses; its huge, monstrous works are close against its houses and its air is darkened. There is a dull depression constantly over the burgh, which has a very high incidence of respiratory disease and a rate of 17s. Id. in the £—still rising.
  My hon. Friend the Joint Undersecretary has divided this in a very unfortunate way, because according to his formula, based on half population and half valuation, Edinburgh runs from £66,000 for the weighted formula to £146,000, whereas my constituency will have to carry a loss of practically £10,000 for each of the three years. £10,000 per annum means 100 per cent. That is very considerable indeed. The same applies to the burgh of Airdrie, where we shall suffer approximately 58 per cent., because of the different method of calculating the block grant.
  Sir W. Darling: Does the hon. Lady mean 58 per cent. less than they received before?
  Mrs. Mann: No, not less than we had before, but less than we would have had if the formula which we wanted had been adopted, namely, the weighted formula. But we have had to accept the formula based on half valuation and half population, and we do not like it;58 per cent. is the difference between the two.
  Sir W. Darling: Can the hon. Lady tell us how much more her burgh will be getting than it got under the old grant?
  Mrs. Mann: About £6,000 for Airdrie and £10,000 for Coatbridge.
  Sir W. Darling: They are getting more, then.
  Mrs. Mann: I know it is true that we are going to get something different in the future, and I hope my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary may review it again later on. I would like to repudiate most emphatically the suggestion made

  285
  by the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) that the Sorn Committee Report would in any way assist Scotland. I should also like to point out that that report was not unanimous as he said; there were two Members of the Labour Party on the Commission, one of whom entered a dissenting memorandum. If we examine the Sorn recommendations, what are they? Would they put another penny into the pot for distribution to the people of Scotland? Not at all. My right hon. and learned Friend well knows that there were two recommendations from that Committee. One of them was that the tenant should pay any future increases in our rates. Will that help anyone in Scotland except the owners? The second, to encourage private enterprise to build owner-occupied houses, was that such houses should only carry a combined rate of 5s. in the £. As Glasgow's combined rate is 17s., one wonders who is to contribute, who is to subsidize the new owner-occupier who is recommended for a 5s. combined rate. I do not think that the recommendations of the Sorn Committee would assist Scotland in any way, and I do hope that the Under-Secretary will give serious attention to the really embarrassed condition of Scotland, dependent as it is almost entirely on the heavy, and therefore the export, industry of our country.
  6.52 p.m.
  Mr. Gilzean: Although I have from time to time asked a question in this House, this is the first occasion on which I have ventured to raise my voice in Debate. Having regard to that fact, I am sure that I shall have the kind indulgence of every Member here.
  I would like to say right away that I rather deplore that the Debate should have taken a turn which seems to indicate some rivalry, as between community and community. This Bill is a very good Bill. I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. Reid) that perhaps it might have been built on more generous lines, and I do not suppose that there is a single Member on either side of the "House who would seek to deny that, but it seems to me that there is not the least doubt that it is a step in the right direction and, if it is somewhat limited, that can be cured at the end of
  286
  three years. I do deplore this discrimination between community and community, and particularly do I deplore it when a special reference is made to the city in which I was born, the city which I have served in a public capacity for over 20 years. I will agree with anyone who says that my native city is hard-fisted so far as municipal administration is concerned. It has always been exceedingly careful of public expenditure. There is an explanation for that. There was a time in the history of the city when it was completely and absolutely bankrupt and had to make a composition with its creditors, and to fund its debt at 3 per cent. It took something like 80 years to liquidate that debt. If anyone who is interested in good literature wants something worth reading, he should consult Lord Cockburn's "Memorials of his Times," in which he will find the whole story.
  I also think it is entirely wrong to compare the rating of one city with that of another because, generally, the basis of comparison is completely wrong. There is only one basis of comparison that is likely to show the truth, and that is not to compare the rates themselves, but the pressure per head of the population of those rates. A remark was made to the effect that the Glasgow rates were 17s. 0d. and that the Edinburgh rates were 7s. 11d.—actually now they are 8s. 3d. —but still the Glasgow rate is more than double that of Edinburgh. When the formula of pressure per head of the population is applied, it is found that the pressure per head in Edinburgh is £5 3s. 2d. and in Glasgow £8 0s. 10d. This falls far short of the double rate which the other figures would seem to indicate. We must, therefore, examine this question quite dispassionately. It is true as has been said, that under these new proposals Edinburgh will get something very much less than it would have got on a population basis, and less than any town in Lanarkshire, or even the County of Lanarkshire as a whole.
  I, therefore, suggest that the best thing to do is to accept this Bill and make the most of it, and resolve that when the opportunity comes along we will seek to evolve something much better. We have been told—we have almost been twitted with the fact—that Edinburgh is a beautiful city, and I would be the last to deny that. I glory in its beauty, but I want

  287
  hon. Members to keep in mind that I could take them into parts of Edinburgh that are at once a challenge to Christianity and a reflection on our civilisation. It is altogether wrong to imagine that there do not exist in Edinburgh conditions that give us cause for shame, and, I hope, a resolve for amendment in the future. The only thing I can add is this. Let us take what we are getting and seek to make the best of it, resolved, not in division, but in unison, to seek something in the near future which will make for the betterment of Scotland as a whole.
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. Willis: I rise to support this Bill. Like a former speaker I am not altogether satisfied with the generosity with which Scotland is being treated, but it is in accordance with the formula laid down, and why the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) should condemn this Government for that formula is rather beyond me. The condemnation should have been levelled many years ago and should not arise at this juncture. However, given that sum of money, the question is how is it to be divided, and that seems to be the issue that has caused controversy in the House tonight. The money could have been divided on the same basis, I understand, as the grant had been divided in England, but the Scottish local authorities refused to accept that as a basis. It then fell to the local authorities to devise a basis on which they would prefer to have it divided, and it is only fair that my hon. Friends in front of me should remember that the present allocation as between the burghs and the counties and as between different burghs and between different counties is, and has been, accepted by the majority of counties and burghs in Scotland.
  We have had some arguments adduced as to why this allocation is not a good one. I do not wish to enter into the controversy about facts and figures. Facts have been introduced to demonstrate one case and facts brought forward to demonstrate another, and most of us are well aware that we can produce figures to support any arguments we like to make. But it is suggested that we should not have changed the old basis on which the calculation was made. I venture to suggest that that
  288
  basis has itself changed. The old formula is based on facts which have changed. It is based, for instance, on the weight of population, the number of children under five, and the incidence of unemployment, and if anything has altered during the past five years it is the incidence of employment and unemployment. As the basis of the formula has changed, I suggest that the method of calculating that formula should also be changed, and I think the local authorities were correct in changing it. I suggest that the formula, if we accept the 1936 basis for working out this matter, would undoubtedly work out much more favourably for those counties complaining because of the fact that unemployment is one of the factors, and that unemployment was larger in those quarters at that time, but I am rather amazed that my hon. Friend in front of me should be looking once again to high unemployment figures in the West of Scotland. I have a rather greater faith in this Government than that. I do not think the country should look to high unemployment for several years. The difficulty should not be to find employment but to get the materials and a sufficient number of men to meet the many needs of this country.
  That was the main argument with which I wanted to deal, the change in the basis. Secondly, there is the factor of unemployment. If we take the position during the past four or five years the counties that are complaining in Scotland are those that have been comparatively fortunately placed. That is a fact which is being forgotten. The counties in the West of Scotland have been fairly prosperous, and whilst it may be true that the county councils of Dumbartonshire and counties have suffered as the result of the blitz it is not true to say that the others have suffered, and their share of the prosperity has probably been, as is usually the case, much greater than the share of towns such as Edinburgh which do not rest on an industrial basis.
  I think, therefore, that the Bill and the allocation of the money as between counties and counties and burghs and burghs is a fair one, and I trust that the Government will not give way to the pressure being exerted to change it without giving the matter very careful consideration. It is true that we have to face the fact that enormous burdens are being placed upon local authorities. The in-

  289
  creased expenditure they will be called upon to bear in connection with extended educational facilities, housing, the social services, and higher wages for nurses will throw an immense burden upon them, and I would like to impress upon my hon. Friend the necessity for considering this at the earliest possible moment. We are getting three years' grace, but I think it has to be tackled very early if we are to get out of the mess, because that is all what we are in at the present time. We are trying to ride two horses at once; we are increasing expenditure without calculating the method by which we are going to meet that expenditure. We seem to be rather dilatory in tackling that problem, so 1 urge on the Government the necessity for dealing with it at the present time if these schemes are to go forward as we wish.
  7.7 p.m.
  Mr. McAllister: My intervention will be a very brief one. The right hon. and learned Member for Hill-head (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) has described this as a "trumpery Bill." The hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson) described it as "a miserable little Bill." The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. A. Anderson) called it "a mean little Bill," and the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) "a contemptible Bill." I cannot enter into that competition of adjectives. I think it is just a workmanlike little Bill intended to cover a difficult period and to get over a particular obstacle at this moment. The remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) about my colleagues from Lanarkshire looking forward tinder this Government to a period of mass unemployment are really, I suggest, a distortion of the very admirable and lucid argument that was put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell. We are not looking forward under this Government or any other Government to the unemployment we knew so well in Lanarkshire between the war periods, but we are looking forward to regenerating Lanarkshire and regenerating Scotland, and this Bill is at least inadequate for any such purpose. It ties us down to the eleven-eightieths grant formula, and that is a formula about which no Scottish Members on either side should be in the least degree happy. I would appeal to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to say in his reply that
  290
  it is the intention of the Scottish Department to go into this whole matter with the Treasury in order that Scotland may get a fairer deal from the Treasury than she has received in the past.
  I must disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Edinburgh, because the formula is not one that even the Under-Secretary claimed was an equitable one, but a formula which was reached, he said, by agreement with the local authorities concerned. The hon. Member for Motherwell pointed out that there was no adequate machinery whereby the assent of the local authorities could be obtained and that, in fact, the advantage undoubtedly lies with great and wealthy cities as compared with the depressed and derelict parts of the country. We are quite happy to accept this formula for this year, but I appeal to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to tell us that he will go into the matter again in the hope that a new formula may be devised for 1946–47. In these conditions, I am sure every hon. Member will be happy to give the Bill support. But it is a very qualified support. None of us wants to boast about this Bill; we commiserate with the Joint Under-Secretary of State in having to deal with it.
  7.11 p.m.
  Commander Galbraith: My first duty is to congratulate the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Gilzean) on a very effective maiden speech. We have listened to him in the Scottish Committee on numerous occasions, and I think the speech we heard from him tonight contained just the kind of well reasoned arguments we would expect from him. We would look forward to hearing him on many occasions in the future.
  I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, will have been gratified in finding in the House tonight, on the part of the Scottish Members, agreement on two subjects. It is not usual to find that Scottish Members agree even on one subject, but tonight there has been complete agreement on the fact that the eleven-eightieths formula does not deal adequately with Scotland in connection with the rating position. I do not think there can be any doubt about that, following the argument which was put forward by the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid). He seemed to me to prove conclusively

  291
  that the needs of Scotland are not being met adequately under the Goschen formula. I hope that, in view of the unanimity which has existed on the Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, when he returns, will be able to press the Cabinet very strongly for more generous consideration in regard to the rating burden in future.
  The other point on which there seemed to be unanimity of opinion was that the time had come when the whole question of local government finance required to be reviewed. I hope that, following this Debate, the Under-Secretary of State and the Secretary of State, when he returns, will press that matter very strongly. The burden has become almost intolerable at the present moment. There is no doubt it is going to increase, and the matter must be dealt with as one of urgency. I hope also that the Government will consider what they can do with regard to the Sorn Report, and whether the time has not come when legislation should be introduced to meet the findings of that Report. We are agreed on those things, but we do not seem to be at all agreed on the question of the allocation of this money which is to come to us. Various suggestions have been made in that connection, but I feel, with the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Anderson) that what we want is that any sum that is coming to us shall be divided equally and equitably. I suggest, however, that it will take almost the wisdom of Solomon to satisfy all the Members from Scotland in that connection. It may be a trumpery Bill, a contemptible Bill, but still the relief given under the Bill is very much needed. While it might have been greater, it is very much welcomed at this time, and therefore, I hope the House will give this Bill a Second Reading unanimously.
  7.14 p.m.
  Mr. T. Fraser: I can speak again only with the permission of the House. First of all, I would like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Gilzean) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Williams) on their very well informed maiden speeches. Both of them have had long experience on local government, and this evening we have been treated to the vast knowledge which they have acquired
  292
  of the problems of local government in their long periods of office. I am sure I am expressing the views of hon. Members in all parts of the House when I say it is our hope that we shall be privileged to listen to the two hon. Members very often in the future.
  In the course of the Debate, hon. Members on both sides of the House seemed to have gained the impression that the block grant is allocated to Scotland on the eleven-eightieths formula. That is quite wrong. There has been a suggestion in the course of the Debate that we ought to get away from the Goschen formula when deciding on the allocation of the block grant. The position is that it was only on this occasion, because we did not find it possible to get together all the data to decide on the amount that would have been Scotland's due—I gave an assurance categorically that it would not be taken as a precedent—that we agreed to accept eleven-eightieths of the amount to be granted to England as an interim grant. We were satisfied, from the knowledge we had of the Scottish local authorities' accounts, that we had not come out of the bargain badly. Nevertheless, the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) rather criticised the Measure because he was sure we had not got our due share of the moneys being distributed at this time.
  He quoted some figures indicating the differences in rate levels and valuation levels between England and Wales and Scotland, but I really think he got the position just a little wrong. He must know just as well as I do that a penny rate in England and Wales is equivalent to four-fifths of a penny rate in Scotland, and there are many decisions taken for the United Kingdom on that basis. He also said that local authority expenditure in England and Wales had not increased during the war years, but that is not quite true. The reason for the local authorities in England and Wales making their demand on the central Government at this time for additional money is that their expenditure has increased during the war years. I said in the course of my earlier speech that local authority expenditure in Scotland had not increased very much in the early years of the war, and it did not. The same was true of England. In many parts of England and Wales expenditure went down in the first three or four years

  293
  of the war, and that was equally true in Scotland.
  Commander Galbraith: I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that my right hon. Friend was quoting the Minister of Health on the subject, and was not seeking to give a false impression, but was merely taking a quotation from the speech of the Minister of Health.
  Mr. Fraser: That may be so. He also quoted the words printed on the face of the English Bill saying that the expenditure will rise in the years immediately ahead. That is equally true of Scotland. I suggest to the hon. and gallant Member that he might look at the Official Report of the Debate which took place on 30th November, and he will see that the English Members were not slow in informing the Minister of Health that the local authorities in England had indeed incurred increased expenditure during the war years. The average increase in rates in Scotland in 1943–44 over 1938–39 was 3d. in £, and the increase in 1944–45 over 1938–39 was 1s. in £.
  While dealing with the points raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman and the right hon. and learned Member for Hill-head, I will say quite categorically that the Government have no intention whatever of introducing legislation on the Sorn Report. The Sorn Report proposed a ceiling for owners' rates and we have no intention at all of introducing legislation to introduce that ceiling, appreciating that it can only be done at the expense of the occupier. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, when considering the levels of valuation in England and Wales as against Scotland, tried to prove how badly we were coming out of it. I gave earlier the average rate relief in Scotland as 7·7d. in the £ in the first year, 8·4d. in the £ in the second year, and 9.2d. in the third year. Allowing for the difference in the levels of valuation, these reliefs correspond to reliefs in England and Wales of 9·6d. in the first year, 10·5d. in the second year and 11·5d. in the third year. The actual reliefs in England and Wales under their Bill are 7·5d. in the first year, 8·3d. in the second year and 9d. in the third year. We are not coming out of this allocation of money as badly as hon. Members, I am afraid in all parts of the House, have suggested.
  Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I do not think that I suggested we were getting less than our proportion. I suggested that our problem was very much more acute than the English problem and that, merely on the question of proportion, it got us nowhere.
  Mr. Fraser: The block grant is not allocated at all on the basis of the Goschen proportion, and the allocation on the basis of that proportion this time is purely an exceptional measure. I have been trying to indicate to the House that we have got rather more than our share because the allocation has been made on the basis of that proportion. The Scottish local authorities seem to be fairly satisfied with the amount of money that has been granted to them under the Bill. There was a time when they asked for a certain sum of money; they asked for £2 million, but they did not expect to get it. Of that there is not any doubt. Under the provisions of the Bill they will get an average of £1,500,000 a year for the next three years. I can assure hon. Members that when I met the representatives of local authorities in Edinburgh there was no considerable complaint. There was murmuring here and there about the amount of money, but, generally speaking, it was regarded by local authorities as being satisfactory. They were applying themselves rather to the question of distribution.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dun-fermline (Mr. Watson) seemed to assume that this money was being allocated by the weighted population, taking into consideration unemployment. Unfortunately, others have complained that we are not doing that, and we are not, except in the case of the counties. The money being allocated to the burghs is on the basis, as to 50 per cent., of the comparative populations—not weighted populations, which take account of the unemployment figures for 1935–36, which are completely out-of-date—and as to 50 per cent, of rateable valuations. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. A. Anderson) in criticising that formula called attention to the needs of Motherwell and Wishaw and other large burghs in Lanark-shire, and of the County of Lanark-shire, as against the needs of the City of Edinburgh. He quoted the figures which I gave in reply to a Question in the House the other day. He did not, however, make a careful analysis so that he might

  295
  inform us that of all the burghs in Scotland, Edinburgh gets the least rate relief. It gets relief equal to a rate of 5·6d. in the £in the first year, 6·1d. in the second year and 6·1d. in the third year. The Burgh of Motherwell gets a relief of 7·7d. in the first year, 8·4d. in the second year and 9·2d. in the third year. The hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann) also mentioned her constituency. Airdrie has a relief of 8·4d.in the first year, 9·3d. in the second year and 10·1d. in the third year. The Burgh of Coatbridge has a rate relief of 8d. in the £in the first year, 8·8d. in the second year.and 9·6d. in the third year. Taking Lanarkshire as a whole, I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) painted rather an accurate picture when he indicated that, whereas some of the large burghs in Lanarkshire and the County of. Lanarkshire as a whole were getting a total rate relief altogether by way of grant of something like £2 per head of the population, the City of Edinburgh was getting a rate relief of £1 per head of the population. These are telling figures.
  It has also been said that one could not expect anything other than a Bill such as this because it was so obviously a Coalition Measure. The right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead and the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) know that it is not a Coalition Measure; it is a Bill that we had to produce after we took Office. Most of the consultations with the local authorities, and with the Treasury as to the amount, have taken place since we assumed the responsibility of Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, in quoting these figures and making his argument for a review of this apportionment at the end of the first year—before we had paid over the money for the second and the third years—also dealt with the County of Lanarkshire, and the County of Dunbarton. There was a certain amount of inconsistency in his argument. When arguing for the burghs he said it was wrong to depart from the formula of weighted population and to bring in this other factor, that of rateable valuation. He criticised the allocation as far as it affected the counties because the whole of the county allocation was made on the basis of weighted population.
  Mr. A. Anderson: I would like to correct that impression. The point I made was that on the population figure they got no benefit because of the fact that, while they had wide thinly populated areas they also had a highly urbanised area which negatived the density factor of their weighted population and so got the worst of both formulas.
  Mr. Fraser: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. We have to look for a formula which is to be acceptable and equitable. There is a principle in the formula adopted by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health which was wholly unacceptable to local authorities in Scotland. They would not have it at all. My right hon. Friend asked the local authorities in Scotland to propose themselves a formula that would be acceptable to them and that would be equitable in all respects. None of them found it possible to suggest to my right hon. Friend a formula more acceptable than the present one, and that formula has been adopted. I met them in conference in Edinburgh to see whether some other formula could be reached. We could not get any agreement at all; there was no other formula that got any measure of support from the other authorities. So far as Lanarkshire is concerned, I think it stood alone; no other county in Scotland was prepared to back Lanarkshire in the suggestion they made. Certainly, Renfrewshire and Dunbartonshire did not support Lanarkshire in the proposals they were making for the allocation of the money, and, likewise, the other counties, who had a great deal of sympathy with Dunbartonshire, as all of us have, because we see how badly she has come out of this formula, have been unable to suggest a formula which is acceptable to Dunbartonshire without being inequitable to the rest of the counties in Scotland.
  I think those are most of the points raised in the Debate, but I might finish up by replying to the final point made by the hon. Member for Motherwell who asked whether we could have these provisions for one year, appreciating the urgency of getting something through. The hon. Member also asked me whether we could undertake to consider an alternative formula for the ensuing two years. Unfortunately, I cannot give that undertaking. We could not contemplate

  297
  further legislation in less than a year's time. The local authorities have agreed with us that all the necessary information will not be available, and indeed, that is why they agreed that this interim grant should be payable for three years, and not merely to the end of the present Fixed Grant Period. They agreed that all the relevant data would not be available to allow us to introduce permanent legislation until about 1947, so that there would be no point in my giving way now and promising to look at it again in a year's time.
  There is no inequity in the distribution of the money among the large burghs, as has been suggested. If the suggestion of the hon. Member for Motherwell were accepted, so far as the distribution of the money among the burghs is concerned, then Motherwell would get more, and so would all the large burghs of Lanarkshire, but Edinburgh would get very much less, and it is well worth while remembering that each of the other cities in Scotland would get less. Glasgow would get less, if the hon. Member's formula were accepted. Dundee would get less, and where is there a city that has been harder struck by unemployment than Dundee? For these reasons, we feel we could not give way, and I do not think there will be any justification for taking this matter back to see whether we could get a more equitable formula for the last two years of the three-year period. In the circumstances, I hope the House will now agree to the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL PROVISION) (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]
  Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 69.
  [Mr. Hubert Beaumont in the Chair]
  Resolved:
  " That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament towards local government expenses in Scotland of a further sum in addition to the General Exchequer Contribution payable under Section fifty-throe of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, in respect of each of
  298
  three years and for the apportionment of such sum among the counties and large burghs of Scotland, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament, of grants to local authorities in Scotland in respect of the year beginning on the sixteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and forty-five and of each of the two following years, of amounts representing respectively Exchequer contributions of one million three hundred and seventy-five thousand pounds, one million five hundred and twelve thousand five hundred pounds and one million six hundred and fifty thousand pounds."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. Fraser.]
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

  INDONESIA (SITUATION)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." —[Mr. Collindridge.]
  7.36 p.m.
  Mr. Driberg: I should like to start by expressing my gratitude to you, Mr. Speaker, and to Mr. Deputy Speaker, for not having called me to speak in the recent Debate on foreign affairs. At the time, I did not feel so grateful, but, as it has turned out, we have tonight considerably more time than we should have had on that occasion to discuss the very important matter which I want to raise.
  The British people have learnt with dismay and concern that, four months after the end of the war in the Far East, British and Indian troops are engaged, and are suffering heavy casualties, in a war in Indonesia and in French Indo-China—a war whose object appears to be the restoration of the status quo in the Dutch and French Empires in that part of the world. Their dismay is not lessened when they learn that we are also employing Japanese troops in the action there. Indeed, it was only yesterday, I think, that one of the military spokesmen was reported in the Press to have said that the action in Indonesia is about to develop into a major military operation, and, as we all know from the reports, heavily censored as they are, Indonesian villages have been burned and attacked with rockets—and only those who have been near the receiving end of a Typhoon rocket know what a terrifying weapon it is—and there is every indication that this is not a mere trifling or guerrilla campaign, but something quite important.

