Sitting of 24 January 1945

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

  LIBERATED TERRITORIES (SUPPLIES)
  Miss Wardasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether concrete plans have now been agreed for providing food and essential supplies of raw materials to the Belgian Government for relieving the present grave shortages in Belgium.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): Yes, Sir. Conversations between His Majesty's Government and the United States Government about the provision of shipping for supplies which the Governments of liberated territories wish to import on their own account have recently been concluded in Washington. It has been found possible to allocate, subject to military necessity and within the port and inland clearance capacity made available by S.H.A.E.F., certain ships against the civilian import programme of the Belgian Government.
  Miss Ward: Will these ships be available immediately, or is there likely to be any further prolonged delay?
  Mr. Eden: I think I am right in saying that they are available immediately. I think that is the position.
  Mr. Graham White: Is it not the case that at present lack of capacity at the ports is a more serious obstacle than shortage of ships?
  Mr. Eden: That is one of the problems, and that is why I put in my answer "subject to port and inland clearance capacity being made available."
  Mr. White: We do not want to raise false hopes.
  Mr. Eden: I agree.
  Miss Wardasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, as a result of the Minister of State's recent visit to America, arrangements have been made to provide transport, petrol and cattle-feeding stuffs for France, in view of the fact that the beet-sugar crop is un-harvested and the cattle being slaughtered, which will lead to an acute meat shortage.
  Mr. Eden: The object of the Minister of State's visit to Washington was to discuss with the United States authorities the provision of shipping for supplies which the Governments of liberated territories desire to import on their own account. I am glad to say that it has been found possible, subject to military necessity, to make certain ships available for carrying out the civilian import programme of the French Provisional Government. I understand that cattle food is included in this programme but it is for the French Government to decide to what items on their programme they wish to give priority. As regards transport, I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) on 17th January. A considerable quantity of motor transport has been made available by the Supreme Allied Commander, who is doing all he can to alleviate the situation, and the French Government will no doubt wish to import suitable vehicles on their own account. The provision of petroleum for civilian purposes in France continues at present to be the responsibility of the Supreme Allied Commander.
  Miss Ward: Is the Supreme Allied Commander in fact making petroleum available for French transport?
  Mr. Eden: Oh, yes, Sir, and I know that he is doing all he can. This matter has been very carefully and fully examined.

  SYRIA AND LEBANON (ARMED FORCES)
  Major-General Sir Edward Spearsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is satisfied that the undertaking given in the Proclamation of Syrian Independence in September, 1941, that the French would give the Syrians

  789
  all the help in their power to enable them to have their own national forces has been fulfilled; if not, whether, in view of the fact that this proclamation was endorsed by His Majesty's Government, he has made or will consider making representations to the French Government on the subject; and whether any approach has been made to him by the Syrian Government requesting the good offices of His Majesty's Government in the matter.
  Mr. Eden: The question of the Syrian armed forces has for some time past been under discussion between the French and Syrian Governments. The discussions are not yet concluded. His Majesty's Government have been in close and friendly touch with both sides in these negotiations which affect the future of forces performing operational duties for the Allied Powers.
  Sir E. Spears: Is it not the fact that the armed forces of these two countries, which were promised, are being withheld because the French wish to exact a Treaty in exchange; and as the countries are independent, and as the Prime Minister said only last week that you cannot have a State without some kind of National Army, ought not these troops to be handed over?
  Mr. Eden: My hon. and gallant Friend is extremely familiar with all these matters and he will agree that it is not helpful, when you are trying to get an arrangement, to debate them at Question time.
  Mr. Boothby: On a point of Order. May I ask your guidance on this point, Sir? My hon. and gallant Friend has quite recently occupied a highly responsible post in the Middle East, and is for that reason furnished with exceptional information which is not known to the House. May I ask whether it is, in your opinion, in Order or desirable that he, with his special knowledge, should raise these points?
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of Order. Hon. Members are responsible for the Questions they put down, and if they are about matters for which they have had special responsibility they will no doubt exercise due care.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Is it not the case that when a Question passes the Clerk at the
  790
  Table that is sufficient for it to go to the Minister, who then has a right to reply?
  Mr. Speaker: Certainly; I never said anything to the contrary.
  Sir E. Spearsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what requests have been received by the British military authorities in the Middle East from the Syrian and Lebanese Governments for arms for their gendarmeries; and whether it has been found possible to provide them with the quantity of arms necessary to enable them to maintain internal security.
  Mr. Eden: The Syrian and Lebanese Governments last year asked that their gendarmeries might be re-equipped to enable them to discharge their duty of maintaining order more effectively. As the result of discussions between the British and French authorities the gendarmeries, which had been increased in number, were last year completely re-equipped with firearms, transport, uniforms and other items. Discussions with reference to other items of equipment are continuing. As regards the maintenance of internal security, the situation is under constant review.
  Sir E. Spears: From the point of view of security, is it not most important that the gendarmeries should be properly equipped according to the requirements of our military authorities?
  Mr. Eden: I think it is desirable that they should be equipped. There have been discussions as a result of which some equipment has been issued, and further discussions are continuing about the remaining equipment.