  299
  I have referred to Dutch Indonesia and French Indo-China. The circumstances in these two territories are not precisely parallel, of course, but there are certain resemblances between them. The situation in Indonesia is much more acute, and the disturbances there more widespread, and I shall, therefore, confine my remarks mainly to that country, but one should, perhaps, remark in passing that, if anything, French Imperialism in Indo-China was more oppressive and backward than Dutch Imperialism in Indonesia.
  When the Foreign Secretary dealt with this subject in his great speech, if I may so describe it, in the Foreign Affairs Debate, one point that I noted with pleasure was the tribute that he paid to all ranks in the British Forces serving in that part of the world; I should like to echo that tribute, and to pay, in particular —though this perhaps may seem, to some hon. Members opposite, to come strangely from these Benches—a special tribute to the British commanders on the spot, because I know that the troubles that have arisen there are no fault of theirs. They have done their utmost in the way of conciliation, but they have been handicapped throughout by intransigeant and unwise political directives emanating originally from Paris and from the Hague. If it had been left to the judgment and the discretion of the commanders on the spot to settle this matter, I believe that an amicable solution could have been reached without bloodshed, and both Indonesia and Indo-China might now have been well on their way towards obtaining self-government by peaceful means.
  The evidence of that is manifold. General Aung San, the Burmese Nationalist resistance leader, has paid repeated tribute to the wisdom and liberality of the policy pursued by Admiral Mountbatten. Again, in Indonesia some weeks ago, when the Dutch were at their most difficult, General Christison was meeting and having dinner with Dr. Soekarno the Indonesian Nationalist leader. Again, in French Indo-China I know, from my own firsthand observation, that General Gracie did his utmost to get agreement on the spot before the trouble actually flared up, and the trouble only flared up in Saigon, late in September because, in effect, General Grade was double-crossed by the French commander on the spot.
  300
  Moreover, it should also be said that most of the objectives for which British troops entered these territories were harmless and even laudable—the recovery of prisoners of war, the disarming of the Japanese forces, the taking over of Japanese headquarters, and so on—and when the British troops first went in to carry out those tasks, they met with no opposition or resistance at all from the Nationalists, but, on the contrary, offers of co-operation. I believe that in some cases those offers were made use of. I hope sincerely that that can be done again, and that we can invite the Nationalists, so far as possible, to assist us in those primary tasks—the recovery of prisoners of war and the disarming of the Japanese. I believe that many hundreds of lives of prisoners of war and of internees, as well as of troops, could be saved if we could get and use the full co-operation of the organised Nationalists in doing that. It was only when the final part of the assignment began to become evident, and when the Nationalists realised that one of the objectives was the maintenance of law and order until the Dutch and French civil governments could be restored, that they began to get restive. So one of the questions I would ask my right hon. Friend this evening is this: what exactly are our commitments to the Dutch and to the French, and from when do they date? Are they a legacy from the Coalition Government? Were they commitments entered into during the war, when, of course, the Dutch were our Allies—as they still are—and fought very gallantly on our side? Or are they new commitments? I ask this because some of the more responsible American newspapers have published a fairly detailed account of the alleged signing of a pact on this matter between the Foreign Secretary and M. Massigli, the French Ambassador, within fairly recent months; so I hope that my right hon. Friend can shed a little light on that.
  It may be said—it probably has been said—by some of the Dutch and French spokesmen that we have no right to interfere in the domestic Colonial policy of Allied Powers, and to tell them what to do, and to say to them, "You must give these territories their freedom straight away." I suggest that we have established such a right for two reasons. In the first place it is our troops who have the distasteful, unenviable task of doing

  301
  this job and sacrificing their lives; in the second place, we have shown, in our handling of a somewhat analogous problem in Burma, that we, at any rate, know how to handle such problems in that part of the world. I do not say that I am altogether satisfied with every aspect of the situation in Burma at present, because I am not, but at least there has been no bloodshed there, and at least it can now be said that Burma is clearly on the way to self-government and independence within a clearly defined number of years. That is the very least we are entitled to demand on behalf of the Indonesians and the Annamese from the Dutch and the French Governments respectively. There was one passage in the speech of the Foreign Secretary which I particularly liked, and that was his very understanding reference to so-called rebels. He said that the sensible thing to do with so-called rebels was to talk to them in a friendly and man-to-man way, and he reminded the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) of at least one erstwhile rebel known to him, who had now become a great Empire statesman.
  Now I come to what is really one of the crucial points in this argument, and that is the terms of the Dutch offer to the people of Indonesia. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State said a week or two ago at Question time that that offer went very far and was extremely liberal. I know he was only answering a supplementary question at the time, and I hope he will be able to tell us tonight that he has now analysed the offer rather more scrupulously and has discovered that it really does nothing of the kind. The terms of this offer became known on or about 6th November—a month ago—and, in very broad outline, here are a few of the main points of the Dutch offer as transmitted to the Nationalists by Doctor van Mook—whose position throughout this matter has been one of extreme difficulty, because he himself takes a liberal and humane point of view about it, but he is constantly being called to order and rebuked, even publicly, by some of the more intransigeant upholders of the status quo in the home Dutch Government.
  Some of the main points of the offer are these: that Indonesia in future is to be "a partner in a kingdom." Now that, I suggest, does not correspond in any way to our Dominion status. Another main
  302
  point is that there is to be a representative body, with a majority of Indonesians on it, and a Council of Ministers, under the Governor-General as representing the Dutch Crown. Further, so far as one can gather from the rather obscure language in which this offer has been reported, this representative body and the Council of Ministers are to deal almost exclusively with the internal affairs of these territories. That suggests an arrangement analogous to the present situation in Ceylon, which again obviously falls far short of anything comparable with Dominion status. The question of the suffrage even is not cleared up in this remarkable offer; the offer merely says that the question of the suffrage "will receive further consideration." Finally, it is made absolutely clear that all final decisions on matters of major policy are to be taken at The Hague.
  I really do not think that can be described as an extremely liberal offer which goes a very long way. I would refer my right hon. Friend to the despatch from the special correspondent of "The Times" which appeared in that newspaper on 7th November. If he has any difficulty about looking that up, it should be said that there were apparently two editions of "The Times" on that day—as there are of most newspapers on most days—and the dispatch appears in an abridged form in some editions. I think, incidentally, that we can assume that the special correspondent of "The Times" who sent that report is Mr. Ian Morrison—a highly responsible journalist and authority on the Far East, whose admirable and well-balanced book, "Malayan Postscript," will be known to many hon. Members. "The Times" special correspondent's comment on this Dutch offer was that two months ago it might have done some good.
  " To-day, with tension rising all over Java, with shots ringing out in Batavia each night, and with nearly everyone—especially the Dutch—thinking in terms of war, such a statement signifies little."
  He then goes on to comment—
  The Minister of State (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): What was the date of that despatch?
  Mr. Driberg: The 7th November. He He then goes on to analyse the Dutch statement in general terms and he says, with quiet irony:
  "It is more full of loopholes than most official declarations of policy. Nearly all its

  303
  provisions, when put into plain language, represent either pious hopes, …. obvious statements of fact, …. or evasions of the issue. Even the proposed round table conference is to have only advisory powers. No dates are given, and nothing specific is said about elections."
  That is the offer described in this House by the Government spokesman as being extremely liberal and going a very long way. I am afraid that I canot agree with that description. The very least the Dutch could offer now is something comparable with Dominion status, and I am not sure that it is not too late even for that—the situation is so tragic and so tense.
  The latest information which I have, apart from the newspaper reports, is in a letter dated 17th November written in Indonesia by a well-known Dutch Socialist there, Mr. de Kadt. This man was interned during the Japanese occupation and is a friend and associate of Mr. Sjahrir, the Prime Minister of the new Indonesian Provisional Government. I will not quote the letter in full, because it is very long, but there are one or two sentences in it of special interest and significance. He says:
  " People in Holland have apparently no idea of the way in which the Nationalist Government, in spite of its weaknesses, now holds power."
  He goes on to say:
  " I have gone to Batavia because it is the political centre. Bandoeng is practically isolated, for posts, cables, telephones do not operate for Europeans any longer; neither do railways or motor traffic. Thus you can see the position of Europeans in Java."
  He is writing, by the way, to a friend and comrade in the Socialist movement in Holland. He says:
  " Probably it is already too late for complete Dominion status (with the right of separation). There is only one solution, the recognition of independence and an effort to make an agreement for future co-operation between Indonesia and Holland on that basis. There is still a chance for a far-reaching alliance of equal and independent States, but every day of hesitation loses one more chance for this favourable solution. 1 have been in touch again with Mr. Sjahrir [the Prime Minister of the Provincial Government], whom I respect very much. He has mentally matured (luring the years of exile and occupation, and in my opinion he is the one man who can bring about a satisfactory solution."
  Then he goes on to make a perfectly frank admission which could well be taken by opponents of the Nationalists and used against them, but it is better to have all
  304
  the facts of this difficult and tragic situation out frankly in this House. He says:
  "Sjahrir will have a difficult time with the terrorists, Fascists and rascals around him who want to use the nationalist movement for their own ends, and are working among the masses of the people, intriguing and causing trouble. Of course, there are none of these elements in the Cabinet, which is not only respectable but very capable. Sjahrir's struggle against corrupt Fascist and terrorist elements is necessary."
  The point is sometimes made by official Dutch spokesmen that these so-called Nationalist leaders cannot control their own extremists and terrorists. We all share in the condemnation which the Foreign Secretary expressed of the acts of terrorism committed by extremists in Indonesia. But the way to enable the responsible Nationalist leaders to control their extremists is to recognise them as such. While they have no status and are not recognised by the Allies, how can they exercise control? That is the way to enable them to do so.
  One more point from this Dutch Socialist in Indonesia. He says:
  " The problem is to make an agreement which will give economic and cultural chances to the Netherlands in the future. But this can only be done if people in Holland are reasonable enough to understand that the period of their political power is ended."
  One ether Dutchman in Indonesia recently came out publicly with a statement on behalf of the Indonesian cause, a man well known in circles in this country interested in serious documentary films—Mr. Joris Ivens, who was one of the producers of that great film, "Spanish Earth." He was employed by the Netherlands East Indies Government as film adviser, or in some such capacity, and he has just resigned that post, saying publicly that his reason for doing so was that he could not continue to associate himself with an administration which was plainly trying to reimpose a mere status quo on an advanced and intelligent people with strong National aspirations.
  I want to end with two constructive suggestions. First, that there should be a conference held, away from the inflamed atmosphere of the Netherlands East Indies. There has just been a conference in Singapore, but I am sorry to see—so far as one can judge from the reports—that no representatives of the Nationalist leaders, either of Indonesia or Indo-China, were present. It was reported as a conference between ourselves,

  305
  the Dutch, and the French. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can tell us a little more about that conference and its results, and what the possibilities are of holding another conference—perhaps even in London—at which the Nationalist leaders would be treated as equal parties with representatives of the French and Dutch, and at which the whole thing can be thrashed out in as calm a way as possible.
  If the Dutch—I hope they are not—but if they are still making that foolish remark that "We cannot do business with Quislings," perhaps I might just dispose of that allegation in passing. I am glad to see that the responsible newspapers no longer refer to these Nationalists as Quislings, because, of course, although it is true that in some cases and at some times during the war, some of the Nationalist, elements co-operated with the Japanese, they never did so for the reasons for which the Quislings in Europe collaborated with the enemy, and, above all, they never betrayed their own people. The definition of a Quisling is surely somebody who betrays his own people. The Indonesians and the Annamese Nationalists were only concerned in getting independence and freedom for their own people, and they thought, mistakenly, that they could use the Japanese as a means of getting freedom from the Dutch and the French. Furthermore, in the new provisional Cabinet of Dr. Sjahrir, there is nobody who could, even by a twist of language or imagination, be described as a collaborator or a Quisling. On the contrary, every member of this new Cabinet has a most admirable record of resistance against the Japanese during the period of occupation.
  My second suggestion is that whether or not such a conference as I have suggested can be arranged, this whole situation might be handled under the transitional security arrangements provided for in Article 106 of the United Nations Charter. It will be remembered that the great Powers have power in such a case to co-opt other Powers to join in the discussions. No doubt, if that were done in this case, such Powers as Australia and China would be brought in. I hope that that will be seriously considered. It does not in any way offset or contradict my previous suggestion of a conference. The
  306
  conference is obviously the short-term, urgent way of dealing with the situation. The other would take longer. If it is said that this is not a suitable subject for reference to the U.N.O. under these arrangements, one might ask what is—because if this is excluded, any of the many dangerous situations which are boiling up, in the Far East in particular, could be excluded.
  One might perhaps adapt, very slightly, an old rhyme, and say:
  "In matters of. Empire, the fault of the Dutch
  Is yielding too little and grabbing too much."
  The Dutch have gained vast wealth from the peoples of Indonesia, and they have done remarkably little to allow or to encourage their aspirations towards independence. The whole of South-East Asia is now astir. The whole Far East, as my right hon. Friend knows well, is the real danger area in the world today. I hope that the British Government will deal with this whole situation with the highest wisdom and statesmanship, and with a realistic recognition of the strength of the new forces that have arisen. The only alternatives before them in Indonesia are either to recognise the Provisional Government of Dr. Sjahrir, with everything that that implies, or to conduct a full-scale war for the repression of Indonesian independence. I do not believe that the British Government, or its supporters in the country, can regard the latter alternative with equanimity.
  8.4 p.m.
  Mr. Zilliacus: I wish to support very strongly the plea that this question should be dealt with as a matter of international concern. There are good reasons, both negative and positive, why this should be done without any delay. On the negative side, it is not fair to ask this country alone, after six years of world war, to bear the material and moral burden of armed intervention in Indonesia or Indo-China. We are desperately in need of all the men we can get home, as quickly as we can get them home, to restore our industries and switch over our life to a peacetime basis. Moreover, after six years of war, the men still out there in the Far East have their minds filled with the thoughts of coming home. I do not think it is fair to put them into the firing line again, in a new war which

  307
  was not in the contract. That is one of the negative reasons.
  The other negative reason is that what is happening in Indonesia and Indo-China, and the part we are being forced to play in those events, are being viewed with gathering disapproval, not only in certain sections of public opinion here, but by our principal Allies. There is no doubt at all about Chinese and Soviet disapproval, and the American Press has shown pretty lively criticism of what is going on now in those areas. It is not only the American Press. Our own newspapers have reported the statement made by Mr. James Byrnes, the Secretary of State for the United States, in which he declared that the United States were prepared to mediate, 'but would not intervene by force in this situation. He added that the United States disapproved of the use by British and Dutch troops, for political purposes in Indonesia, of American Lend-Lease arms. That is a pretty clear indication of American opinion on this matter. Indian Nationalist opinion is also very strong. That is a second very powerful negative reason why this matter should be treated as a matter of international concern, and not as a matter of either exclusive Dutch, or exclusive British or exclusive Anglo-Dutch concern.
  A positive reason is that these territories were liberated by inter-Allied action, as part of our common cause, as part of our war against Japan; and as the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs declared in his last great speech on foreign affairs, our troops went into Indonesia as the mandatory of the Allies, to carry out a mission entrusted to them by the Allied Commander-in-Chief. They went in to wind up the war against Japan, notably to disarm and bring out of the country the Japanese troops, and to get out of the country our own prisoners of war, who, by this time, I believe I am correct in saying, have all been brought out of the country. If that is the case, if we went in there as part of the winding-up of the war waged by all the Allies against Japan, and as the mandatory of the principal Allies, surely this situation should now be referred back to the principal Allies, because it is getting out of control. We went in originally for a limited military purpose, and we have been involved in this situation for a very large
  308
  and undefined political purpose, which may easily grow into nothing less than an attempt to reimpose Dutch rule by force of arms on a population as great as the population of this country. That is a very large military enterprise, and will be viewed, to put it mildly, with a considerable lack of enthusiasm by the people of this country.
  The final positive reason why this should be treated as a matter of international concern, is that the future of all these liberated territories between India and China is very much bound up with the whole future peace settlement, particularly the peace settlement in Eastern Asia, because these territories all have a common characteristic. They were Colonies, and are now liberated territories with strong nationalist movements and very definite aspirations to evolve into States with national independence. A corollary of national independence in the world today, is membership of the United Nations Organisation. In one way or another, we should work for a settlement which contemplates the achievement of independence by those liberated territories—call it independence or Dominion status. It does not matter what it is called, provided that it qualifies them for admission as member States of the United Nations Organisation.
  If you adopt that principle and regard this matter as a matter of international concern, you have, thereby, given a guarantee to the nationalist movement and its leaders, because you have already satisfied their main demand, which is their claim to the status of an independent community. By doing that you will make it easier to negotiate arrangements with them for maintaining law and order during the difficult period of transition, because it looks as though the situation there was degenerating to a point at which a certain amount of foreign force will have to be used for a certain period to restore order, and even to restore the authority of the existing Government. That can only be done by the forces of this country or of Holland, and it can only be done properly as part of the action of the Untied Nations, bound up with a recognition of the claims to status as a member State, of the Indonesian Nationalist Government.
  I am not concerned with the forms in which the United Nations Organisation should be invoked in this matter. It

  309
  could be brought before the Assembly, and the Assembly asked to appoint a Committee to deal with it. Or we could invoke, perhaps even more conveniently, Article 106 of the Charter providing for transitional security arrangements. This Article provides, in substance, that, pending the coming into existence and operation of the Security Council, the principal Allies, who are permanent members of the Security Council, should take such joint action on behalf of the Organisation as may be necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.
  I should like, although I think it is unnecessary, to remind the Minister who is going to answer for the Government, of the great danger of adopting a position which argues that the Charter is not a fit instrument to be applied in a situation of this sort. We had a great deal of that in the days when Lord Simon —Sir John Simon as he then was —used the utmost resources of forensic ingenuity to prove, not that the Government were unwilling to use the Covenant of the League in the Sino-Japanese conflict, but that the Covenant could not be applied, and that it was not the kind of instrument to apply. I plead very strongly against any arguments that the Charter cannot be used and invoked in this situation. If that argument were proposed by a Labour Government, it would strike a fatal blow at the prestige of the United Nations Organisation on the eve of the first General Assembly, in which the nations of the world are to pledge their faith in this new instrument. Therefore, I ask the Government to treat this as a matter of international concern and to find some means, perhaps through Article 106 of the Charter, or an appeal to the Assembly, to bring into operation the machinery of the United Nations Organisation in this conflict.
  8.14 p.m.
  Major Wyatt: I would like, very briefly, to support the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg). The particular aspect I want to stress is the use of Indian troops. The use of Indian troops has had a most unfortunate effect on public opinion in India generally, as anyone can see who has followed the Press in India and the speeches of Nationalist leaders. It has given them
  310
  the impression that Indian troops have been used without consultation with the Indian people to prevent the legitimate aspirations of the Indonesians being realised and the result of that has been to make many Indian leaders feel that, perhaps, this is a foretaste of our future policy towards India, which, of course, we know it is not. But the use of Indian troops in this way has given that impression. Also, the official Government statements on this subject have not been couched in as sympathetic language as they might have been. If they could only have contained passages of sympathy to the nationalist aspirations of the Indonesians, saying that the Government felt they were fully justified, that would have eased the situation a great deal. The Government should have been able to make it clear to India that the use of Indian troops is only a development of the fact that India herself is a great Power in the Indian Ocean area, and that India is going to have to play her share in settling the affairs of that region. It was a pointer which could have been used to indicate the future responsibilities of India as a self-governing country.
  I would like to suggest that we should set up, straight away, a Regional Council to deal with the affairs of the Indian Ocean area. We have got past the days when the Powers in Europe, or we from Whitehall, can presume to settle the affairs of the Far East, or individual countries there, without consultation with the leaders of the countries concerned. If we were to have a Regional Council on which were represented France, Britain and Holland and also the national leaders of India, Indonesia, Burma, Malaya and French Indo-China, further occurrences of this kind could be avoided, because they could all get together and settle the problems themselves. If we had had one in being at the end of the war with Japan, this unfortunate trouble in Indonesia would not have happened.
  8.17 p.m.
  Major Niall Macpherson: It seems to me that we must treat all the Allies on the same basis, and I propose, first of all, to put this point. Undoubtedly, it was by an international agreement that we went into Indonesia. Unfortunately, we did not find things exactly as we expected to find them. We naturally expected, when we went to

  311
  liberate a country, that that country would accept our liberation. As far as I know, that liberation is not yet complete. The task we set out to do is not yet finished. If we are going to secure it against future Japanese aggression, there are steps which remain to be taken. Our task, therefore, is extremely complicated.
  Unfortunately, we have here the same kind of situation that we ourselves might be faced with within the British Commonwealth of Nations. It has been clearly stated from the Government Front Bench that we will not allow the independence of any parts of the British Commonwealth to be vindicated by force, and it seems to me that that is exactly what is happening here. We have gone into this territory with the object of helping our Dutch Allies and with the object of freeing the Indonesian people from the Japanese. Had the war not ended so suddenly, I suppose —and I would like the Minister to confirmthis—it was intended that Dutch troops should participate in the liberation, and that they would, by now, have gone there so that the situation would have been much easier. I would like to ask the Minister whether it is still intended that Dutch troops should go there. If we accept the position that we should not submit to force within our own territories, I find it very difficult to see how we can deny the same position to our Dutch Allies. Part of this difficulty, it seems to me, arises from the time it has taken to establish the United Nations Organisation.
  I fully agree with the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Zilliacus) that this is a matter for international settlement and I think it is a matter that may very well at the earliest opportunity be committed into the hands of the Trusteeship Committee. But in the meantime what have we to do? We are there to accomplish a task which has been, as it were, left over from the hostilities and has not yet been completed. How is that to be accomplished? Surely this is a task that cannot be determined by one side only and by force; and unless and until the Indonesian Government are prepared to cease hostilities of all kinds and come round a council table, it seems to me that we should refuse to enter into negotiations. I put that point, and, as the same kind of circumstances might easily have arisen within our own Dominions and Colonies, I think we would be very vulnerable in-
  312
  deed to criticism if we were at this time to yield before force rather than request the representatives of the opposition that we are now meeting, to come round the council table and settle the matter by negotiation.
  8.21 p.m.
  Mr. Platts-Mills: I would like briefly to add to the contributions already made to the Debate. Myhon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) gave the Indonesian National Government and its cabinet a good reputation. May I introduce them in a little further detail? The members of this cabinet are men who are known as established figures throughout Indonesia and in Holland. I will not introduce them all, but typical is the Home Secretary, or the Minister for the Home Office, Wiranata Kusuma. This man was a regent; that is to say, he was the governor of a province in this island with a vast population of 40,000,000, appointed by the Dutch. For many years he had been such a regent. More, he was chairman of the Council of Regents; that is to say, he was the outstanding, best known and most important of the regents appointed by the Dutch themselves to administer such local autonomy as the Dutch allowed to these people. When a man like this goes on to the National Indonesian Cabinet, it must mean that the whole body of the regents are supporting him. He could not do otherwise. At the Foreign Office there is Ahmad Subardjo, who is a lawyer trained at Leyden, where all the famous Dutch lawyers are trained. He is known throughout the world by those races who have struggled for independence against foreign subjection. He was the representative of Indonesia at the Brussels Conference against Imperialism in 1927, and at a similar meeting in 1929 at Frankfurt in Germany.
  The Minister of Justice is Dr. Supomo, another product of Leyden. This man held the minor position of chairman of the Indonesian high court. He resigned that position—he is not a young man—and became principal or the head of the Faculty of law at Batavia. This man, if you like, cannot be dismissed as no one at all. He is a leading lawyer who held the highest judicial position in the country under the Dutch. Who is more suitable as the Minister of Justice under the new national regime? May I turn to

  313
  finance? We have Dr. Samsi. Where do we go to get our best advice on finance for our new Government?—to the Governor of the Bank of England. We take him gladly into our collaboration to deal with our most vexing problems. Dr. Samsi was the director of the National Bank of Indonesia. It is not a national bank that these raw natives have set up, but the National Bank of Indonesia established by the Dutch to administer their great Imperial oil interests. That is the man they have taken on. He has given his service and will continue to give it when that Government is accepted by us. He was a close friend of Van Kleiffens, although many of us on this side of the House will probably doubt if that is much of a testimonial. Mr. Ki-Hadjar, the Minister of Education, has set up under his own authority, as the chief Indonesian educational officer under the Dutch, 17,000 schools for the Indonesian people. Do they respect this man, is he of any standing in that island? Is he a tit person to fill the position of Minister of Education? I do not put it against this man, but he was exiled for ten years after his great successes, because he wrote a satirical book called, "When I was a Dutchman."
  Having introduced this Cabinet, and the men we shall have to deal with when this Indonesia is finally established as an independent nation, may I say one word by way of a humble request for information about the obvious confusion both in our actions and in our information as it is disclosed to us in this House? We are there, so my right hon. Friend informed us during the great foreign affairs Debate, for three purposes—to disarm the Japanese, to free our prisoners of war and to release those who were interned. That was, apparently, the situation a week ago. But was it so? It is on this point that I would like information, two months ago every British prisoner of war was released. Six weeks ago we were informed that the same position still held. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State said that. The Prime Minister told us the same. I think the Secretary of State for War told us that, and again on 31st October the position was confirmed by my light hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who said that 2,497 Commonwealth prisoners of war had been evacuated, that every one was released and that 256 had remained behind in the country of their
  314
  own will, because their assistance was being used to identify war criminals amongst the Japanese. We are obviously not staying there to release prisoners of war.
  Are we staying there to disarm the Japanese? We were told by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 17th October that, in the first instance, we were using the Japanese to preserve law and order in the emergency created by the sudden collapse of the Japanese resistance. There has not been an official word about the use of the Japanese forces by us against the Indonesian people until today when the Supreme Commander in the area reports, as a result of the disclosure by Mr. Edward Murrow, the Colombia broadcasting reporter, that, in fact, we were still using the Japanese in active offensive warfare. We had this admission —and I invite the attention of hon. Members to its precise terms—that we were using the Japanese, but only for static defence and also for defence when the lives of Allied internees and prisoners of war are in danger from Indonesian extremists. I want the House to appreciate the position—static defence of internees who are in danger. I want hon. Members to picture the static defence area, placed where you will, and beyond that, Indonesian extremists with internees still in their grip, the Japanese forces statically defending as they move forward to assail the area, where, it is suggested, the extremists are imperilling the lives of internees. The Supreme Commander in that area added that these Japanese were being used for the static defence of prisoners of war, but we know they are not in captivity. They are all released and have left the country, except those who have remained behind for quite express professional purposes. Is it not prefectly apparent when we say that we are there to disarm the Japanese that we are speaking like the unhappy French children who murdered their parents and who, on their trial for murder, pleaded for mercy and said: "Have pity on us for, unhappily, we are orphans." Here we are deliberately keeping the Japanese under arms for some purpose that is confused, on the information that we have been given, and then saying that we must stay there until we have disarmed the Japanese.
  We can say that for ever. Let us take the island, and set up a governor, and if

  315
  anyone wants the job let us have some offers. The island is ours, so long as we keep the Japanese fully armed, as we appear to be doing. The course to be taken is that we should say to the Indonesian Cabinet, "We want the release of the internees." Has any approach been made of that kind? When it was a question of releasing our own prisoners of war, their positions were identified by the Japanese. The Prime Minister said in the House on that day that the identity of their positions had been established, and they had been released. It is clear that the Indonesians do not want to keep the internees against us, but we keep them to defend them against the Japanese, who are still in arms, and not unnaturally.
  I would tell the House of another point of confusion. The right hon. Gentleman said in this House, on one dramatic day when a famous and distinguished officer had been shot, that this was a dastardly crime, and he associated it with Indonesian extremists. Was it not the fact that this distinguished officer was shot by a stray bullet when he was being driven in a motor car, to a meeting indeed, and in that very area where there are so many armed Japanese, our bitterest enemies? Can we not at this stage have an understanding as to how that officer died, and whether it is really suggested that it was other than our Japanese enemies, kept armed by us, who killed him? That was the tragedy of the whole thing. There is one further point I would like to make, supplementing what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Mr. Zilliacus). It is suggested that there is some agreement with the Dutch that requires us to be there. The agreement has never been published. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary a week or two ago said, "It is clear that there must be an agreement between us and the Dutch." That is not fair to this House. If there is any such agreement it cannot override the Atlantic Charter or the Charter of the United Nations.
  I ask whether it is suggested that there is some agreement, kept secret so far, which requires us to be there and to intervene in what is becoming a bloody war on behalf of the Dutch Empire. It is not a case where the peace of the world is threatened. The peace is broken, destroyed already. The war is on. In early October there had been three British
  316
  casualties. Two days ago there had been 46. The total now is over 1,000, of which 200 are dead. I am giving the roughest figures which are in the possession of this House already. It is urged that this matter must come before the United: Nations Organisation. The only conceivable grounds on which it could be withheld from the jurisdiction of the United Nations Organisation, I mean the transitional body that it has set up for the express purpose of dealing with precisely this situation, is set out in the discussions, we had in Moscow. It was there said that a situation might arise for maintaining international peace and security pending the re-establishment of law and order and the inauguration of a system of general security. That is the very situation which is there today, and which was legislated for in Moscow in 1943, and in Article 106 of the Charter. The only reason that could be advanced, surely, for withholding this matter from that organisation, that interim security procedure is this: it could not be said that this is an international matter. It is solely a matter between the Dutch and their subject people.
  Be it so; what follows? Our lads are there on behalf of the Dutch. They are carrying out Dutch policy. If this is not a matter of international concern, our lads—this means Finsbury lads—are there as hirelings and mercenaries of the Dutch. They are mercenaries of the kind that the German princelings used to hire out in Europe. They used to charge the same price per head for them, when they crossed their territory, as they charged for the transport of cattle. Our lads are treated in that way and the only pay they get, those Finsbury lads, is the pay which every mercenary expects, and that is death. It has been reported officially in the Press that 46 two days ago-had paid that price. That is not a matter between the Dutch and the Indonesian people; it is an international matter.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead said, those people were liberated as a result of international action. The Secretary of State said, on 3rd December, that we were going there because of a duty which had been allotted to us expressly by the Supreme Commander of that area. What is more, when those people have established their freedom they will come into the international field and we shall have to accept them. It is an

  317
  international problem from every point of view. What will be the result if we persist in this armed intervention, when no case for it can be shown? We shall not only discredit our own moral standing as a nation but we shall be leading to this great world organisation, to which all the peoples are looking with hope, being stillborn, for this is the very eve of its birth. Are we, on this great day, to advance legalistic arguments to prove that we cannot bring into action this magnificent machinery that has been set up already for this very purpose? I assert that we should be given an answer why a truce should not be called at once and a conference opened.
  8.38 p.m.
  Mr. Gallacher: I associate myself with the speeches that have been made on this question of Indonesia. In regard to the remarks made from the other side of the House, I must point out that tomorrow and the next day we shall be discussing a loan from America. About 100 years ago Americans were battling against the British troops for independence. If you look at the Press you will find that they were called rebels, gangsters and murderers and that every vile term was used about them. We are getting a loan from them tomorrow. In the last war there was a battle for independence going on in Ireland. If you look at the Press you will find that those people were gangsters and murderers and that all the vile terms were used against them; but they were invited over here to discuss an agreement.
  I say to the Lord President of the Council that the Indonesians have as much right to liberty as the Americans had. When the Indonesians looked for liberation, it was liberation not only from the Japanese but from enslavement to the Dutch Imperialists. We have no right to be there preventing them from getting liberation and independence. We often hear a lot about Liberal principles and about listening to the voice of Liberalism, but in a case like this where people are fighting for independence, we hear all this talk about "You can't get independence by force." How will they get it? If they do not use force against the forces of the Dutch Imperialists, how are they to get independence in the existing situation? They will get independence anyhow. It does not matter how long
  318
  we stay there, we can never hold back the spirit that is alive, not only in Europe but throughout the whole world today. The peoples are marching forward to freedom and independence.
  The other thing I want to draw attention to—and I want the Minister particularly to pay attention to it—is that I put down a Question to the Secretary of State for Air arising out of a letter I received from the mother of a lad in the Air Force. When the war was over she expected her boy to come back to her. Where is her boy? He is in Indonesia. She does not want him there; she wants him home. She was quite agreeable to the boy fighting against Nazis, but she does not want him to be sacrificed fighting against people struggling for independence. Neither the Minister nor the Labour Government can justify before the people of this country, or before the people of any country, the sacrifice of one British life to maintain Dutch or any other kind of Imperialism in Indonesia, or anywhere else. The Labour Government should withdraw the troops in Indonesia, and the Indonesian problem will be solved. If we withdraw our troops, there will be no fighting because the Dutch are quite incapable of continuing the fight. The situation will ease when the British troops are withdrawn.
  8.41 p.m.
  Mr. Evelyn Walkden: If I do not follow in the fashion and with the vigour with which the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) has just spoken, it is not because I do not feel the same kind of sincerity that he invariably expresses. We, the fathers and, I suppose, one can speak of the mothers, and sweethearts and the wives, whose relatives and kith and kin are in Indonesia or in those zones, feel that somebody somewhere has made a mistake. We feel that the Dutch have handled this matter clumsily, and it is not the first time they have handled matters clumsily. We know, and I think it ought to be said, because most of the people who have spoken on this subject following the hon. Gentleman the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) who raised it—and, I think, in a right and proper manner—have been Socialists, Socialists have spoken strongly on this subject. We are not unmindful that in Holland there is a Government which has handled other problems in a

  319
  clumsy fashion in its own country, never mind in its Dominions. We know that the vast majority of that Government are Socialists. You may think this is a pretty kettle of fish; a Socialist Government in Britain offering strong and vigorous criticism against a Government in Holland which is made up in the main of Socialists. By contrast, the Conservatives sit silent, dumb, and wonder what it is all about.
  So far as the Dutch are concerned, we believe there is an avenue awaiting us that really allows for a line of approach such as that mentioned by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gateshead (Mr. Zilliacus) and by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Maldon which can avoid further bloodshed. We believe that if the "get together" spirit prevails or is created as the result of this Debate, the Debate will have been worth while—as most Debates are which are raised by this side of the House. As one who visited Holland some weeks ago, I was aware of the misgivings, the doubts and the fears on the part of the Socialists in Holland concerning their Government and the way they were handling their problems.
  Not all the Socialists, the trade unionists or the Social Democrats are happy about the way the Dutch have handled their own peculiar situation in their own country. To give a little illustration, they have 85,000 collaborators—and I have mentioned this to my right hon. Friend before —behind barbed wire. These collaborators, some of whom may have been released since I was there, were put behind barbed wire for lots of reasons. When a country is occupied by an enemy, those who feel they were the Maquis, the resistance movement, or worked with the liberators, begin to work off their spite on people they do not like. Naturally, they gather together lots of people who include such types as a person who played a piano for a relief fund and a young girl who sang at a concert. This particular girl was pointed out to me, and she had been behind barbed wire for three or four months without any sort of trial at all.
  There are many similar cases which one could quote. In this clumsy fashion the Dutch are dealing with their own people in their own country. We, on the other hand, are asked to deal with an Empire problem, to provide the shooting men, the soldiers, the people who are
  320
  taking the risks, while in Holland there is a peculiar kind of army marching around looking after queer people who really ought to have been brought to trial months ago. I would mention to the Minister—I have already referred to it in the House before—that they are only trying about 30 people a week and when I was there a few weeks ago there were about 85,000 imprisoned. I know the Dutch Minister for Justice has said they are going to deliver justice to all these people, that they are working out a new code and setting up new courts and doing all kinds of things to at last clean up their country.
  I would say to the Minister and to my friends in Holland—because those of us who have spoken tonight are friends of the Dutch, and we are concerned about the situation—that we feel that misguided action such as has been taken over the Indonesian situation may have repercussions throughout the length and breadth of the world. As the hon. Member for West Fife said, we shall discuss the Bretton Woods Agreements tomorrow. We shall discuss this situation in the next few days or before the Recess, but, unless we clean up this Indonesian problem before Christmas, how on earth can there be any rejoicing in those thousands of households in Britain whose lads are doing the fighting about which they were never consulted? As far as "good will to all men is concerned," this should include the Dutch. We should say to the Dutch, "If you cannot find ways and means of settling your Dominion troubles and of bringing together the people who call themselves Nationalists—those people who may disagree with the Dutch Government—we cannot settle them for you." The present Dutch Government is vastly different from that which they had in 1939, the Government that did not arm and did not prepare its services or defences, and did not do very much in rallying to fight Fascism, in the way we did in this country. We took the brunt long before Holland was invaded.
  Lieut.-Colonel Mackeson: The hon. Gentleman is surely not suggesting that the rearmament programme was carried out by his party?
  Mr. Walkden: I would say that the Conservatives have nothing to their credit so far as that is concerned. I have nothing on my conscience in relation to

  321
  it either in this war or the last. I did fight in the last war.
  Lieutenant William Shepherd (Bucklow): Would the hon. Gentleman say whether he voted against the Army Estimates before the war?
  Mr. Walkden: That is vastly removed from what we are debating. So far as the Dutch are concerned, and so far as mistakes have been made, the present situation is dynamically dangerous. We believe that now is the time to tackle the problem, and no excuses must be offered. We are clearing the Japanese out of Indonesia, and this trouble has been caused by a failure of understanding which is unpardonable. We believe that the mistakes that have been made can be adjusted by the efforts of my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend, and the Government for which they speak.
  8.51 p.m.
  The Minister of State (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): I know the House will be kind to me tonight, for I have to deal with a matter of great difficulty, which has been raised in a spirit of moderation and international friendship by the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg), and I must carefully choose the words I use. I want both to reply to the Debate and to make some statements which, I hope, will be regarded as of importance. Owing to the many other duties which are falling on my shoulders at the present time, it has not been possible for me to give as many hours to the preparation of what I have to say as I should have liked.
  I will begin, if I may, with my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walkden). He told us that the Dutch Government have not solved all the problems of the postwar epoch yet. I would repudiate, with some emphasis, what he said about their participation in the war. When they were attacked by Hitler they resisted with all the means in their power. I was in The Hague a fortnight before they were attacked, and had an opportunity of examining their defences and seeing what they had done. I venture to say that, with the resources at their command, they defended their land with the utmost gallantry.
  The present Dutch Government is drawn, not entirely but almost entirely, from the ranks of the resistance movement. Whatever else they may have
  322
  done, no one can deny that, after their long martyrdom under the Nazis, they have, so far, done a wonderful job of reconstruction. But I would like to endorse one phrase used by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster: "The more of the get-together spirit we can have, the better for all concerned."
  I should like to assure the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) that some of my ancestors fought against King George 150 years ago, and, therefore, so far as that is concerned, I enter the Debate with no prejudice against those who rebel against established authority.
  Mr. Gallacher: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. Noel-Baker: No, I have not got very long, and the hon. Gentleman took a long time. The hon. Member for West Fife and my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. Platts-Mills), if I understood them, came very near to suggesting that we ought never to have gone to Java at all, but ought to have left the Japanese, and the Japanese-trained Indonesian bands, in charge. If that is their suggestion, I do not think it will receive the approval of the House. Why did we go to Java? I do not need to repeat it again, I hope, to a House which has heard it repeatedly from the Prime Minister and from the Secretary of State, but I can summarise the main purposes. The purposes which it was necessary for us to carry out, and which I do not think a single hon. Member would repudiate, were to disarm and concentrate the Japanese forces, to rescue and bring home our prisoners of war, and—let us not forget it—to rescue the thousands of people whom the Japanese had placed in internment camps under appalling conditions and subject to cruelty of many kinds. The only agreements made with the Dutch Government, and with the French Government about Indo-China, which my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon also mentioned, were the ordinary civil affairs agreements made with all the Allied Governments for the taking over by them of the administration when the Allied Armies had finished their job.
  So far as Indo-China is concerned, I understand that the tasks for which the British and Indian troops went in are now nearly completed. Practically all the Japanese have been disarmed, a

  323
  relatively small number remain to be dealt with, and it is hoped that they will all be dealt with by the end of the year. I for my part hope that our troops may be able to come away in the early future.
  Mr. Driberg: Does that mean that the Annamese people are to be left with the French in control, without any guarantee of future independence?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: What does the hon. Member mean by independence?
  Mr. Driberg: Self-government.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it certain that the people of Indo-China are all united in desiring a complete changeover to independence, as my hon. Friend suggests? These are assumptions which tonight I cannot possibly admit from others, and which I could not allow myself to make.
  Mr. Driberg: Ninety per cent. hate the French, and justly.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I want to come to what he said about Indonesia and Java, which is more important. He said that we were employing Japanese troops, that Indonesian villages had been burnt, and so on. Let me deal first with the use of Japanese troops. It is true that they have been used, in the official phrase, "defensively." What does that mean? It means that if internees, women and children—Dutch, Eurasian or other—are being attacked and subjected to murder or cruelty, as they very often have been by the Indonesian bands, then the Japanese are called on to repel those attacks. According to my information they have been used offensively only once, and I will give the House the exact details of what occurred.
  On 6th December one of our battalions was ordered to reach and evacuate 500 starving internees, 140 of whom had already been carried off. They were met by heavily-fortified strong points. Our infantry could only have got to the rescue of those people with heavy loss of life unless we had been able to call on some artillery. There was no artillery to reduce the strong points, except Japanese. It was used in order to save our soldiers' lives and to rescue those people. Some of my hon. Friends, in particular the hon. Member for Finsbury, seemed to imply that no atrocities of any kind have been
  324
  committed by the Indonesian bands. I wish I could agree with him. I am not going to take the time of the House in describing atrocities, but I could do so at very considerable length. It was said that we had destroyed Indonesian villages by Typhoon rocket-planes. I have not heard of that. I have heard of the destruction of two radio stations by rocket, a very different matter. The targets were very well isolated, with no centres of population near them, and were very easy to destroy; in point of fact, the percentage of direct hits was very high. They were attacked because day by day and night by night they were pouring out the most inflammatory propaganda, inciting the Indonesian bands to acts of cruelty of many kinds.
  It is said that villages were burned. I know of one case in which a village was burned, and again I will give the House the facts. An R.A.F. aircraft made a forced landing near a village. The crew were taken and murdered by brutal torture. Nothing was done against the population. They were cleared out of their village and the village was burned. I am not defending indiscriminate reprisals, but in these circumstances I find it hard to blame the commander on the spot.
  Despite the obstructions and difficulties with which we have met, we have, in fact, made great progress towards our aims. We have disarmed and concentrated under our control a very large proportion of the Japanese forces in the island. We have set free and evacuated tens of thousands of the internees. There are still very many to be rescued—up to 200,000, mostly women and children. They are enduring starvation and all the familiar horrors of Japanese custody. To get them out, of course, we had to take military measures. We had to occupy Sourabaya for evacuation and for supply. Those who are resisting us are sometimes referred to in a facile phrase as "The Indonesian Army," and it is implied that they are obeying the orders of the Indonesian "Cabinet" and "Government." The resistance to the Allied Forces engaged on this relief, and the acts of terrorism which are going on, are the work, not of an army, but of so-called Indonesian youth movements, gangs of fanatical youths who were armed, and very largely trained, ideologically as well as militarily. by the Japanese. This so-