  GERMAN CAMP, LVOV (BRITISH SUBJECTS)
  Mr. Hewlettasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any reliable information has been received of the torture of British subjects in the German extermination camp at Lvov.
  Mr. Eden: No, Sir, but I am making inquiries.

  RUMANIA (ASSISTANCE TO ALLIES)
  Mr. Ivor Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what measures are proposed by the Allies to increase the help already being given by Rumania to the Allied cause.
  Mr. Eden: Rumania is already providing a substantial measure of assistance to the Allied cause by maintaining 14 divisions in the field. The possibility of increasing this assistance by means of measures to be taken by the Allies is primarily a matter for the Allied Control Commission at Bucharest.
  Mr. Thomas: Is the question of giving Rumania co-belligerent status being considered?
  Mr. Eden: Perhaps my hon. Friend would not mind putting that question down.

  GREECE

    Hostages (British Subjects)
    Mrs. Cazalet Keirasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state the circumstances in which Mr. Reginald Henderson met his death in Greece.
    Mr. Eden: Mr. and Mrs. Henderson were taken from their house at Kephissia near Athens on about 10th December as hostages by E.L.A.S. They were awoken at 11.30 p.m. by E.L.A.S. troops, and were forced to march to a village some 10 miles north of Kephissia. They were allowed to take one quilt and a minimum of clothing. They remained at this village for a few days receiving very little food and sleeping on the ground. They were then sent on to Thebes where their food consisted of a small portion of bread and black olives. For two days they received no food at all. From Thebes the Hendersons and a large number of other hostages were forced to march to Atalante, a distance of about 30 miles, and it was here that Mr. Henderson, who was 69 years old, died of privation and exposure. I am sure the House would wish me to express their sympathy to Mr. Henderson's relatives at this brutal treatment of Mr. and Mrs. Henderson, who could have had no conceivable connection with the hostilities which were taking place in Athens.
    Mrs. Keir: Are the Government going to see that those responsible for this crime are punished? May I also ask if there are any other British citizens being treated in this way?
    Mr. Eden: The information we have is that, as far as I know, although it is difficult to check it up, these were the
    792
    only British subjects concerned. There cannot be an undertaking because we have not the fullest information, but I can assure my hon. Friend that this matter has caused much distress and concern and I would rather not go beyond that at this stage.
    Mr. Bowles: Although everybody in the House and the country deplores these alleged atrocities, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain how he knows all these things in such detail?
    Mr. Eden: I thought the statement I made was a very reserved statement in all the circumstances. I made it so deliberately, not because of doubt about the information, but because of the circumstances which we all know at the present time. The information I have given was given by Mrs. Henderson herself.
    Mr. Driberg: While everybody, I agree, must deplore this incident, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the first British officer to be returned by the E.L.A.S. Forces this week bore testimony to the fact that he had been perfectly well treated and that he saw no ill treatment of prisoners?
    Mr. Eden: The hon. Member seems to suggest that I answered this Question in a way to try and point political sympathy one way or another. I have not done anything of the kind. I have given the absolute bare facts of what happened to a British subject.
    Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman inform the House what steps the Government propose to take to punish the perpetrators of this atrocity?
    Mr. Eden: The first thing for us to do is to find out who the perpetrators were.