  325
  called Indonesian "Army" does not seek approval for its policy from any responsible Indonesian leader. It has shown itself capable of every outrage all over the Island, against the Allied prisoners of war and the internees. Moreover, all those who are known to sympathise with the Dutch and the British were at the mercy of these bloodthirsty youths, and in some areas in immediate danger of massacre, following on the starvation they had previously endured.
  I venture to say that no one would urge that we should turn our backs on those people and say their fate is no concern of ours. If we do not help them no one else can, certainly not the Dutch, who have placed their troops and their ships at the Allies' disposal, and who have been extremely loyal in that regard. We must do everything we can to complete this work of rescue and relief. The first necessity is to remove them from the remaining camps and then, if we can, to get them away. That work is very difficult, so long as disorder is going on, and once you start on it, you arc compelled to do what the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister described as "restoring order." I know that the phrase "restoring order" has a sinister connotation in Colonial history. I know that any use of it justifiably arouses suspicion. I know it has been too often used as an excuse for the suppression of political aspirations by force. But what are the facts in this case? The suppression of the Indonesian terrorist groups will not in any way weaken the presentation of the Nationalist case by the Indonesian leaders in their negotiations with the Dutch. It will strengthen their case; and I have strong reason to believe —I ask the House to note this—that Dr. Sjahrir and his colleagues would welcome the suppression of the extremist elements whose outrages only prejudice their case, and who in fact, accept no orders from anybody. How can Dr. Sjahrir present the Indonesian case effectively under conditions in which the Armed Forces and the most important means of propaganda are in the hands of extremists who reject negotiations and call for further bloodshed? Anyone who has compared the declarations of Dr. Sjahrir and his colleagues with the wild and foolish outpourings from the radio stations of the so-called Indonesian "Army" will appreciate the extent of this disastrous division of the Indonesian people. The
  326
  savagery in word and action of the irreconcilables can only play into the hands of the more exacerbated and less conciliatory elements on the Dutch side.
  Here I must say one word about the case for the Dutch. My hon. Friends spoke about the Indonesian people as being advanced, educated, capable, and so on. If that is so, some of the credit goes to the Dutch. The Dutch found these islands, when they first went there, in very primitive conditions. No one can deny that the reputation of the Dutch as a Colonial Power stood high in 1939. I venture to think that we must remember not only that record, not only what they have done in the study of anthropology, which is so vital to colonial progress, and which was so admirably advanced by the Dutch colonial administration and by the Universities of Holland, but that we must remember also the magnitude of the sacrifice that they made in the war. We must remember both the help which they gave us in Holland, when those four days mattered, for they had an effect on the ultimate outcome of Dunkirk, and their effort in the Far East, when they declared war on the Japanese without waiting for the Japanese to attack them, and when their submarines and their armed forces made a mighty contribution in holding up the pace of the Japanese advance.
  I am confident that the well-known phenomenon, the colonial dieheard, who will not admit that the old days of easy and unchallenged ascendancy have gone and cannot return, will not prevail against men like the present Prime Minister of Holland, Professor Schemerhorn, and the Minister of Overseas Territories, Dr. Logemann, both of whom have been personally involved for several years in the promotion of movements for the more democratic and progressive administration of the Netherlands East Indies. The programme of the Indonesian Committee, of which the Prime Minister was chairman, was approved by all its Indonesian members and by the Communists. Dr. Schemerhorn's colleagues in the Dutch Cabinet know from first-hand experience in the Dutch Resistance Movement how intolerable repression and the denial of political rights can be, and I do not believe that that is their purpose in the East.
  I ventured to describe the offer of 6th November as generous and far-reaching.

  327
  My hon. Friend, in his well-reasoned statement tonight, thought that I was too optimistic. Had I the time I would gladly analyse it further, but I think that the difference between us lies largely in what the Dutch propose about the Government of the whole Kingdom. They want now to implement the policy which was broadcast by the Queen of Holland in 1942. They aim at the realisation of those aspirations for a more liberal system by a process of evolution, by co-operation, and not by violence. They propose a partnership inside a Commonwealth or Kingdom of the Netherlands, which would include the Empire as a whole. They provide in Indonesia for a representative body with a substantial majority of Indonesian members, and, as my hon. Friend said, that body would be dealing primarily with internal matters.
  Mr. Driberg: Under a Governor-General.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, but where are the powers to lie? That is to be negotiated. This is a basis of discussion which the Dutch have put forward and which they ask the Indonesians to talk about. But the Dutch not only propose that; they propose a round table conference to decide on the methods whereby the Netherlands Indies, like other overseas Netherland territories, will participate in the Government of the whole Kingdom. I think that is where I differ from my hon. Friend, and that, I think, is where "The Times" correspondent, like my hon. Friend, got it wrong. What does the statement actually say?
  "Indonesia will become a full partner in the Kingdom organised as a Commonwealth of the participating territories. A round-table conference will propose how this will be done. Decisions, however, will be taken by the constitutional authorities of the Kingdom."
  That means the authorities of the whole Kingdom. Unless I am mistaken, what is proposed is not at all Dominion status, but it is instead an advance towards a cooperative, federated Commonwealth of Holland and her territories overseas.
  Mr. Driberg: But without the right of contracting out.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: But surely that is all a matter for the negotiations, and for future historical development which we cannot now foresee. Canada, Australia and
  328
  New Zealand had no right of contracting out when self-government was first established by Acts of this Parliament. Let us not forget that until the war of 1914, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa had nothing to do with foreign affairs; they dealt with internal matters only.
  This is a very far-reaching and liberal proposal for negotiations between those Indonesian Leaders who are fit to negotiate and the Dutch Government. It is easy to talk of independence. The leaders who claim to represent the country have still to prove that they can do so, and that they can exercise effective control; they have not done it up to now. They have still to prove that they can bring economic welfare to a country in danger of starvation, in a world where in far too many places, starvation exists or is coming very soon. The right plan now is to proceed on the road of co-operation and orderly evolution, and I beg hon. Members to consider how little reason we have yet to think that these Indonesian leaders could solidify the whole of the people for whom they claim to speak. Even in Java there is a tremendous mixture of races—Javanese, Sundanese, Mudanese, Chinese, Dutch, Eurasians, Arabs. This has to be taken into account. I am not saying that that is an argument against self-government, but it is one of the things that must be dealt with not by violence or by leaving the country to the bands trained by the Japanese, but by negotiations between responsible leaders and a responsible Dutch Government at home.
  I was asked if I would encourage a meeting outside Java, perhaps in London. I was asked why it was that the Indonesians were not invited to meet at Singapore. To that the answer is simple. The meeting in Singapore was a military conference of the Allies to deal with questions concerned with the liquidation of the war with Japan, and there was no reason for Indonesian representatives to participate, and none of the items on the agenda could be said strictly to concern them. I venture to suggest to my hon. Friends that, before we think of conferences outside, and of referring the matter to the United Nations Organisation—and no one is likely to accuse me of wanting to keep important questions away from the United Nations Organisation—we had better see whether the negotiations which are now going on, which, on

  329
  Dutch initiative and with our support, have actually been begun, should not now be carried further.
  It is not true that the Dutch have re fused to have meetings with the Indonesian leaders. Meetings have taken place. The difficulty has been the unwillingness of the Indonesian leaders to commit them selves to formal meetings. They do not seem confident of their powers to lead and to negotiate as authorised delegates. Therefore, however reasonable they may be in informal talks, they will not publicly, and as responsible delegates, declare what they would regard as a satisfactory basis of negotiations. The Dutch, as I said, took the initiative. I think it is up to the Indonesians now publicly to meet that initiative with counter proposals, if they want to make them, in a spirit of reasonable com promise. Dr. Van Mook is now on his way to the Netherlands to consult the Dutch Government—
  It being a quarter past Nine o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I was saying that Dr. Van Mook is now on his way to the Netherlands to consult the Dutch Govern-
  330
  ment, and His Majesty's Government hope he will be given full authority by the Government at home, when he goes back to Indonesia, to use his unequalled experience of conditions and sentiments in the Dutch East Indies to meet the Indonesian case in most concrete and conciliatory terms. I think we must await the outcome of these consultations before we express any further opinion. In the meantime, we have the right to insist that there shall be the minimum possible delay in elaborating the statement of 6th November in more concrete terms and as a basis of negotiation. May I end with these words, which I commend to the attention of the House?
  We now expect, and we demand, that the Dutch and Indonesians should sit down together to adjust their differences on a basis of concrete proposals from both sides without any further delay. The first essential is that both sides should appoint representatives with full powers, who are in no danger of being repudiated. In the meantime, His Majesty's Forces must continue to do what is necessary to ensure the safety of Allied prisoners of war and of the helpless internees.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Seventeen Minutes past Nine o'Clock.

BRITISH ARMY
  Christmas Leave
  Christmas Leave
  Demobilisation
  Demobilisation
  S.E.A.C. Headquarters
  S.E.A.C. Headquarters
  War Decorations and Medals
  War Decorations and Medals
  Arrests, Far East (Investigations)
  Arrests, Far East (Investigations)
  Repatriation (Far East)
  Repatriation (Far East)
  Ceylon (Headquarters Staffs)
  Ceylon (Headquarters Staffs)
  Personal Cases
  Personal Cases
  Requisitional Property
  Requisitional Property
  B.A.O.R. (Canteens)
  B.A.O.R. (Canteens)
  African Regiments (Corporal Punishment)
  African Regiments (Corporal Punishment)
  Re-engagement (Medical Category)
  Re-engagement (Medical Category)
  West African Units
  West African Units
  C.M.F. (Leave)
  C.M.F. (Leave)
  Shrivenham Barracks
  Shrivenham Barracks
  Didcot Workshops
  Didcot Workshops
  Oversea Postings
  Oversea Postings
  Battle Camp, Bangor
  Battle Camp, Bangor
  Huts for Housing
  Huts for Housing
  Training Grounds
  Training Grounds
  Tented Camp, Woolwich
  Tented Camp, Woolwich
  Dependants' Allowances
  Dependants' Allowances
  Hospital Patients (Discharge)
  Hospital Patients (Discharge)
  Accident, Pentland Hills (Inquiry)
  Accident, Pentland Hills (Inquiry)
  Burma (Repatriation)
  Burma (Repatriation)
  Surplus Civilian Clothing
  Surplus Civilian Clothing
  Overseas Tours
  Overseas Tours
  N.A.A.F.I. (ADVERTISING)
  N.A.A.F.I. (ADVERTISING)
  GERMAN INVASION PLANS (MAPS)
  GERMAN INVASION PLANS (MAPS)
  GERMANY, SKATING RINK, COLOGNE
  GERMANY, SKATING RINK, COLOGNE
  MISSING WAR PRISONERS
  MISSING WAR PRISONERS
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
  Wentworth Park, Rotherham
  Wentworth Park, Rotherham
  Tree Planting (Streets)
  Tree Planting (Streets)
  Open Spaces
  Open Spaces
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Requisitioned Property
  Requisitioned Property
  Brick-cleaning Machine
  Brick-cleaning Machine
  Derequisitioned Premises (Restoration)
  Derequisitioned Premises (Restoration)
  Surplus Huts
  Surplus Huts
  Surplus Government Stores
  Surplus Government Stores
  HOUSE OF COMMONS CHAMBER (CEILING PANEL)
  HOUSE OF COMMONS CHAMBER (CEILING PANEL)
HOUSING
  Building Licences
  Building Licences
  Edinburgh
  Edinburgh
  Aluminium Bungalows (Cost)
  Aluminium Bungalows (Cost)
  Preparation of Sites(Labour)
  Preparation of Sites(Labour)
  Housing Components (Production)
  Housing Components (Production)
PUBLIC HEALTH
  Refuse Dump, Henley-on-Thames
  Refuse Dump, Henley-on-Thames
  Mental Hospital Nurse (Superannuation)
  Mental Hospital Nurse (Superannuation)
  Diphtheria (Southend)
  Diphtheria (Southend)
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES(FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE)
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES(FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE)
FUEL AND POWER
  Sub-tenants (Coal Registration)
  Sub-tenants (Coal Registration)
  Shop-window Lighting
  Shop-window Lighting
  Grit Arrestor, Oxford
  Grit Arrestor, Oxford
  Local Fuel Overseers (Appointment)
  Local Fuel Overseers (Appointment)
  Petrol (Service Vehicles)
  Petrol (Service Vehicles)
COAL INDUSTRY
  Voluntary Absenteeism
  Voluntary Absenteeism
  Opencast Working (Restoration Cost)
  Opencast Working (Restoration Cost)
  Output Figures (Publication)
  Output Figures (Publication)
  Labour Force (South Wales)
  Labour Force (South Wales)
DEMOBILISATION
  Mine Workers
  Mine Workers
  Agricultural Workers
  Agricultural Workers
  Science Students
  Science Students
  Class B Release
  Class B Release
  Class W Reserve
  Class W Reserve
  Arts Students
  Arts Students
EMPLOYMENT
  Manpower Position (Stafford)
  Manpower Position (Stafford)
  Building Labour (Blackpool)
  Building Labour (Blackpool)
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Vocational Training (Northern Ireland)
  Vocational Training (Northern Ireland)
  Disabled Persons (Manchester)
  Disabled Persons (Manchester)
  Building Industry (Scotland)
  Building Industry (Scotland)
MILITARY SERVICE
  Call-up Statistics
  Call-up Statistics
  Quantity Surveyors' Pupils
  Quantity Surveyors' Pupils
  Apprentices
  Apprentices
  Optical Workers
  Optical Workers
  FERRIES (SCOTLAND)
  FERRIES (SCOTLAND)
ROADS
  Reconditioned Cars (Allocation)
  Reconditioned Cars (Allocation)
  Toll Roads and Bridges
  Toll Roads and Bridges
  CANADIAN SERVICEMEN(WIVES, TRANSPORT)
  CANADIAN SERVICEMEN(WIVES, TRANSPORT)
  RAILWAY SERVICES (ACCELERATION)
  RAILWAY SERVICES (ACCELERATION)
SCOTLAND
  Hebrides (Transport)
  Hebrides (Transport)
  Hospitals Survey
  Hospitals Survey
  River Pollution
  River Pollution
  National Fire Service
  National Fire Service
  Hill Sheep Industry
  Hill Sheep Industry
  Housing
  Housing
  Police Forces (Amalgamation)
  Police Forces (Amalgamation)
  Compensation Claims, Lanarkshire
  Compensation Claims, Lanarkshire
  Industrial Estates, Lanarkshire
  Industrial Estates, Lanarkshire
  Diphtheria
  Diphtheria
  Emergency Centre Stores (Sale)
  Emergency Centre Stores (Sale)
  A.R.P., OTLEY (LOANED MOTOR WAGON)
  A.R.P., OTLEY (LOANED MOTOR WAGON)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Local Authority Loans (Interest)
  Local Authority Loans (Interest)
  Fiduciary Note Issue (Increase)
  Fiduciary Note Issue (Increase)
  CIVIL SERVICE (EX-SERVICEMEN)
  CIVIL SERVICE (EX-SERVICEMEN)
  DISTRESSED PERSONS, EUROPE
  DISTRESSED PERSONS, EUROPE
  INDIA (MAILS)
  INDIA (MAILS)
  GERMAN WAR PRISONERS ( BOOKS)
  GERMAN WAR PRISONERS ( BOOKS)
ROYAL NAVY
  Promotions
  Promotions
  Officers (Shore Appointments)
  Officers (Shore Appointments)
  P.O. SAVINGS BANK (DECENTRALISATION)
  P.O. SAVINGS BANK (DECENTRALISATION)
  NUREMBERG TRIAL (REPORT)
  NUREMBERG TRIAL (REPORT)
  PENSIONS AND GRANTS
  PENSIONS AND GRANTS
  AGRICULTURE (REGULATIONS)
  AGRICULTURE (REGULATIONS)
  CIVIL AVIATION (NON-BRITISH AIRCRAFT)
  CIVIL AVIATION (NON-BRITISH AIRCRAFT)

Preamble
The House met at four of the clock,
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

NEWFOUNDLAND.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, a question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether His Majesty's Government have any statement to make in regard to future policy towards Newfoundland.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, since assuming office the Government have reviewed the position in relation to Newfoundland. Before proceeding to describe the measure which we propose, I should like to refer briefly to three preliminary points. First, as a result of war-time developments and of the special conditions that have obtained during the war, the financial position of the island has been transformed during the last five years. It has been self-supporting since 1941 and has built up an accumulated surplus which now stands at approximately 25,000,000 dollars. Secondly, under the agreement made with the Newfoundland people in 1933 a pledge was given that as soon as the island's difficulties had been overcome arid the country was again self-supporting, responsible government, on request from the people of Newfoundland, would be restored. In a statement made in Parliament in December, 1943, on behalf of the Coalition Government, it was made clear that the whole policy of the United Kingdom was governed by this undertaking.
Thirdly, such being the general background, it was further indicated in the same statement that as soon as practicable after the end of the war, machinery would be provided for enabling the New-
542
foundland people to examine the future of the island and to express their considered views as to the form of Government they desire, having regard to the financial and economic conditions prevailing at the time.
His Majesty's Government for their part, fully endorse the statement of policy made on behalf of the Coalition Government in 1943 arid intend to proceed as speedily as possible with the setting up of appropriate machinery for this purpose. This they consider, after consultation with the Commission of Government, could most suitably take the form of an elected National Convention of Newfoundlanders. They accordingly propose the following programme:
1. Elections to a National Convention will be held in the early summer of 1946 as soon as climatic conditions permit—probably in the first half of June. All adults will be entitled to vote and the elections will be held on the basis of the constituencies of 1925 with such variations as may be found desirable in the light of the new census which is being taken in Newfoundland this year. Candidates for election will be required to have been bona-fide residents for at least two years in the districts they seek to represent, war service not being regarded as a break in residence.
2. It will be the duty of the Convention to review all the alternative courses open to the island and to make recommendations to His Majesty's Government as a basis for a national referendum. It is fitting, therefore, that it should be given wide terms of reference, and these will take the following form:
"To consider and discuss amongst themselves, as elected representatives of the Newfoundland people, the changes that have taken place in the financial and economic situation of the island since 1934, and, bearing in mind the extent to which the high revenues of recent years have been due to wartime conditions, to examine the position of the country and to make recommendations to His Majesty's Government as to possible forms of future Government to be put before the people at a national referendum."
3. The Convention will be presided over by a Judge of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland. In order that members may be given adequate guidance on constitutional forms and procedure it is contemplated that an expert adviser from the United Kingdom would be available to assist the Convention as required. His

543
Majesty's Government further propose to prepare and to make available to the Convention when it meets a factual and objective statement on the financial and economic situation. This would analyse developments in revenue and expenditure since 1934, give particulars of the cost of maintaining the various public and social services, review the country's import and export trade and the main branches of economic activity, and survey the principal lines of policy followed by the Commission of Government and their financial implications. This statement will be made available to Parliament at the same time.
4. The intention would be that the Convention should meet as soon as practicable after the elections. If, as is hoped, the discussions at the Convention should result in a sufficiently marked consensus of opinion to enable recommendations as to the future course of action to be submitted to the United Kingdom Government, the next step would be for such recommendations to be considered by His Majesty's Government. It would thereafter be possible to hold a referendum at which the issues could be put to the Newfoundland people for their decision.
Under this procedure there will be full scope for the whole constitutional question to be examined by a representative body of Newfoundlanders, and then decided by the Newfoundland people themselves. In the meantime the Commission of Government have been giving continuous study to the reconstruction needs of the island. These may be divided into short term and long term. So far as the former arc concerned, the Commission have already put in hand a series of measures designed to meet the more pressing requirements of the next two or three years These include a comprehensive scheme, which has been received with general approval in the island, for the rehabilitation of ex-Service men, and schemes for fishery development, land settlement, the improvement of communications and hospital and educational services. It is clearly necessary that these schemes should proceed without interruption and provision for implementing them will accordingly continue to be made in the island's annual Budget. There need be no apprehension therefore that progress in equipping the island to meet the needs of the future will
544
in any way be slowed down by the arrangements now proposed for enabling the constitutional issue to be determined.
Longer-term measures are; however, in a somewhat different category, since any new Government would no doubt wish to frame its own development policy and care must be taken to see that it is left the maximum freedom to do so, consistent with reasonable continuity. In other words, the aim of the Commission must be to forge ahead with immediate measures but on longer-term schemes to retain a measure of flexibility pending the settlement of the constitutional issue. The Commission of Government will, however, make available to the Convention information respecting the order of development and reconstruction expenditure which in their view is likely to be required over the next ten years.
Our relations with Newfoundland have been so special and Newfoundlanders have played such a gallant part in the war that it would, I know, be the wish of us all to assure to any new Government which may take over in the island the fairest possible start. But we must all be careful not to promise what we may not be able to perform, and the special difficulties of our financial position over the next few years may well preclude us from undertaking fresh commitments. As your Lordships will understand from what I have said, the object of the procedure proposed by His Majesty's Government is to enable the people of Newfoundland to come to a free and informed decision as soon as possible on their future form of Government. I know that this House, which has always been solicitous for the welfare of the people of the island, will wish them well in the exercise of their choice.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, I should like to thank the Leader of the House for the very important statement of policy he has made which will require very careful consideration by your Lordships, but I would like to ask him one further question now for the purpose of elucidating what he has just said. As I understand the position, there would be three stages in the Government's plan to enable the people of Newfoundland to decide their constitutional future: first, the proposed Convention will sit; next, the conclusions of the Convention will be forwarded to His Majesty's Government, and finally, a plebiscite will be held at which

545
the issues will be put before the people of the island. I take it that while, clearly, His Majesty's Government must reserve the right to consider the conclusions reached by the Convention, they have no intention of precluding the people of Newfoundland from voting on the alternatives which the Convention may recommend.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I welcome the noble Lord's supplementary question. His Majesty's Government have no such intention. They hope that the Convention will be able to frame their recommendations in the form of questions to be submitted to the people of Newfoundland at the referendum.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I have one further question which is obviously of great interest to Parliament. If, after we have given the statement full consideration at an appropriate date a debate seems desirable, I take it the Government will give the matter sympathetic consideration.
VISCOUNT ADDISON VISCOUNT ADDISON signified assent.

DOCK AREAS (REGULATION OF EMPLOYMENT) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a", and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
4.12 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON VISCOUNT ADDISON, My Lords, I beg to move the Motion that stands in my name.
Moved, That Standing Orders Nos. XXI and XXXIX be considered in order to their being suspended until the House adjourn for the Recess at Christmas, and that, until that date, Government business have, except with the consent of the Government; precedence over other Notices arid Orders of the Day—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, in connexion with the business of the House, I. must apologize to your Lordships for an unfortunate delay that apparently occurred in the forwarding of the Building Materials and Housing Bill, for the First Reading of which we had a special sitting on Friday last. The reason, for which I am glad to say the officers of this House are not in any way responsible, was that
546
there was considerable delay in receiving the print of the Bill. In the circumstances the time between the First Reading and the Second Reading has been unduly short. I am very sorry that this has happened, but it is no fault of ours. In the circumstances, perhaps I may suggest to your Lordships that if you feel you would like further time, we might adopt the same procedure as was adopted in another case a short time ago—give the Bill a formal Second Reading this afternoon and then, when we have the Motion that the House shall resolve itself into Committee on the Bill, we can have a general discussion on the Bill before taking the Committee stage.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, there has been the possibility of inconvenience over this. Indeed, not only was the Bill not forwarded, but it was not available in the Vote Office, I understand, even yesterday afternoon. On the ether hand, I am not sure that the course the Leader of the House proposes will be convenient. The Bill may require a good deal of consideration in Committee; and there are certain points which I think the House would like to have elucidated on Second Reading. Probably a number of noble Lords have made such study as has been possible on the Bill. As the alternative before us is not one of postponing the Second Reading and postponing the Committee stage, but merely of engaging in a debate next Thursday, when we do not meet until 4 o'clock and when we should have to take what is virtually a Second Reading debate, and follow that up with the Committee stage, I think on the whole it will be more convenient to take the Second Reading to-day, elucidate all these matters and get answers from the Government on various points which noble Lords may want to raise, and no doubt we shall be given full time on the Committee stage for any Amendments that are put down. In all the circumstances, I think that will be most for the convenience of the House.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My suggestion was made entirely to meet the convenience of the House. I am quite willing to accept the suggestion made by the noble Lord.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
POLICE (OVERSEAS SERVICE) BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments (according to Order), and passed, and returned to the Commons.

STATUTORY ORDERS (SPECIAL PROCEDURE) BILL.
4.18 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD JOWITT): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
Clause 3:
Petitions.
(3) As soon as practicable after the expiration of the said period of fourteen days, the Chairmen shall take into consideration all petitions referred to them under this section, and if the Chairmen are satisfied with respect to any such petition that the provisions of this Act and of Standing Orders have been complied with in respect thereof and that the petition discloses a substantial ground of objection to the order, they shall certify that the petition is proper to be received and is a petition for amendment or a petition of general objection as the case may be.
LORD RANKEILLOUR LORD RANKEILLOUR: moved, in subsection (3), after "satisfied," to insert "having heard counsel, if they think fit, representing the parties concerned." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the first Amendment that stands in my name, and in doing so I should like to ask whether the noble and learned Lord Chancellor could say anything more about the procedure by the two Chairmen. Will there be any opportunity for hearing the petitions by the parties, with or without counsel, or will the whole of the proceedings be conducted on written statements and without any publicity at all? I submit that in many cases that is very undesirable, because these questions of locus, petitions against the Bill and objections to the petitions on the part of the promoters, are sometimes extremely complicated. Of course, I quite realize that on many occasions it would be obvious to the Lord Chairman and the Chairman of Committees that either the petition was relevant to the Bill or that it
548
was not; but there are other cases where it may be very doubtful. I therefore suggest that the Chairmen shall have the opportunity of hearing counsel even for their own guidance. Otherwise rather too much of a burden may be put upon them. I think they will be only too glad in certain cases to have the aid of counsel in arguing the matter before them. I have had a certain amount of experience in these matters, and I do say that very often dissatisfaction will be caused if the parties or petitioners are not heard. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 36, after (" satisfied ") insert (" having heard counsel, if they think fit, representing the parties concerned ")—(Lord Rankeillour).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if you look at the Bill you will find that Clause 9 deals with the question of the Standing Orders which may be made. This is typically a matter which, I think, will best be left to Standing Orders. The procedure is, quite frankly, to a large extent experimental. Clause 9 provides that "Standing Orders may be made for any purpose connected with the provisions of this Act." Paragraph (c) deals with "regulating the proceedings of the Chairman in connexion with the examination of petitions under the Act;" and (d) deals with the locus standi. I, like the noble Lord, have had some experience of locus standi questions. I quite agree with him that the majority are quite simple, but some may be very difficult. The House of Commons has a Standing Order saying that it may hear one counsel; one counsel can appear, and sometimes does appear. I am very anxious that we should keep this in subject to Standing Orders, so that we may adjust and amend our Standing Orders and learn by experience.
It is certainly contemplated that Standing Orders will enable the Chairmen or their deputies to hear parties either by themselves or by their agents and, if they think fit, to hear representatives of the Departments responsible for the order. I am not sure whether it will prove to be desirable in any way to restrict the right of counsel to appear at these proceedings. It may be that it will be thought better to emphasize the informality of the proceedings, or, on the other hand, it may be considered desirable to have more for-

549
mal proceedings. That is typically a matter for Standing Orders and I suggest to your Lordships that that is the right way in which to deal with it.
With regard to the locus standi point, there again, as I have pointed out, there is an express provision for Standing Orders to be made. I hope very much that we shall give the proposed system a trial, that is to say, to let the Chairmen examine questions of locus standi at the same time as they examine the petition. We quite realize that experience may prove that that is casting an undue burden upon the Chairmen and that some more formal proceeding is necessary. It may be found necessary hereafter to adopt the procedure of either a Locus Standi Committee or an Unopposed Bill Committee, similar to that in the House of Commons. That again will be dealt with by Standing Orders. I think it would be a pity in any way to restrict ourselves by putting words into the Bill such as the words proposed by the noble Lord. I would prefer to leave the whole matter to the Standing Orders which are contemplated by Clause 9 of the Bill.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, I accept the explanation which the noble and learned Lord Chancellor has given. It relieves my mind on some of these points and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4:
Proceedings consequent upon report as to petitions
(3) If during the Resolution period neither House has resolved that the order be annulled, and no petitions relating to the order stand referred to the Joint Committee under this section, the order shall come into operation at the expiration of that period, or on such later date, if any, as may be specified in the order.
4.25 p.m.
LORD RANKEILLOUR LORD RANKEILLOUR moved, in subsection (3), to leave out all words after "operation" and insert "on a certificate of approval by the Lord Chairman and the Unopposed Bill Committee of the House of Commons, with or without amendment." The noble Lord said: My Lords, my next Amendment is that in the case of an unopposed Bill there should be some detailed hearing in public as there is in the House of Commons at
550
present. The fact that a Bill or order is unopposed does not mean that it may not have serious difficulties in it. As I read the Bill—new points are always coming out and I may be wrong—an unopposed order will he subject to no special examination at all. Unopposed Bills or orders may often contain some vicious principle or precedent. I remember a Water Bill which was unopposed. However, when we looked into it we found there was no provision at all for the powers of the Bill not being abused. The promoters said it was necessary to acquire certain land to prevent the pollution of their supply, but there was nothing whatever to prevent them turning themselves into a land speculating company and selling parts of that tract of country, which was very considerable in area and which contained beautiful sites for building purposes We found other abuses, such as, for instance, a compulsory power to acquire something for no public benefit at all, but simply for the benefit of the company.
Therefore I do suggest that these unopposed orders, which apparently nobody is qualified to amend, should be subjected to some detailed examination. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord Chancellor can say whether they will receive proper attention in those respects in some other way; but merely to suppose they will simply by one vote of each House of Parliament, cannot be at all a satisfactory way of dealing with this somewhat critical question.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 46, leave out from (" operation ") to end of subsection (3) and insert (" on a certificate of approval by the Lord Chairman and the Unopposed Bill Committee of the House of Commons, with or without amendment '').—(Lord Rankeillour.)
THE. LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is, I am afraid, a very dull and complicated question. It is quite impossible to accept this Amendment; it comes in the wrong place and deals with the wrong period of time. As your Lordships see, there are three periods of time here. There is, first of all, the first fourteen days; then there is the period when the Chairmen examine the petition; and then there is another fourteen days, the Resolution period, during which a negative Resolution may be moved. I can quite understand the view that it is desirable to have

551
a scrutiny at the earliest stage so that the House may be in a position to make up its mind whether or not it should move a negative Resolution. At that stage it would be possible for your Lordships, by Standing Orders, to provide that all such orders should be so referred. Whether or not the Government would approve that course, I do not pretend to say at the moment. I can myself see considerable difficulties in so doing, but it would be possible.
What is proposed here, however, is something quite different. After the Resolution period, that is to say when the Bill provides that these things shall automatically become law, it is provided by this Amendment that the Chairmen and the Unopposed Bill Committee of the House of Commons may then look at it, withhold approval or not as they think best, and actually make Amendments. There are no provisions in the Bill for what is to happen if the Minister does not agree with the proposed Amendments. Clause 6 (2) of the Bill as drafted provides for what is to happen if the Minister does not agree with the Amendments proposed at that stage, but at this stage, if we put these words in here, there would be nothing to give the Minister a chance to object to the Amendment. If we insert these words we shall simply be giving the Chairmen power to make Amendments to which the Minister must assent, or, further than that, to withhold their consent to the unopposed order. That is entirely contrary to the whole purpose of the Bill.
The purpose of this Bill is that the Second Reading objection, if I may use that phrase, should be taken on the floor of the House. You might have the Chairmen, by this Amendment, objecting to the order on a Second Reading point and withholding their consent. This procedure is a combination of Private Bill procedure and what I may call the negative order procedure. In a Bill which is subject to a negative order, there is no question of amendment at all; there never is, and there is never any chance whatever of correcting small technical errors. By this procedure we have the great advantage that we can, if we think fit, either negative the whole policy of the order on the floor of the House, or send it upstairs so that Amendments may be considered. By
552
accepting this Amendment we should destroy the purposes of this Bill. I suggest that the noble Lord might consider whether or not he would advocate the passing of a Standing Order providing for scrutiny at an earlier stage, but I must not be taken as giving any pledge that His Majesty's Government would agree to that. It is, however, a possible course, which is not open to anything like the objections to which this Amendment would be open. We cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: Could this matter be dealt with under Clause 9 by a Standing Order, as in the case of the former matter which I brought forward?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It would not be under Clause 9, but under the general powers of the House to deal with the matter by Standing Order, by providing a scrutiny for all these Bills at an earlier time, to enable the House to make up its mind.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, I will not press this matter, and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

BUILDING MATERIALS AND HOUSING BILL.
4.33 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the House has apologized for the fact that copies of this Bill were not circulated in time for your Lordships to study it before the Second Reading. I should like to join him in that expression of apology and regret. However, if I try to explain its contents to your Lordships this afternoon, it may be easier for you to make your criticisms at a later stage. This Bill might be described, I think not unfairly, by some of its less-well-disposed critics, as a miscellaneous collection of unrelated items, rather like the contents of a schoolboy's pockets; but there is at least this difference, that it is not a random or haphazard collection. The different items, though they may indeed bear little relation to one another, do serve the common

553
purpose of carrying the Government's housing programme one stage further. When it is passed into law, it will make possible an increase in the number of houses to be erected in the near future. It will speed up the tempo of the building programme, and it will help to keep down the charge for rent by reducing building costs.
Another feature of the Bill, which I hope will commend it to the House, is that most of it is a legacy from the Caretaker and Coalition Governments. My former colleague at the Ministry of Health, Mr Willink, said in another place that he found in this Bill a number of proposals which had been in the minds of both the previous Administrations. Indeed, there is good reason to suppose that the major portion of this Bill was already drafted by the Caretaker Government, whose span of life was too short for the Bill to be introduced into Parliament. If the course of events and the General Election had not taken such an unexpected turn—unexpected, I imagine, to almost all concerned—the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, might well be standing in my place this afternoon to ask for your Lordships' approval of the present Bill.
The Bill falls into four parts, with which I shall deal seriatim. Clauses to 4 of the Bill seek to provide the capital fund required by the Minister of Works to discharge the various functions described in Clause 1 (1). The Minister of Works is being authorized to arrange for the placing of bulk purchase orders for building materials and components. This procedure is not, I hasten to add, an alternative to production agreements, but a means of supplementing such agreements between the Government and industry. The placing of bulk purchase orders was recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, when he spoke to your Lordships in the last housing debate in this House; and I believe every one shares the view that it is in fact a good way of reducing the cost of these materials and components. The Minister may also arrange for the manufacture of any structural necessities, and if necessary for their distribution to the building firms that will actually use them. Finally—and here I am dealing again with Clause 1 (1) (c)—when called in by local housing authorities, as may easily happen in (to give your Lordships two examples) "blitzed" or
554
rural areas, the Minister may send reinforcements of direct or contract labour to the sites on which they will be required to work on the construction of houses.
Your Lordships are aware that the Minister of Works is responsible for assessing the material requirements of the whole building programme which includes, but of course goes beyond, the housing programme. He must ensure that materials will be available to the extent required and of reasonable prices over the next five years. Let me explain the relationship between the Ministry of Works and the other Government Departments concerned. The Minister of Supply is responsible for the provision of equipment such as baths, cooking and heating stoves and electrical equipment. The President of the Board of Trade is responsible for timber and paint. The Minister of Works, however, still has the over-all responsibility, and the other two Departments will act only at his request. The Ministry of Supply, for example, so far as it places bulk purchase orders or makes production agreements with specific firms, will simply be acting as the purchasing agent for the Ministry of Works.
Noble Lords may not unnaturally object that, as the Minister of Health has so far refused to announce a phased housing programme, it must be difficult for the Minister of Works to arrange for the production of materials and equipment in accordance with any definite or specific programme. The answer is that the Minister of Health has made provisional estimates on which the Minister of Works is acting, and that these estimates are being checked and revised from month to month as the capacity of the building industry develops. The estimates which have been made are necessarily tentative and may well be optimistic. It is not, therefore, as has been said on other occasions in both Houses, in the public interest to announce them, at any rate at this stage. Your Lordships can be assured, however, that the Ministry of Works is working to a definite and detailed programme in estimating the material requirements of the building industry over the next five years.
It is not possible to say now how far it may be necessary for the Ministry of Works to place these bulk purchase orders in order to stimulate the production of the

555
materials needed in large quantities and at reasonable prices. The employment of somewhat unorthodox methods such as bulk purchase orders, manufacture in Royal Ordnance factories, or production agreements, may well prove necessary over a very wide range, particularly of those items of equipment for which the Minister of Supply is responsible. Government machinery is not being used where the trade is equally capable of producing and equally willing to produce the materials needed at prices which the Government could not better; it is being used only when the trade is unable or unwilling to meet the immediate and urgent demand.
To go back to the Bill, reference is made in Clause 1 (1) (b) to arrangements for the Ministry of Works to distribute materials or equipment. The Government will make the greatest possible use of existing channels of distribution, including the builders' merchants. Direct Government arrangements will be made only where the existing machinery of distribution is unable to supply building agencies at a reasonable price. The working capital with which the Treasury, under this Bill, is to provide the Ministry of Works is by Clause 1 (3) not to exceed £100,000,000: and no payments into this Fund are to be made after the end of September, 1950. The intention is that the Fund should be self-supporting, as the Ministry of Works will not, save in the case of factory-made houses mentioned in Clause 3, sell materials or equipment which they have produced or purchased below cost. One hundred million pounds represents, in effect, the maximum overdraft which the Government are guaranteeing. It does not represent net expenditure, and the intention is that at the end of the story the Fund shall show neither profit nor loss. Full accounts will he prepared each year by the Ministry of Works according to directions which will be given by the Treasury, and these accounts will contain a trading account, a profit and loss account and a balance sheet.
Now a word about prefabricated houses which bulk very large in this scheme. As the House is aware, the Government have been experimenting with factory-built houses, as a means of helping out the traditional method of brick building on the site. A number of experimental proto-
556
types have been erected, and the most hopeful of these have been chosen by the Ministry of Works for further development. In October, the Ministry of Health sent a circular to local authorities giving them information about the best methods of prefabrication; and these authorities were asked to say in reply which of these types they would like to order and in what numbers. As yet, the replies received are not by any means complete, but those that have been received show that local authorities are really keen about this method of supplementing their traditional building programmes. The types of prefabricated houses listed in the circular include steel frame houses and concrete houses. The great advantage of the prefabricated houses in present circumstances is, as the House will appreciate, that they can be produced with a minimum of demand on ordinary building labour, which is, of course, in extremely short supply just now. If a good type of pleasant design can be turned out, it may be particularly useful in rural areas where building labour will inevitably be insufficient to meet the immediate housing needs.
The Minister of Health indicated in his speech on the Second Reading of the Bill in another place, that the Government are trying to devise arrangements for giving special assistance in rural areas. I remember that during the discussion on agriculture last week in your Lordships' House, several noble Lords said that they were pleased that the Government had announced their intention of trying to assist in solving the housing problem in the country, to some extent, by putting up prefabricated houses. Paragraph (c) of Clause 1 (1) of the Bill, which provides that one of the purposes for which expenses may be defrayed out of the Building Materials Fund is the provision of houses at the request of a local authority, is particularly directed to the erection of prefabricated houses. If there is insufficient building labour on the spot, it may well be indispensable for the actual erection of the houses to be carried out by the Ministry of Works. Some prefabricated houses, particularly those which emerge from the factory in a more or less complete state, may be rather more expensive than the ordinary traditional brick-built house. Nevertheless, their purchase, by local housing authorities, is often justified. It is therefore provided in Clause 3 of the

557
Bill that the Minister of Health, or, of course, the Secretary of State for Scotland, may, by making payments out of his Vote into the Building Materials and Housing Fund, reduce the cost at which certain prefabricated houses may be sold to local authorities. An example is the Swedish timber house, of which 5,000 have been purchased, 2,500 for erection in England and 2,500 for erection in Scotland.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl for one moment to ask him a question? As I understand it, if money is required for this prefabricated housing in Scotland—extra money, that is—it will be taken from the Scottish Vote. Does that mean that the Scottish Vote will lose that amount of money for other things needed in Scotland?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I will do my best to answer the noble Earl's question on the spur of the moment. If I should be wrong in what I say now, I will give him the correct reply at a later stage.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, I do not in the least want an answer if the noble Earl is not quite certain of the facts. All I ask, if that is the case, is that the noble Earl should ascertain the information for which I have asked before Thursday.
THE EARL. OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I think that perhaps I can give the correct answer now. My understanding is that it is a subsidy which will be paid by the Treasury to the Ministry of Works or to the Secretary of State for Scotland, for the provision of these temporary houses. It is, therefore, extra money, and this will not mean any reduction in the Votes available for other purposes.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords. I did not understand from what the noble Earl had previously said in his speech that this was the fact. If he is correct in what he now says, I shall be quite satisfied. If his statement does not represent the actual facts, I do not think that people in Scotland will be satisfied.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: If my first statement in this matter differed from what I said just now (I was not aware that it did) I hope that my noble friend will accept what I have just said. Now
558
in regard to Clause 3 I would like to emphasize the fact that quite a number of these prefabricated houses—and I gave the example of the Swedish timber house —are likely to be rather more expensive than the traditional type of house. The object of the Minister of Works is to enable the local authorities to purchase these houses at prices nearer the cost of a comparable traditional house. That is the reason for this subsidy which will bring down the cost of the prefabricated house to something approximate to the cost of a traditional dwelling.
Clause 5 covers the increased cost of the temporary housing programme. The Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act, 1944, provided a sum of £150,000,000 for the provision of temporary houses. The House will be aware, from the White Paper which has been presented by the Minister of Works to Parliament, that the financial provision in the Act has been very considerably exceeded. Clause 5 of the present Bill provides for an extra £50,000,000, making £200,000,000 in all on the temporary house programme. This will cover approximately 165,000 temporary houses. As the White Paper shows, a good deal of the extra cost was created by the high price of the aluminium houses.
Clause 6 increases the financial assistance that local authorities may give to owner-occupiers, and would be owner-occupiers. Under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts and the Housing Act of 1936, local authorities are empowered to make an advance in respect of houses whose market value does not exceed £800 to persons anxious to buy their houses, and also to persons anxious to build a house in which to live. The Act of 1936 further provides that a local authority may undertake to guarantee the payment to a building society of advances made by the society to any of its members. The limit of £800, with the considerable increases of prices since the war, has now ceased to be appropriate, and the Government are anxious to continue to encourage the acquisition of small houses by their occupiers. The Bill, therefore, provides for the limit of £800 to be increased to £1,500. It is intended that this maximum figure should apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, and I shall put down an Amendment, during the Committee stage of the Bill, to make

559
the figures effective in Scotland. I am afraid the necessary words were not added in another place.
At the present time, private developers are allowed to build new houses only with a licence from the local authority, and a licence is granted only subject to certain conditions. These conditions are that the house must not exceed 1,000 superficial feet in area, and its selling price must not exceed £1,200 outside the London area and £1,300 inside the London area. Furthermore, if it is to be rented its maximum rent must be stated in the licence. These restrictions are normally necessary in order to secure that the limited amount of building materials and labour available should be mainly concentrated on the greatest need. It is admitted on all sides that that is represented by houses to be let at low rents within the capacity of the great majority of wage-earning people. This need can best be met by local authorities with Government assistance. A particular point to remember in this connexion is that only local authorities can be expected to let their houses according to the needs of prospective tenants and not in accordance with other considerations. When labour and material become more plentiful, as I am sure everyone hopes will be the case, the Government will be willing to consider allowing the building of larger and more expensive houses and flats by private enterprise.
Clauses 7 and 8 of the Bill are designed to provide that conditions included in licences which limit the selling price or the rent of houses shall be enforced for a period of four years after the passing of the Bill. It is obviously necessary that machinery should exist to enforce these conditions; otherwise a black market might easily develop in houses provided under licence. I think that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Quibell, was particularly interesting in his connexion. Speaking of his own experience as a builder between the wars he said he had built and sold a house according to the regulation prices and that the owner had resold it at a substantial profit. That is exactly the kind of thing we hope to prevent by this Bill.
When this Bill is passed, only one immediate provision for the housing programme remains to be made, the settlement of the new financial arrange-
560
ments between the Ministry of Health and local authorities. These arrangements are at present being discussed with representatives of the local authorities and a Bill will be introduced into Parliament as soon as possible after Christmas. When noble Lords asked me last month about the housing subsidy I said that discussions would shortly begin. I am glad to be able to say now that those discussions are actually taking place.
Now I hope that what I have said has, shown the House that it is not the intention of the Government to hamper or discourage private enterprise in the building industry. On the contrary, we desire to give the industry the support it needs to carry out its work to the satisfaction of the public under economic conditions which are entirely different to what they were before the war. The entry of the State should prevent the emergence of price rings and other combinations of producers which serve to restrict output and to raise the price paid by the consumer. The State will, in fact, be providing that element of healthy competition which is always directed to the efficient working of industry. What we are asking for is a partnership in this unprecedented housing drive between private firms and public authorities. If the spirit shown to us last week in the speech made by the President of the Federation of British Industries is shared by all concerned in the rehousing of the people, the necessary co-operation will be assured and nothing could do more than such a happy relationship to guarantee the success of this great housing programme. I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
4.55 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, the very clear and moderate exposition which the Postmaster-General has given to us of this Bill and for which we are sincerely grateful to him, confirms, I am sure, the view I ventured to express on the spur of the moment that it would be more convenient to have the Second Reading debate now, and now that we are informed by the very full account which has been given to us of this Bill. The Bill, as we have seen from its terms and still more from the Postmaster's exposition of it, is not only a mixed Bill but a fairly complicated Bill. What I am not quite clear

561
about is that while I appreciate the need of this House being given ample time for all the discussion which will be necessary on the American Loan Agreement and the consequential legislation, and although this Bill should certainly go through, why is it so urgent at the present moment and why cannot more time be given to it? I say that for this reason. The responsible Minister in another place explained that the powers already existed in his and other Ministries, but quite rightly he was going to Parliament, when he wished to exercise them on a larger scale and to have an extended period, for a confirmatory and extending Bill additional to the powers already possessed, which, as we have learnt today, they are already exercising. He said this:
" Neither the Ministry of Works nor the Ministry of Supply require any additional statutory powers to enable them to buy and sell building materials and components or, in the case of the Ministry of Works, to arrange for the erection of houses on behalf of local authorities "—
that is the other clause the Postmaster-General has referred to—
" or to set up a distribution scheme. But it would obviously be improper for the Government to embark upon what may develop into very large scale commercial operations "—
that is rather different from the language we have just heard—
" without the express approval of Parliament."
In those circumstances I think it would be reasonable to give this House more time.
The Leader of the House has been most helpful in trying to meet us over this complicated kind of legislation. He has done his best to carry out his suggestion that we should always have reasonable notice before a Second Reading is taken and that there should be as nearly as possible a week before we embark on the Committee stage. He has done his best to carry out that undertaking and we have done our best to cooperate. I suggest that it could make no difference to the actions of anyone concerned—they are already making their estimates, although they are not going to convey them to us or the trader—and is it really wise that we should get through the Committee stage of this Bill by next Thursday?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: May I interrupt the noble Viscount? I am sure he will
562
not mind. What this Bill does, of course, is to enable the powers to be exercised by providing the necessary money. The Bill provides £00,000,000—that is the point.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: No. With great respect, I think the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, is not quite correct. The power no doubt exists. For instance, it says in one clause: "For £100,000,000 read £150,000,000." But the noble Viscount is not going to tell us that if the Minister of Works, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Supply and the President of the Board of Trade have always had—what the responsible Minister in producing this Bill said—the fullest power to engage in all these operations on a very large commercial scale, that no finance was provided for those operations. The noble Viscount has over-reached himself a little. The financial provision is already there. What we are asked to do is to give some extra financial provision. Perhaps, when he replies, the noble Viscount would confirm from the appropriate quarter what the position is. If he is right, then all his colleagues are engaged in some very curious practices which must be quite improper and for which they will require an indemnifying Act from Parliament. I hope he has not let a whole lot of cats out of the bag by mistake.
It is not altogether easy to express a considered opinion on this Bill. Certainly, we have got to have a Bill—the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, made great contributions to it—as the Postmaster General has said. I have had the privilege of some discussion with him, and I do not think he will dissent from any comments I make upon the Bill. It is not easy to express a considered opinion, first of all because, though no doubt a number of Governments have had a hand in drafting the Bill, it is not altogether clear and, quite frankly, it has not become clearer to me from the explanations given—sometimes conflicting—in another place. I would like to ask two specific questions relating to important matters. As to the £100,000,000 which we are asked to provide in Clause I (3), is that a total, a fixed final sum, or is it a revolving credit? I read it as meaning a revolving credit:
" The total amount advanced under this section, exclusive of any sums which have been repaid, shall not at any time exceed one hundred million pounds."

563
I read that to mean that you can always have £100,000,000 outstanding. If you are repaid £50,000,000, you can draw, if you can get it out of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, another £50,000,000.
I particularly ask that because, in another place when the responsible Minister was asked about it, he apparently took a different view. In the Official Report of December 3 last a member in another place asked, on a point of order, whether they could be told whether in this Bill they were discussing one block of £100,000,000. He was told that he had not raised a point of order, but a question. Then he asked whether he could put the question to the Minister. He said:
" If I may put the question to the Minister, can we be told whether the sum under discussion is one clean block of £100,000,0000, or whether, as has been suggested by the hon. lady, the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) it is £100,000,000 multiplied by x? "
Mr. Tomlinson, the Minister of Works, said:
" It is one block; whether it is clean or not, I do not know."
I should have thought that it was not one block; that it was a revolving credit of £100,000,000. We really ought to know when Parliament is voting and we are confirming the appropriation of these sums whether we are debating a block sum or a revolving credit, more particularly as this Bill was extended at the last moment for five years instead of two. If repayments take place—and they will take place if businesslike contracts are made—the expenditure may be enormously greater, multiplied by x' as was stated in another place. We should like to clear that up.
My noble friend Lord Rosebery has drawn my attention to another point. In Clause 3, as the Postmaster-General has explained, the Minister is going to be able to re-sell the houses to local authorities, and he is, or the Treasury is, going to find a substantial difference between the actual cost of supplying a prefabricated house and that of supplying a house of normal material and construction. Where and how is the Minister going to account to Parliament for the amount of these subsidies? Under Clause 2 (5) he is to make and render an account to the Comptroller and Auditor-General—I shall have something to say about that in a minute—of his expenditure under Clause I, but that
564
is the revolving credit or block, whatever it is, of £100,000,000. What I do not see —and it is, perhaps, because I have not read the Bill sufficiently wisely—is whether the Minister is to render an account of what he does under Clause 3 and to show to Parliament how much is the subsidy he is granting to local authorities of the difference in price between prefabrication and normal costs. There are other things which may need to be cleared up in Committee, but I think I have said enough to show that the Bill is not altogether clear, or at any rate, that we are not—and reasonably so—clear upon it.
I find it difficult to pass judgment, because so much depends on how the Bill is going to be administered. Unlimited powers are taken under Clause I, and the Postmaster-General was quite clear about that. There is an unlimited power for purchasing building material and permanent equipment for building. There is the power to make and carry out arrangements for the production and distribution of any such materials and equipment. We all want houses, and we all want them built as cheaply as possible. We all want alternative methods and alternative materials developed and used and encouraged to the greatest possible extent. The right way to do that—and I liked the Postmaster-General's speech on it; it was so different from some other speeches we have heard from members of the Government—is to mobilize and encourage every element and resource which can contribute. These are—and I know he agrees with me—the practical tests by which the Bill and its administration will be judged.
How are the Government going to operate? They will be quite right to finance new prototype houses and to keep a close watch and control upon prices. They will be quite right—and certainly will do so in some cases—to place bulk contracts provided that by placing such contracts economy, speed and standardization, where standardization is right, can be attained and, above all, if you get the best use of existing plant and existing labour in the industry—I was going to use, and will use the exact words which the Postmaster-General used—" by supplementing normal channels, but not superseding them." You do not need to go into manufacture on a vast scale to do that. You may do it—Lord Woolton, I think, originated this—by seeing that

565
the right kind of stuff is ordered and by underwriting the orders firm so that manufacturers will not incur a loss.
But I believe, from all the information I have, that with perhaps one or two exceptions where some supplementation will be necessary, the existing facilities for manufacture, provided the labour comes back, are really ample for the purpose. It has been said, and I do not think it has been seriously challenged, that the existing plant should be sufficient to provide the equipment for something like half a million houses a year. I do not pledge myself to the half million. Suppose it is, 400,000. We have not had the estimate of the housing. It exists, we know that now, but we are not going to have it. At any rate it is nothing like 500,000 in the year. Our modest estimate, which was called "chicken feed" during the General Election, we were told when the Election was over was a purely fictitious target. There really are, I believe, ample facilities.
I do hope the Minister will go forward in the spirit the Postmaster-General has enunciated—not cutting out people. It is very easy to say cheap things about merchants. I think they have been called "parasites." My experience in business is that a merchant who does not fulfil a useful function pretty soon goes out of business. The builders' merchant does not exist as a parasite; he exists because the builder, who really does know something about building, and the manufacturer, who knows something about manufacturing these insides and fitments for houses, have found by experience that he serves a useful function and enables houses to be built more quickly and more cheaply. For heaven's sake, do not try to do too much. In house building—and it is true of so many things—speed is essential. If you get the bits and pieces that are wanted delivered up to time upon the spot—and that has been one of the functions, as I understand it (I am not an expert in this trade) of the builders' merchant—that means you have not men standing idly on the site who have to be paid when they are standing idle. Though he must, of course, get his commission, hi; fee for doing his business, yet it is wise to use him, because you have saved money in getting the goods quickly on to the spot and getting the houses built quickly.
566
If the Government proceed in the way the Postmaster-General has indicated, this Bill may be very valuable; but if the powers are used to cut out experienced manufacturers and distributors, to dissipate labour which is in far too short a supply; if skilled labour and material; are wasted on providing unrequired plant in new or existing Government factories which have been built for some other and quite different purposes, very likely unsuitable in this connexion, then the Bill may do more harm than good. I certainly am not entitled to issue that warning upon the speech delivered by the Postmaster-General, but Ministers do make such different speeches. I think it was a character, well-known to your Lordships, in the Importance of being Ernest, who delighted, if I remember aright, in the ecclesiastical name of Archdeacon Chasuble. The Archdeacon had one sermon which was suitable for all occasions. Ministers, on the other hand, have a series of different speeches which are suitable for the same occasion but when addressing different audiences. I would ask your Lordships just to contrast the admirable speech delivered by the Postmaster-General with this:
" Let there be no misunderstanding. It is the intention of His Majesty's Government to go into the business, both in the manufacture and in the distribution of building materials and components, in a big way."
VISCOUNT ADDISON: What is wrong with that?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I do not believe the noble Viscount heard the excellent speech delivered by the Postmaster-General, I hope he will read it to-morrow and I hope he will profit by it. What is more, I hope he will make the Minister of Works and, still more, the Minister of Health read it. Because could you have two more different classes of speech than these? The one by the noble Earl was admirable, but the other, quite frankly, was the kind of bombastic prospectus upon which I am disinclined to subscribe my money, whether it is issued by a public company or by a Minister of the Crown.
We had rather a unique experience over this Bill—I am coming now to the importance of getting accounts. When the Bill was presented to another place on Second Reading, it was presented as a Bill for two years, and it was said that

567
two years was the right period. If, as might be possible, it was desirable to extend it for more than two years, then the right thing would be to come to Parliament. This is what the Minister said:
" If it is found that the limit of £100,000,000 is too low, or that further advances after September, 1947, are required, the Government will have to come to Parliament and a convenient opportunity will be presented for reviewing the operations which have taken place."
But a very odd thing happened in the few days that elapsed between the Second Reading and the Committee. The Minister was pressed to change his mind, and he did change it. He said: "We are now going to extend the Bill and have it for five years instead of for two." I think I am entitled to say there could hardly have been any other object than this. Certainly the result must be to postpone the Parliamentary review.
What I have said about the review by Parliament, and about everything depending upon the way this Bill is administered, makes it all the more important for Parliament to know what is going on and to know that as soon as possible. What would have been the normal process? When I was a Service Minister, spending enormous sums, one presented most careful Estimates. After all, we have got away from war-time now; we have got back to peace procedure. We have to spend vast sums of money, it is true, but we do want careful accounting and careful Parliamentary control. One would have expected a careful Estimate and a Vote: indeed I cannot see why we should not have one. The Postmaster-General has told us that the Minister of Health and the Minister of Works have their careful estimates already al the amount which is going to be required, not only for one year but for five. Upon that they are going to place these bulk orders and engage in manufacture. If those estimates are ready and are being acted upon in the Department, I really do not see why we should not follow the ordinary Parliamentary procedure and have an Estimate and a Vote presented o Parliament. However, that is not to be done. Under this Bill, Parliament will know nothing until it sees the accounts, which are, your Lordships will see from Clause 2 (5), to be presented by the 30th November after the close of the financial year. If we are to rely upon accounts
568
after the event and to have no estimate before the event, I cannot see, why those accounts should be delayed for eight months after the close of the financial or trading year.
The Minister must have them all the time. This is no case of engaging in difficult operations all over the world; it is an ordinary day-to-day business conducted in this country. Lord Woolton has been referred to in a most complimentary way by the Postmaster-General. Lord Woolton was conducting an even vaster operation during the war, the feeding of the people of this country. His operations extended to many territories, but I should have been very much surprised if he could not have presented his accounts in a month. A man conducting a business in this country entirely with firms in this country, must, if he knows what he is up to and is managing his business properly, have his progress charts, his costs and his contracts, and know week by week exactly where he stands financially. I am perfectly certain that if the Minister were doing his business in a business-like way he could present his accounts within a fortnight or a month of the close of the financial year. The old practice used to be, when presenting accounts to the Comptroller and Auditor General, to present them within three months. The only variation allowed was in the case of Departments conducting business over vast territories, in many continents. There there were difficulties of communication and for that reason a longer period was allowed.
After eight months these accounts are to be sent to the Comptroller and Auditor-General. It was argued—I think most reasonably—that when those accounts are sent to the Comptroller and Auditor-General they should also be presented to Parliament. I speak here among men who have been Ministers for long periods of time, and I am drawing on my own experience of a great many years as a Minister. It was said, "Of course these accounts cannot be presented to Parliament; they will not have been audited." That is a complete misconception, I submit, of the true function of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. He is not an auditor in the sense of the auditor of a company's accounts. When accounts are sent to him he does not go through all the vouchers as a company auditor does; in so far as that business is

569
undertaken at all by the Comptroller and Auditor-General it is undertaken daring the course of the year by his officers sitting in the Department. The Comptroller and Auditor-General has an entirely different function. When accounts are presented to him his function is a two-fold one. His primary function is to see that Parliamentary authority has not been exceeded; his secondary function is, if he thinks there has been gross extravagance or something improper or scandalous, to draw the attention of Parliament to that particular happening in relation to the business and the accounts of a particular Department. That is his duty; he is not an auditor in the ordinary sense.
I particularly ask the Government to confirm this. When the accounts are presented to Parliament they are presented exactly in the form in which they have been presented by the Department to the Comptroller and Auditor-General. He does not rehash the account; he brings the accounts to Parliament in the form in which the Department have sent them in to him, together with his report and any comments he likes to make upon them. It is quite absurd, I respectfully submit, to say to Parliament, "We could not possibly give you un-audited accounts." If my submission is correct, and I am pretty sure it is, the accounts which are going to come ultimately to Parliament, months and months later, will be in every item exactly the same as t hose which went to the Comptroller and Auditor-General.
There may be further delay. My recollection is that in the days before the war the Comptroller and Auditor-General never got a report out in under four months; usually it was six months at least. I am not blaming him, because he does his work thoroughly. However, with all the extra accounts which will be going into the Comptroller-General it may very well be that it will be more than six months before he presents his report to Parliament. Observe what that means. Although accounts must be ready within a fortnight or a month of the close of the financial year, no account is presented to anybody for eight months. Then there follows whatever delay there must be in the Comptroller and Auditor-General making his report. It certainly will not be less than a year and it may easily be eighteen months or more after the account has closed before Parliament has
570
any knowledge of how this business is being conducted. I respectfully submit that that is not treating Parliament fairly or properly. I suggest in the first place that these accounts should be rendered as soon as conveniently possible, certainly not more than three months after the close of the financial year, and that when they go to the Comptroller and Auditor-General they should also be laid before Parliament.
I make no apology for having dilated on this matter at some length on the Second Reading—we shall no doubt return to it on the Committee stage—but it raises an important question of principle which is very properly raised now. I do hope that in this the Government—I say it again—will follow the line of the Postmaster-General. I see an unfortunate tendency in them to try and do everybody's job. They have quite a big enough job of their own to do without trying to do everybody else's. I will not take an analogy from business; that might be suspect. Let me take an analogy which I think will he accepted in every quarter of the House. A great commander, commanding groups of armies, confines himself to strategy. Certainly our two greatest commanders in this war have carried out the admirable maxim which is, I think, to be found in "Infantry Training," that everybody should have a sufficient knowledge of the general idea to carry out his particular operation. I wish the Government would do that to the trading community. The last thing a great general does is to attempt to take charge of all tactics everywhere all along the line; he leaves that to his subordinates. He does not try to command every division, much less every battalion and every platoon. He frames the broad strategy, and so should the Government. I believe in that partnership. There should be that partnership. The strategy must come from the Government, but the tactics, the action, must come from the commanders in the field, all down the line. If the Government will proceed in that spirit, they will evoke the best in all of us, and get co-operation from all of us in a problem with which we are all equally deeply concerned.
5.30 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I should like to say first of all that I welcome this Bill, and -it gives me great pleasure to

571
follow the noble Viscount who has just spoken. Some twenty years ago we exchanged, sometimes with energy, conflicting views when we were contestants for the constituency which the noble Viscount represented in another place for so many years. My view is not that there is no real necessity for pressing on with this Bill, but that it is a thousand pities that this Bill was not put on the Statute Book many many months ago, in order that the extended and comprehensive proposals to resolve as speedily as possible the well-known shortage of materials could have been put into action immediately upon the cessation of hostilities.
The housing problem is one which almost appals those who are concerned with overcoming the famine in accommodation which exists in this country. We have at the London County Council no fewer than 60,000 applications, and they are coming in at the rate of over 1,500 a week. Hundreds are being received at the town halls of the twenty-eight Metropolitan Boroughs. Some of them, of course, will be duplications of those which we are receiving, but the plain fact is obvious: there are hundreds of thousands of persons in London who are suffering in some cases heart-rending distress because of the lack of housing accommodation; and we must, it seems to me, do everything that we can, without regard to any particular interests, to overcome this grave social menace.
I was struck by the circumstance that the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, devoted most of his remarks not to the substance of the proposals contained in this Bill, but to the alleged absence of financial accountability. I have been for a long time, and I hope that I shall continue to be, one who approves of public accountability, whether in the realm of finance or otherwise; but I must confess that until he presses for a report to Parliament on how the money—alleged by the Minister of Health to be of the order of £2,000,000—was wasted on the Portal House, I hall regard this enthusiasm for Parliamentary accountability as being strangely limited.
There are two matters in this Bill to which I should like to make particular reference. The first is the proposal to purchase in bulk building materials and components. I agree that every agency
572
and every resource must be utilized, but I do not gather from a reading of what took place in another place on this Bill, or indeed from what was said today by the Postmaster-General, that these proposals as regards bulk purchase or as regards Government manufacture or as regards distribution are intended to supplant existing facilities or agencies. They are rather intended to supplement them; and, if the supplementation is needed in a big way, I can find no cause for quarrel that the Minister in another place used those words. If supplementation in a big way is needed, then let the supplementation be in a big way. I was a little surprised, if I may say so, that the noble Viscount. Lord Swinton, should have expressed the view that by and large —I hope I am not misstating what he said—existing manufacturing facilities are adequate to produce the materials for the number of houses which would be constructed.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The number of fitments for the inside of houses; that is what I was dealing with.
LORD LATHAM: I beg the noble Viscount's pardon; I had gathered that his remarks applied generally to building materials. It may be—I cannot say—that, limited to fitments, he may be right: but it is the case that generally over the field of building materials there is a grave shortage to be faced.
LORD WOLVERTON: It is a shortage of labour, not of workshops, is not it? That is the important point.
LORD LATHAM: My own view is that the shortage is not one which arises wholly from the shortage of labour, but that additional manufacturing facilities are needed as well as, it may be, additional labour. I was going on to say that it is estimated that the housing programme, leaving aside all other building, will require nine years' output of bricks on the basis of the pre-war out-turn. The London County Council's first-stage programme, which embraces some 16,000 dwellings, will require 78,000,000 facing bricks, and we know that there is a serious shortage of facing bricks. There is a shortage also, I gather, of light castings, baths, gutters, pipes and many other components. It seems to me that all persons of good will will applaud the Goverment—any Government—going into manufacture, into the bulk purchase, and into a planned and

573
centralized distribution of materials, if by that means we are likely to increase the availability of supplies.
The noble Viscount chided certain persons in their absence about statements which he thought characterized builders merchants as parasites. I should not go as far as that. They may perform a useful function, but it is undeniable that in the past associations of builders' merchants have not served a very pronounced social purpose. On the other hand, their actions have often been definitely anti-social, in that they had maintained prices at levels which were higher than were necessary to show a proper and reasonable return of profit. I can pray in aid of that view, which is widely shared outside, the report of the Central Council for Works and Buildings attached to the Ministry of Works. The Times said on March 15 of this year:
" The Central Council for Works and Buildings attached to the Ministry of Works reported to the Minister on the grave danger that building costs may be excessive after the war ' because of the activities of price-fixing rings and associations in the industries supplying the materials for housing."
I submit that that forms a proper and fair ground of criticism of certain of the actions of these rings and organizations. The matter is not really satisfactorily disposed of in the way in which the noble Viscount sought to dispose of it.
Let me go a little further in that connexion, and deal with not only builders' merchants and their organizations, but others engaged in or for the building and constructional trades. On May 15 of this year there was read in another place a letter which contained this passage:
" I do not know of a material used in housing of which the selling price of manufacture is not controlled by a' combine, ring or other selling arrangement, and, generally speaking, its distribution as well. My personal view is that in too many cases the selling price has no proper relation to the cost of production. If there are not too big profits, then there are too many."
Who wrote that letter? Not some hag-ridden doctrinaire, to use Mr. Winston Churchill's pleasant phrasing, not a Marxist, but Sir George Burt, the head of the well-known contracting firm of Mowlem. He has been Chairman of the Burt Committee, he is still Chairman, and he has clone some very excellent work, on behalf of the nation, as Chairman of that Committee. I submit that that is evidence
574
that there are grounds for the Government taking steps, as they propose to do, to secure that the nation is not held up to ransom because of the shortage of houses at the present time.
As regards bulk purchase, the London County Council have practised it since 1936 over a fairly large range of housing components, with satisfaction, with economy and with speed. It gives, at all events, a run of production, which is absolutely essential if costs are to be reduced and. wastage of overheads and time is to be avoided. It makes, also for standardization, and if I may say so—and I say this in no minatory sense—there is probably no trade in this country in which there is greater need for standardization than the building trade. It is fantastic the number of various types of things which are made to serve the same common purpose, and which could be made, on a standardized basis. Therefore, I take the view that the proposals for bulk purchase are eminently desirable.
Then we come to the proposal for the Government themselves to manufacture, to supplement normal supplies. That again should make for standardization and for continuity of production; and, if that be the case, it should result in cheapening the article. It should result, also, in speedier production. Moreover, if it is wisely administered, the Government would have, as the result of their own manufacture, a real basis of test for the prices which arc' being charged outside. We all know how difficult it is to prescribe prices and to control them, but from the Government activity in production there should emerge certain standards of tests which can be applied to the prices which are being charged by outside producers. The Leader of the House will remember—it may well have happened during the time that he was Minister of Munitions in the First World War—that certain machine guns were costing the country, at one time, £22 each. The manufacturers averred that in view of their costs of production, no reduction could be made. The Government went into the production of machine guns, and they got the price down ultimately, I think, to £6 per gun, and were able then to talk to the manufacturers outside.
LORD WOOLTON: There has been the other side, of course. The noble

575
Lord will agree that in the past there have been occasions when the Government have been more expensive than the private trader.
LORD LATHAM: That may well be the case, and it should be the occasion for inquiry. With regard to distribution —I hope my noble friend Lord Quibell, who is not here, will take no objection to this—I think by common consent that, hitherto, maybe from the very nature of the trade, the building industry has been lacking in organization. I cannot find evidence that the interposition of builders' merchants generally leads to the required materials or components being at the site when they are wanted. As Mr. Coppock, who is a national official of the Building Operatives Union, has said on many occasions, one of the great difficulties of the building industry is that there is no organization at the point of production—that is the site where the building actually takes place. That is very largely clue to the absence of planned distribution of materials, of components, and of fittings. If, by the Government entering into the field of distribution, it can secure planned distribution, it can avoid holdups, bottle-necks and delays. And I believe that that can be done with the cooperation of the trade. I, therefore, think that in those respects this Bill is wholly admirable.
I had expected that the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, would have made some reference to the proposals in the Bill dealing with the definitions arid the penalties in connexion with the licensing of private builders to build houses. Whether criticism of these proposals is to come later I cannot, of course, conjecture. But I do think that it would be well to state the case, so far as I know it, with regard to the contribution which private industry can make to the solution of our housing difficulties. My submission is that, in the field where houses are most needed—namely, houses to let for the low income groups—private enterprise cannot make any substantial contribution. Private enterprise did not make any such contribution between the wars. It is correct that private enterprise built a very large number of houses, but most of them were for sale. Few of them were to let.
Now, if I may, at the risk of wearying your Lordships, quote one or two figures,
576
it will help to elucidate the position with regard to the contribution of private enterprise between the wars. According to the Ridley Report of 1937, on the Rent Restriction Acts, as regards Class C houses—and those are the houses needed mainly for the working classes; they have a rateable value in London of £20 or under, and in the rest of England and Wales of £13 or under—private enterprise built of that class of houses between 1919 and March, 1937, 550,000. Of that total 150,000 to 200,000 were found to be let in 1937.
But there is nothing to say that they were built to let or that when they were first available for occupation they could be rented. They had come into the field of rented houses in most cases after they had been built, arising from personal circumstances of the owners, and the like. During a similar period the local authorities of this country built 950,000 C Class houses, houses roughly of that type, for the working-classes and almost all of them were to let. In 1924, in order to stimulate private enterprise to build houses to let, a subsidy was introduced, a rate subsidy and a State subsidy, for forty years for each house built to let by private enterprise. In the ten years between 1924 and 1934, when the subsidy provision came to an end, in the whole of the County of London no more than 24 houses were built to let by private enterprise. In the whole of Greater London, an area embracing a population of over 8,500,000, the total built in ten years, notwithstanding the rate and tax subsidy for forty years, was no more than 415, and in the County of London itself in the twenty years between 1919 and 1939 housing associations, who also are subsidized through the local authorities, built no more than 4,000 houses to let.
It is clear then, it is inescapable, that if we are to solve, as we must, the problem of providing the smaller houses to let, if we are to clear the slums and abate overcrowding, the main agency must be the local authorities, aided and supported by the Government. It is the case that in present economic and financial conditions—price levels, wages levels and other considerations such as transport costs—you cannot build houses to let at rents within the means of those who need them, and show a profit. Indeed, you cannot build them without showing a loss, sometimes a very substantial loss,

577
which at present is borne generally speaking as to two-thirds by the State and as to one-third by the rates. I am hoping that there may be some favourable adjustment of that in favour of the rates later on. Therefore, it is no criticism to say that this is the job of local authorities. No one expects private builders to go into this market knowing that on every house they will make a loss. It is not their function.
Let us be perfectly candid about it. It is a statement of fact that private enterprise cannot make any substantial contribution to the solution of this serious and grave problem and therefore it must be done by the local authorities. I, as one not unacquainted with the problems of housing, the human problems and the distressing stories, am encouraged to know that the Government are planning over five years in the manner envisaged by this Bill to secure that we overcome difficulties and delays owing to the shortage of materials. The position is so serious that, in housebuilding, all considerations except those for the public weal must be pushed aside and we must do everything to solve this problem in the speediest possible way.
5.56 p.m.
LORD SOULBURY: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down said at the commencement of his speech that he wished this Bill had been introduced many months ago. I imagine that the general public wish that he and his friends had introduced the necessary labour many months ago and I think that if action had been taken last summer the housing situation would have been much more advanced to-day. The noble Lord says that there is a shortage of building material; in view of the shortage of labour that may well be the case. It would have been interesting if he could have given us some figures on that subject and shown us where the shortage of materials is. He has referred to bricks.
LORD LATHAM: I do not say bricks principally; I instanced it as one of the cases.
LORD SOULBURY: That is so, but the shortage of bricks is due largely to the shortage of labour. Surely the twenty ordnance factories to be re-adapted by
578
this Bill will not be employed in making bricks but in making castings, baths, sinks and so forth. I should like to know what the actual shortage is, because, beyond vague allegations, no figures have been given. I do not propose to follow the noble Lord's reference to builders' rings; I understand he was doing his best to counteract the statement made by the Postmaster-General. I think it is unprofitable to engage in a wrangle as to who builds best and who builds most. Every agency should be called in to assist in a housing crisis like this and I think it would be perfectly possible to explain many of the disparities in figures. In one case it may be that the local authorities got a subsidy and that the private builder did not. But I think we should do all in our power to produce houses.
I should like to say a word about the explanation of the noble Viscount at the commencement of these proceedings as regards the ludicrously short time which your Lordships had to study this Bill. The Bill which preceded this, the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Bill, was introduced on Friday, was in your Lordships' hands on the following Monday and received a Second Reading on the following Thursday. At that time my noble friend Lord Cranborne made his protest and the noble Viscount opposite made arrangements for an extended period between then and the Committee stage and the Committee stage was treated as the occasion for the Second Reading. Well and good. On that occasion, I ventured to express my opinion as to the unwisdom of unduly accelerating Parliamentary procedure. I said I thought the value of Parliamentary debates would be greatly diminished by precipitancy. I have no particular reason to be satisfied with the sequel. This Bill was introduced, I gather, last Friday. For reasons which, I understand, the noble Viscount is not responsible, it did not reach your Lordships' hands until this morning. Yesterday afternoon I tried to get a copy. There is a delay, for which the noble Viscount is not responsible, of 24 hours compared with the previous Bill. Instead of there being a Second Reading on Thursday next—which would have been short enough—we have it to-day. Twenty-four hours have been lost by somebody outside, but the noble Viscount has deprived us of forty-eight. Presumably,

579
this is a legitimate loss of time within which to study this important Bill.
On the last occasion we were told that the object of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Bill was to simplify and to expedite Parliamentary procedure. One almost comes to the conclusion that the Government's idea of simplification and expedition is to reduce Parliamentary discussion to the barest possible minimum; just to preserve the impression but to destroy the reality of Parliamentary debate. One can imagine that we shall soon have coming to us from another place Bills on a conveyor belt passing in front of the noble Viscount for his inspection and going off the assembly lines behind the Woolsack. That is not an impression which I hope the noble Viscount will give any currency to, but I would ask him to let us have a further explanation of what appears to be a furious and unseemly haste.
What is the urgent need for this Bill? There is an urgent need for housing. No one could dispute that, and no need could be more urgent; but why is the need for this Bill so urgent? My noble friend Lord Swinton pointed out to your Lordships that the Government, as their spokesmen in another place have stated, have all the necessary powers to do everything required under this Bill, but, very properly, this being a Bill so large in degree and different in kind from previous Bills—I am paraphrasing what I think he meant—the Government decide to come specially to Parliament for approval to be expressed. Well and good. But, assuming that, as the result of the noble Viscount giving us more time—as I hope he will—and supposing this Bill were not disposed of until after the Recess, until the end of January or February, in what way is the Government's programme under this Bill delayed? In what way is it damaged? Or, if the Bill were accelerated and passed by Christmas, as the noble Viscount hopes perhaps it will be, in what way is the Government's programme accelerated? They have the powers and, presumably, their plans are in the making. I am not impressed by the almost unseemly haste with which these proceedings have been rushed on to this House. Between now and February next the Government can do everything necessary.
580
Let me take the example of the Royal Ordnance factories which are to be brought into play as the result of this Bill to manufacture housing equipment. They are to be re-adapted, and, I imagine, that will take at least a year. There are dies, jigs and tools to be manufactured. Labour will have to be retained or trained. The Government ought to be doing that now, irrespective of this Bill, and probably are. There is no need, in my judgment, to sacrifice legitimate Parliamentary discussion in order to get this Bill on the Statute Book by Christmas. I do not think it will make a pin's worth of difference whether it is there by Christmas or February. The Minister of Works quoted with approval the statement made by his predecessor last May when dealing with the manufacture of prefabricated houses. He said:
" In the case of one or more of the most promising types, instructions to proceed with production will be given forthwith. It is proposed that the production of these prefabricated permanent houses should be financed by advances from the Consolidated Fund. The necessary legislation will be introduced as soon as possible after the Recess."
The Minister of that day did not feel himself embarrassed by the absence of legislation and, so far as I know, neither here nor in another place did they find it necessary to rush Bills through in such circumstances.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: What is the date of that?
LORD SOULBURY: I am quoting from the Minister of Works in another place on May 17, 1945. My noble friend Lord Swinton referred to the last-minute extension of time made in this Bill, from 1947 to 1950, when Parliament will have an opportunity of making a survey. I am sure my noble friends here—and I mention noble Lords opposite—when they read this financial memorandum, now that the amount of advances outstanding at any time is not to exceed £1,00,000,000 and the power is to cease after November, 1947, will realize, as the Minister of Works pointed out in a speech in another place, that that would be a convenient opportunity for Parliament to make another survey, which is one of the most important functions of Parliament. What is the reason for the second thoughts, for this sudden inspiration—which is certainly not from above? The Minister said 1947 was

581
too early, Why is it too early for Parliament to make a survey in two years' time? It really looks as if it is simply a design for another five-year period to match the five-year period in the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Bill.
I do not know whether noble Lords opposite or their Party regard the figure 5 as a sacred number, but one is inclined to think that it has the more mundane advantage of avoiding Parliamentary criticism for five years and for postponing any effective survey by Parliament until after the next General Election. I hope, in view of what I have said to the noble Viscount and his friends, that they might, even at this late hour, reconsider the matter and see if they cannot, as good Parliamentarians, do their best to restore to Parliament its power to survey a great project of this kind at reasonably short intervals.
The next point I want to make to noble Lords opposite is one already touched upon by my noble friend Lord Swinton. He pointed out that, in the Bill as it stands, the accounts do not reach the Auditor-General until November 30, eight months after the end of the financial year. In another place in reference to an Amendment that June should be substituted for November, it was pointed out by the Minister of Works that November was now accepted as the date for all civil Departments. That may be, but I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to a very authoritative statement made by a great Treasury official, Sir Thomas Heath, who was a Joint Permanent Secretary to the Treasury in the last war period, in a book where he says:
" The Appropriation Accounts ought to be rendered within three months of the end of the financial year. As, however, much of the public expenditure is incurred abroad, a margin of time is allowed. Accordingly, the following November 30 in the case of Civil Votes and December 31 in the case of Votes for the Army, Navy and Air Force, is fixed as the date on or before which the various Appropriation Accounts for the year ending March 31 must without exception be rendered to the Comptroller and Auditor-General."
Your Lordships will notice that the extension in time was allowed because much of the public expenditure was incurred abroad. In consequence, that practice has grown up. But the Minister of Works, in another place, pointed out that no expenditure from the £100,000,000 was, in his contemplation, to be made abroad.
582
It was, as we might expect, all to be internal purchase, whether by bulk purchase or otherwise. For that reason I think the Government might be pressed to restore the old practice of the three-monthly period in respect of this project, when the reason for extending it by eight months no longer exists.
I would also like to press this point. This is an exceptionally large undertaking. I do not think in peace-time there is any record of a Government having entered into trading and commercial operations comparable in size to this. They have "gone in big," and the facilities Parliament has for making adequate and sufficiently speedy investigations of transactions of this magnitude frankly do not exist in a satisfactory form. In my judgment, no real machinery for presenting accounts of this magnitude before Parliament exists. In any event, apart from that consideration, I am sure that we should like the noble Viscount to tell us a little more clearly what will be the form of these accounts. I mention that because in another place the Minister of Works, when asked about that point, said this:
" These accounts will probably contain a trading account, a profit and loss account, and a balance sheet in normal commercial form."
I hope that before the Second Reading is concluded the noble Viscount will convert that probability into a certainty. It will be distinctly reassuring to my noble friends here if he will do so. If he will not, we shall have to see what we can do at a further stage. But I very much hope, in view of the statement by the Minister of Works, that this Government will definitely say what the accounts will contain and that they will be those items which I have mentioned.
It was well said in another place that this is a technical rather than a political Bill, and that is how I myself prefer to regard it. Without passing judgment one way or the other on the advisability of undertaking a project of this great magnitude, I think one can say that one fervently hopes it will be a success. But it will be much more of a success, I think, and much more satisfying to the public generally, if they feel assured that Parliament is getting a reasonable opportunity to examine the progress of this transaction from time to time, and that the fullest and most informative accounts are placed before it, so that the general

583
public may be satisfied that the best use is being made of this very large sum of public money and that the Government are carrying on this important work not only by State operation but in healthy and generous co-operation with private enterprise.
6.15 p.m.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I did not really intend making any remarks this afternoon, and as I had such a little time to think of what I am going to say, I am afraid it will appear rather a disconnected "mixed grill." I feel very strongly on the matter of housing, however, and there are one or two points which have been raised by your Lordships on which I am not quite clear. First may I come to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Latham? He will forgive me if I am under a wrong impression and will put me right, but I understood him to say, amongst other things, that the bricks required were equivalent to a nine years' supply. Is that correct? Well, the cost of a brick, or what produces a brick, is dependent almost entirely upon labour. That was not stressed. Not only have you the labour in the brick works, but there is an enormous amount of coal required involving labour in your pits. There are all sorts of other contending claims on the raw materials. It may be that it is an unlucky thing to pick on a brick, but I cannot see the application to an ordnance factory, or anything of that sort.
It is an established fact that the cost of building—and after all, cost is one of the recognized ways of measuring building; you can measure it by cubic footage, by ground floor space, or by cost—is 90 per cent. labour, either direct labour or labour in the component parts. Therefore I maintain that anybody who does not work from the labour angle first is dealing with only 10 per cent. of the problem. I think that applies here, and if you measure a house in any other way it would apply even more—if you compare it on an area basis, for instance. However, that is beside the point.
The noble Lord, Lord Latham, also referred to what I may call site disorganization. Your Lordships know exactly what he said: I cannot quote his words and I do not wish to say anything which was not said. Speaking from experience, however, I may say that the
584
first thing that happened when, after considerable delay, we could get any drawings or information out of the Government Departments, was that we were harried by the next post to produce our target programme and all other details necessary. That sometimes happened before we had even got the drawings from the Government Department. I cannot conceive that many builders would remain in business long if they did not work along the normal standard lines, which are very highly organized. There is no one better than the private builder at his own job. So, from my own experience, I cannot agree with what was said. Of course, I know my experience is limited.
There is another question upon which I should like some reassurance, and that is the Portal house. At the time that was under consideration I was doing other things, so I have no experience of it, but I understood that a lot of money was spent on tooling the country and that the country was tooled. Then, for reasons, I was told, concerned with the Ardennes push—which is a thing you can hardly cater for in a housing programme —there was no steel available. Is that the case? Because certainly I did not get that idea from the remarks which the noble Lord' let fall.
Another matter which left me rather unsatisfied was the remarks about houses to let, produced by private enterprise. I think I am right in saying that in the two and a half years before the war 150,000 of those houses became available and acted as a roof on a hired basis for a chap living inside, although whether those houses were built to let or not is a point upon which I will not argue as I do not know the answer. Who built it and for what purpose does not, I think, matter in the slightest. The only thing I would say is that the houses built by the local authority were built at a large cost to the taxpayer, whereas these 150,000 houses were built at no cost to the taxpayer.
There are a few remarks I have to make which, are, I am afraid, rather disjointed. If I may say so, the Postmaster-General made a very excellent speech. The first thing upon which I have a slight quarrel with him is this rather unfortunate—anyway, I find it unfortunate—manner in which Ministers

585
refer to the ancestry of various Bills, rather on the lines (though I am quite sure the Postmaster-General did not intend this) of "You Back-Bench fellows had better look out or you will be treading on the toes of the fellows sitting on the Front Bench." Then on the question of Estimates I cannot see why, if you have made up estimates, you should keep them as dark secrets running around Government circles. I cannot see why you should not allow private enterprise, if you arc going to employ it to the fullest, to share the secret. Who is the enemy?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Security.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: Builders and builders' merchants are the normal channels of the industry. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Latham, about price rings; they are very reprehensible things and everything should be done to-stop them, provided you do not say, "You are no good; you are out of business." That does not help anybody. I entirely agree that it is necessary to stop those people from profiteering. I think there is one way in which builders' merchants can help far better than any Government-controlled organization, and I speak from experience, because I was engaged on temporary housing at Connel Ferry not very long ago. When a Government Department starts supplying stuff you are suddenly and without any warning dished out with two or three lorryloads of units for temporary houses. They suddenly arrive; nobody knows they are coming. That happened in my case. The units which arrived were in some cases broken to an extent of 25 per cent. That is due to the attitude, "Whose house is this? Oh, the Government's, is it? Well, they have got plenty of money. Chuck it over there." Not only is it chucked over there, but Bill has to come along and chuck it somewhere else because it happens to be lying where Joe is going to dig a hole. You can say that is bad organization and bad supervision. I entirely agree, but that organization and supervision is the kind you will get in Government organizations. No one cared. Why should they? They could not get the sack. It was a nuisance having to put houses up in an unpleasant place on a wet day.
I am only speaking of local experience, but if you multiply local experience by
586
ten, a hundred or whatever number you like, you get a picture of the detail which builds up the whole, and it is getting the detail right that has an enormous bearing on the whole. A builders' merchant regulates his stock according to what he thinks he is going to be able to sell; in other words, he stocks against demand. With all due respect to anyone in His Majesty's Government, builders' merchants have by far the greatest experience of what and when things arc required for building. Some of these units for houses are interchangeable, and if you break one or two panels it does not matter very much. But some of the corner posts and things like that are not interchangeable. If you break those things you can put up the whole of the house except, for example, the doorpost. What happens then? You have got to write a letter to the Government and say how awfully sorry you are, but Bill has backed a lorry on to it and broken it and can you have another one. After six months you will, probably get another one, together with a rocket for breaking the first one. If you are dealing with a builders' merchant he has two of those things because he knows he is dealing with silly idiots who break things; but you will never get anybody who is interested in red tape to take that view. They will say "One building has so many doors, so many windows, etc. You are building so many houses, we will give you the number required, plus a couple for luck." They will never cater for the idiot. It is much more expensive to do the jobs with red tape round it, having Government Departments asking "Why is this?" and "Why is that?" You can deal far more satisfactorily with the question by using the builders' merchant.
There is one local point on which I should be glad of an answer. I hope due regard has been paid to condensation in concrete houses in Scotland. In these concrete houses and in the Uni-seco house condensation was very bad, even after we had considerably altered the design of the houses, after we had put them up, which caused expense and trouble. We could only get the dockyard labour to live in those houses after we had put in an additional stove in order to try to dry them out and warm them up. I hope that point has been taken up with regard to Scotland because it would be a very bad thing to put up a lot of temporary houses and find that nobody will live in

587
them. I have lived in those houses and I can assure you that condensation is a real trouble in a wet part of the world like the west coast of Scotland.
I would like to draw attention to a remark by the Postmaster-General. I think I am right in saying he said that discussions on the subsidy of the local authorities were taking place now.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I said discussions about subsidies were taking place with the local authorities; I did not say discussions on the subsidy of the local authorities were taking place now.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: I would like to say that nine months ago the two main bodies representing private enterprise builders came forward to the Government with a firm offer as to the terms on which they would be prepared to build. They were prepared to undertake building with a subsidy of 50 per cent of the difference between prices now and pre-war prices, that subsidy being cut down by the whole amounts by which costs fell, as they fell. That was nine months ago and we do not seem to have heard very much about it. As far as I understand it, they are not even being encouraged now by this subsidy. I may be wrong, but that is the impression I get.
I must again emphasize the importance of a target. I speak very feelingly about targets, because I know that if you produce a target it is used as a stick with which to beat you. I know that, because I have suffered from it. But unless you have a target, so that everybody knows what is being aimed at, you cannot co-ordinate your programme for parts or anything else on a time basis, which you must do. You know what the possible theoretical target is, because it is an ascertained fact that before the war it was possible to build one house per man per year. If you know the labour available, which the Government must know, you can work out a theoretically possible target on that basis which will land you fairly close to the mark. The reduction in man-hours to produce and erect a temporary house is not large. If, therefore, you produce a target on that basis, coupled with labour, and you then 'beat it, everybody will say that you have done well.
So far as I can see, remembering that the Government always made us produce
588
a target, it is nothing but pure cowardice on their part not to do so. Moreover, it is very detrimental to the whole effort, because nobody knows what you are aiming at, and you give no confidence to private enterprise, which must know what you are trying to do. I think that a target is essential to the associated industries, because if you have bulk purchase and the storage which that necessitates, how arc you going to regulate things so as not to get many thousands more door-knobs, say, than you want? How do you know that you have not too much labour in one branch of industry which could be better employed in some other branch? Without a co-ordinated programme, you do not know where you are. Private enterprise has to do these things in putting up buildings.
In the early days of the war we built these ordnance factories, which are equivalent to a thousand buildings, with all their engineering works and the rest of it. My own firm put up one which was producing shells in nine months, and that was done also by other private enterprise firms, so that they know what is necessary to get the job done. That makes me anxious when I hear of all these things going on which seem extremely experimental and carry no conviction to someone who has had to wrestle with the problem on normal lines. I do not wish to criticize for the sake of criticism, but because, like everybody else, I have this matter at heart.
Between the wars, houses were going up, at least in the latter part of the period, at the rate of about 300,000 a year. The materials for those houses were produced at that rate quite adequately in those days. There was no shortage of materials; you ordered what you wanted and got it. That capacity is still in the country, and, if you manned it with necessary labour on a double-shift basis—it was working single-shift before—you could erect, therefore, something like 600,000 houses a year. Good luck to any Government that produces that number of houses! Bulk purchase introduces the question of storage. If you are going to store you have to divert building labour to build these stores or to alter other buildings, and so you have to take away a good deal of labour which should be putting up houses. It is much better to co-ordinate your programme and to make use all over the country of the builders' merchants, who

589
all have storage for small amounts, rather than store in a certain place and scatter the materials about afterwards. Many of them will get broken in the process, because they belong to the Government. Stuff that belongs to the Government is fair game for everybody. We all feel that way when handling Government property; it is very reprehensible, but it is a fact.
I should like to enlarge on a point which I think was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. Instead of bulk-purchasing in the first instance, it seems far better to guarantee any surplus, bulk-purchasing the surplus if you like, because then you have only to store the small amount that is riot going to be used. I think that that is called underwriting it, and I understand it means guaranteeing to purchase any excess output that any of these manufacturers can make. That is obviously very sound. It is far better to buy a little bit at the end rather than try to manage the enormous volume at the beginning.
Then there is the question of using ordnance factories. I happen to have been a sub-agent in the construction of one of these factories, and liaison officer with the Ministry of Works in regard to another, and I have an intimate knowledge of two others. I cannot imagine anything less suitable than these factories for the manufacture of component parts. You could not design a building worse for mass-production purposes. These buildings were designed for isolated production, in small units, of highly explosive material, and were dispersed because of the risk of bombing, and so on. Everything in these factories is wheeled from one building to another in a wheelbarrow. If you are going to convert these factories you are going to use building labour which should be putting up houses.
It seems to me that you have not considered the fundamental problem, which is labour. You are playing with 10 per cent of the problem, and by doing so aggravating the labour position of the other 90 per cent. The only thing that does not come under that, and that is not available in this country, is timber. That is almost: the only material which is not available in the ground in this country if you have the labour to win it. I would say in conclusion that it seems a great pity that the Government do not remember some of the very good proverbs which we
590
learnt in our childhood days, such as "Take care of the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves." If they will take care of the labour the houses will come.
6.38 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON; My Lords, I am sure that every member of your Lordships' House will have been entertained by the speech to which we have just listened, with its many first-hand and some painful recollections of difficulties in connexion with housing. I am very glad that I was not there to share in some of them! But, while the noble Viscount has my fullest sympathy, and while on other matters his comments were cogent and material to the Bill, these other episodes happened long before the present Government came into existence, and I do not recognize any close relationship between them and the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Soulbury, addressed us almost with tears in his eyes when he spoke of the inconsiderate way in which I am trying to coerce him to use Parliamentary time. I recognize the difficulties of the situation as much as any member of the House, and I am glad to do whatever is humanly possible to overcome them. But I cannot help commenting on the fact that, whilst the noble Lord spent ten minutes or more complaining about the unreasonableness of the Minister in not giving him time enough to discuss the Bill, he used the time in fact to discuss something quite different. I suggest with all humility that he was rather missing an opportunity. It would have been more instructive and more to the point, I think, if he had turned his criticism on to the Bill, instead of complaining at such length that he had not got time to criticize it. That did not seem to me to fit in somehow. However, I quite recognize that every reasonable arrangement that could be devised should be made for giving as much time as we can to this. But time is, after all, of material importance, and, indeed, I think that the quotation which the noble Lord, unfortunately, gave only reinforces my point. He gave a quotation from a statement by a Minister which—after an interruption which I did not like making—turned out to have been made in May last. The Minister, in the passage quoted, indicated the urgency of dealing with this matter in this way after the Recess. I would point out to the noble Lord that

591
this statement was made in May, and now, here we are to-day, after the Recess. It has been a rather longer Recess, -perhaps, than he anticipated at that time, and it has been occupied with different interests. But if this matter was urgent in May, then a fortiori it must be urgent in December. So I do not think that that particular quotation does much to help.
LORD SOULBURY: My Lords, if I may be pardoned for interrupting, may I say that the point is surely this: the Minister did not need to wait for legislation, he could go ahead straight away and wait for legislation to come after? He could spend money—and that is the matter about which, I think, the noble Viscount has some fear—and he could go straight ahead. He could go straight ahead without legislation or the provision of money, and have his legislation when we have had time to give the matter proper consideration.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: The noble Lord is a very experienced member of Parliament, but I must say that it is new to me, as one who was with him for several years in another place, that Ministers should be encouraged to go ahead and spend lots of money and that subsequently they might expect to be whitewashed by Parliament for what they had done. That does not seem to me to fit in the argument at all, for the noble Lord has contended, in a large part of his speech, that there should be a precise method of accounting. What he has just advocated suggests a method of accounting of which I can only say that if there could be a sloppy method that would be one.
And now, if I may, I will answer the noble Lord in my own way, with regard to the matter of urgency. Certainly, it was urgent in May and it ought to have been done in May. These powers should have been exercised and the money should have been obtained to enable them to be exercised. And, as a matter of fact, the statement that I made was precise and correct. The point of this Bill is that it provides the money to enable the Minister to exercise his powers. That is the point, and it is because we want these powers to be exercised with proper Parliamentary authority that the Bill is urgent, and the provision of the money for the purposes of the Bill is urgent,
592
accordingly. I do not think that it is necessary for me to add anything to what my noble friend Lord Latham said in emphasizing the point of urgency, and, I am sure, it would be unnecessary to repeat what he said. It is exceedingly urgent that the Ministers concerned should be able to get on and do the things which this Bill authorizes them to do.
I notice that in the comments which have been made by the noble Viscount who opened this discussion, and by others, the desirability of Ministers being able to do this in order to reinforce, or—to use the word which has been used—to supplement our Housing Acts has not been challenged. There is no doubt as to the urgency. I am sorry that there is not more time left before we adjourn, and if I can do anything which would appeal to the noble Viscount opposite to meet his convenience, I shall be very glad to do what is reasonably possible. But I must stress the fact that it is urgent to get this Bill through. If we do not get it through now, it will mean that six weeks will elapse before Ministers can really begin to get on with the job. And, I repeat, if it was urgent in May, then, certainly, it is urgent now, and should not be delayed for another six weeks. It really is very urgent that the Minister should be able to exercise these powers.
I have been appealed to with regard to what my noble friend Lord Latham said as to the wisdom of certain proposals. I have heard animadversions, at different times against those who then dealt in building materials, against rings, light castings associations and organizations of that kind. As a matter of fact twenty—six years ago I myself appointed a Committee on Trusts, the purpose of which was to inquire into the operations of such concerns. The revelations which emerged concerning the operations of some of these combines were not at all savoury—to put it no higher than that—and I am very glad that this present Government are going to be able to do something about it.
Certainly it is true that in the last war no one could tell me what an 18-pounder shell case cost to make. It seemed, for some reason, impossible to find out what it actually cost. We were perfectly willing to pay a good profit. Indeed, I remember in one generous and expansive moment promising a profit of 20 per cent if I could be told what these things

593
actually cost. But the information was never forthcoming. Then we started making the shell cases ourselves. The price which we had been paying for them averaged about 215, each. We found that we could make them perfectly well, and profitably, for 105 6d. each, in the Government factories. The result of that was that it became possible, in other places, somehow or other, to make them for less than one guinea, and the price was reduced by agreement to 125, 6d. That, and other items, meant an immense reduction in the national expenditure. Sometimes, I quite agree, Government efforts are expensive; I am not going to say that they are not. But if you find out where they are more expensive than they should be you ought to take steps to correct them. So far as the procedure and the methods which have been outlined are concerned, I am quite sure that if we are going to control costs of building, or to achieve any sort of reduction, then operations of this kind arc certainly necessary.
May I now come to one or two points of criticism which were made by the noble Viscount opposite? One was in respect of his inquiry about accounting for the costs incurred in Clause 3. I can give him a complete and satisfactory reply on that. The accounts relate to the Building Materials Fund. The previous clause, Clause 2, shows how the accounts of the Building Materials Fund are to be dealt with, but in Clause 3 there will be an additional safeguard. The subsidies under Clause 3 will appear both in the appropriation accounts of the Health Department as well as in the accounts of the Building Materials and Housing Fund.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The account under Clause 2 will include that? It is not very clear.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I quite agree, but this was a point of inquiry. There is in that way a kind of double-barrelled check oh the expenses incurred. The noble Lord, Lord Soulbury, as well as the noble Viscount, made a point about presenting the accounts. I was not very impressed by that because both the noble Lords have been Ministers, as I have for many years, and we know that the accounts go to the Auditor-General before they are revealed to Parliament. That has been the practice for a great many
594
years That is the practice in this Bill; it is exactly what it has always been.
LORD SOULBURY: But neither the noble Lord nor I ever carried out great trading operations.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Oh, indeed, yes! The accounts for munitions went into hundreds of millions and I was cross-examined for days in the Public Accounts Committee before ever the accounts came to the House of Commons, because that was the procedure. The Comptroller and Auditor-General makes his investigation for the information and benefit of Parliament. That is the ordinary procedure and it is the procedure in this Bill.
Now I come to the important question which the noble Viscount asked me about this £100,000,000. The answer is yes; it would be a revolving fund in the sense in which he has used the term because payments would be made into the account from time to time as well as drafts being made upon it. It would, so to speak, be a maximum overdraft of £100,000,000 so that the total volume of the transactions carried out would be very much more. I think that is the answer to the question which the noble Lord has addressed to me on that matter. I did not quite get the point of the quotation, which I think suggested by inference some flamboyancy on the part of the Minister who said that the Government was going into business in a big way. Well, it is a big way. I do not see why I should apologize on that account; it is a big job that we are tackling.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The contrast lies between the noble Lord who opened and the noble Lord who is going to be responsible for this administration, and who stated that he was not going to purchase but to manufacture in a big way. The House was quite clear when I made the speech.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I accept it if the noble Viscount insists. I do not challenge him on that but I do not think that the speech he read was particularly provocative. I think that that was the point of his quotation. I know that my noble friend the Postmaster-General is a master of the art of friendly presentation and I am very glad that he is. It is one of the reasons why I asked him to present this Bill. But we want to bring in everybody who can help on the right terms.

595
Of course we do. I think myself that the discussion we have now had shows that the noble Lords opposite, notwithstanding the short time they have had, have made exceedingly good use of it, and I hope that will enable us to complete the Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ELECTIONS AND JURORS BILL.
6.56 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, this is not the last Bill I shall have the honour of presenting to your Lordships this evening so I am sure that you will wish me to move as swiftly as possible; but as this is an immensely technical Bill it is impossible to move at too fast a rate without losing clarity. This Bill effects certain alterations in the existing arrangements for electoral registration; it extends the range of postal voting facilities and arranges for the compilation of fresh jurors' books. It is intended by the Government that these arrangements should be temporary in character. I should like to stress that fact. It was described in another place by a Government spokesman as a stop-gap measure. It is of temporary character and should be reviewed in the light of the recommendations received from the Committee on which the main political Parties are represented and which is considering what changes may be necessary in the machinery of electoral registration to bring it to peace-time requirements, and to what extent use should continue to be made of postal and proxy voting. The Bill also provides for the preparation of fresh jurors' books for England and Wales which will be effective from January, 1947.
The matters covered by the Bill fall under three main heads. First of all, alterations to the existing registration arrangements; secondly, extension of postal voting facilities; and lastly, the compilation of fresh jurors' books. If we come first to what is perhaps the only controversial feature of the Bill, although I hope it will not prove controversial this evening, in Clause I it is provided that an annual register, that is the register
596
published each year on October 15, shall remain in force for all Parliamentary elections until the next annual register is published. Under the existing law the annual register is only effective for Parliamentary elections initiated between September 10 and the end of the year. For a Parliamentary election initiated at any other time, a register has to be prepared especially for the election and published 36 days after initiation. The extension under the Bill of the validity of the annual register is necessary because it is not administratively possible with existing conditions in the printing industry to ensure that in the event of a General Election registers could be produced simultaneously for all constituencies in the time required under the 1943 Act. Therefore, the reason for Clause I is administrative, arising from the position in the printing industry. Even although the likelihood of a General Election in the near future may be remote, the Government consider that it would not be constitutionally proper to allow a position to be created whereby it would be administratively impossible to provide for a General Election were a General Election required. So much for Clause 1.
Clause 2 deals with the qualification for inclusion in the annual register. It provides that next year, as has been the case this year, the annual register shall be compiled with reference to a qualifying date only and not with reference to a qualifying period, such as two months. Without going into all the technicalities arising from the Acts of 1943, 1944 and 1945, I would say that here again the main reason is administrative. We have got to pay a great deal of attention to the quality and quantity of the staff available which makes it impossible in the immediate future to give effect to the provisions of the 1943 Act which would have instituted a two months' qualifying period.
Clause 3 provides for the publication on February 28 of a supplementary register which will contain the names of two main categories of persons; first of all of members of the Forces, seamen and war workers abroad if their applications are received between June 30 and December 31; and, secondly, the names of persons discharged from the Forces or the Merchant Navy between those dates. So, if someone in the Forces or a war

597
Worker abroad fails to get on to the October register he can get on to the supplementary register by applying; and, again, a. member of the Forces who is discharged in the latter part of the year can get on to the supplementary register.
Clause 6 brings us to the second main topic covered. It extends the postal voting facilities to persons in the following three categories: (1), persons who have removed from their registered address provided that the addresses to which they have removed are not, in relation to their registered address, within the areas specified in Clause 20; (2), persons who require to make a journey by sea or air are afforded postal facilities in order to vote. This applies particularly to persons resident in islands. And (3), persons who are physically incapacitated, whether by blindness or otherwise, and who cannot vote in person without assistance, are accorded postal voting facilities. Clause 8 extends until the end of 1946 the special arrangements for extended postal voting which were in operation at the General Election. There, again, the idea is to give ourselves time to survey the whole matter when we have received the report of the very representative committee considering all these matters.
Clauses 9 to 12 bring us to the third topic covered, the compilation of fresh jurors' books. The books at present in use are those which came into force in January, 1940, and were compiled in reference to the register published in 1939. Your Lordships will appreciate that new jurors' books are required, and in addition to arguments drawn from the considerations I have just mentioned, we have to bear in mind that in the new registration procedure we shall not obtain all the information we received under the old procedure about the occupation of the individuals concerned. Therefore, the new procedure introduces the novel principle, which I am sure your Lordships will accept, and which can be summarized by saying that the registration officer, when he has marked somebody down as a potential juror, is not debarred by their occupation or otherwise to regard them as suitable as jurors. Those are the main provisions. I have had to cover them rapidly, and that is probably the wish of your Lordships. I mentioned at the beginning that this is a stop-gap measure. It is essential it should be passed, because without it we should not be able to hold a General
598
Election if one became necessary during the coming year. Your Lordships will no doubt desire to consider it carefully in Committee. I think the main points, for the purposes of the Second Reading, have been covered. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Pakenham.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I think the noble Lord has justified his case for a Second Reading of the Bill, and we should all be sorry we impeded his early demise.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (PNEUMOCONIOSIS) BILL.
7.5 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill was given a unanimous approval in another place, and it has been accepted by the representatives of the employers and by the trade union organizations. The Bill relates to the industrial dust disease known as pneumoconiosis, which is defined in the Workmen's Compensation Acts to mean fibrosis of the lungs due to silica, asbestos dust or other dust, and includes the condition of the lungs known as dust-reticulation. The object of the Bill, to put it very briefly, is to try to place those who have served in the Fighting Services or been engaged in other forms of world war-work in the same position, in relation to this disease, as they would have been had they continued to be employed in their pre-war occupations. The special problem here arises from the character of this dreadful disease, which is a slow progressive disease and which may take a very long time to show itself. Perhaps the importance of a measure of this kind can be deduced from the facts stated in another place concerning the present Minister of National Insurance, Mr. James Griffiths. It seems that of his generation who came from his home place in South Wales, he is the only one who does not suffer from this terrible disease. As he pointed out, he left the mining area in order to serve the miners in another way.

599
That shows how widespread this horrible disease may be.
Your Lordships will recall that compensation is provided for workmen who contract these diseases by schemes made under Section 47 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, and there is a provision in these schemes that compensation shall not be payable in cases where the workman has not been employed in the industry giving rise to the disease nor in receipt of weekly payment of compensation at any time within five years previous to the date of the injury. Owing to the war, workers in a number of industries affected by these schemes have left their normal employment to go into other occupations and the Forces, and a period of five years will have elapsed before they return to their old occupations. While away, the development of the disease may have been retarded by the new conditions, or may not have been detected by medical officers with little or no experience of the disease. I understand that you require to be an expert on this disease to diagnose it in its early stages, and therefore a medical officer without experience might not be able to diagnose it.
It is reasonable to assume that but for the war these men would have carried on, and their right to compensation is desired. If, however, the disease should develop or be detected now, they would be precluded under the schemes as they stand without this legislation for such cases. A number have already come to the notice of the Government and a further number are awaiting examination. The object of the Bill is to enable the Minister of National Insurance to deal with this difficulty, and to provide by amending the schemes that in the application of the time-limit any period since September, 1939, spent by workmen in His Majesty's Forces or in war employment which they would not have entered but for the war, should be disregarded.
600
I do not know whether your Lordships wish me to develop the subject at greater length now, but that is the object of the Bill, and, as you are studying its provisions, I beg to move that it be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Pakenham.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

HUDDERSFIELD GAS ORDER.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Order, and that there is nothing in this Order to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House.
Read, and ordered to lie on the Table

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (BOUNDARY COMMISSION) REGULATIONS, 1945.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That they have examined the Regulations as required by the Standing Orders of the House; that in their opinion the Regulations raise questions of policy and principle which have been accepted already by the House when passing the Local Government (Boundary Commission) Act, 1945 under which the Regulations are submitted for approval; that the Regulations are not founded on precedent inasmuch as they are the first Regulations which have been presented to Parliament under that Act; that in the opinion of the Committee the Regulations cannot be passed by the House without special attention, but that no further inquiry is necessary before the House proceeds to a decision on the resolution to approve the said Regulations.
Read, and ordered to lie on the Table
House adjourned at ten minutes past seven o'clock.