    Trials (Penal Code)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what penal code is to be used in the definition and trial of crimes alleged against persons in Greece to whom, if they are found guilty, promised amnesty will not apply.
    Mr. Eden: I assume that the penal code will be the Greek Penal Code and that the normal processes of Greek law will be followed.
    Mr. Driberg: When the right hon. Gentleman says "the Greek Penal Code" does he mean the code that obtained under the Metaxas régime, or what?
    Mr. Eden: I mean the present Greek Penal Code. I am afraid that I do not carry in my head the date of its origin. It might go back a long way further.
    Mr. Driberg: If it dates from the régime of Metaxas—which was a dictatorship—is there not a danger that it might include penalties for political offences, such as penalties for holding certain opinions?
    Mr. Eden: I think it has been made as clear as language can make it that the offence of bearing arms against the State in these circumstances will not be included among the charges tried.

    BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR AND CIVILIAN INTERNEES, FAR EAST
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any likelihood of further repatriation of prisoners of war and civilian internees now held by Japan; whether, in view of a previous announcement that two repatriation ships would leave Japan but only one arrived, the service of a second ship has been agreed to; approximately, how many civilian internees remain; whether the condition of these is satisfactory; and whether he has any further reports of the condition of prisoners of war in Southern Asia.
    Mr. Eden: As regards exchanges of prisoners of war I would refer to the reply to the Question on the Paper to-day by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) which was not answered orally.
    We have been trying for a long time past to obtain the agreement of the Japanese to a second exchange of civilians. Some of the difficulties have been overcome. Final agreement has not, I regret to say, yet been reached. So far as is known some 17,000 civilian internees remain in the hands of the Japanese. Conditions in those internment camps which have been visited are on the whole tolerable. Conditions in internment camps in the Southern area which have not been visited are not known. The position in Hong Kong continues to give anxiety.
    794
    As regards the condition of prisoners of war in the Southern area there is at present nothing to add to the statements made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War on 17th November and 19th December.
    Mr. Sorensen: Could the right hon. Gentleman indicate what was to have been his reply to the hon. Member for Cheltenham?
    Mr. Eden: It was quite a brief reply to say that, despite several approaches, the Japanese Government have shown themselves uninterested in exchange of prisoners of war and have refused even to contemplate an exchange of sick and wounded. A small batch of telegrams from British prisoners of war has been received in the past two days, which indicates a beginning of further communications.
    Mr. Sorensen: Does the statement mean that the right hon. Gentleman is optimistic about future satisfactory developments?
    Mr. Eden: I thought the hon. Gentleman was going to ask me whether I was optimistic about the conduct of the Japanese Government.

  YUGOSLAVIA

    Tito-Subasic Agreement
    Captain Duncanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the terms of the Subasic-Tito Agreement of which he has approved.
    Mr. Eden: The full texts of the Tito-Subasic Agreement and of its Annexes were released for publication by the Yugoslav Information Office last night. I will arrange for the papers to he placed in the Library of the House.
    Captain Duncan: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he agrees with the Annexes, of which Annexe 1 provides—
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Gentleman appears to be asking for an opinion and not for facts.
    Captain Duncan: What I wanted to know was whether my right hon. Friend had agreed with the Annexes as well as with the Agreement, because Annexe 1 provides that if one individual of an organisation has been proved, by the Yugoslav authorities, to have been a col-

    795
    laborator with the enemy, the whole organisation is proscribed?
    Mr. Eden: I should be glad if my hon. and gallant Friend would put that question on the Paper.
    Captain Duncan: I only wanted to know whether he agreed with the Annexes as well as with the Agreement.
    Mr. Eden: What His Majesty's Government have said in respect of this Agreement is that they thought it was, on the whole, an arrangement which met with their approval.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the most violent opponents of this agreement is Major Gneizivich? Can he say how that gentleman got into this country from Lisbon?
    Mr. Eden: No, Sir, I cannot.

    Relief Measures
    Captain Duncanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the arrangements for relief of the people of Yugoslavia by U.N.R.R.A.; and whether all races and creeds are assured of equal treatment.
    Mr. Eden: The responsibility for providing relief to Yugoslavia rests at present with the Anglo-American military authorities in the Mediterranean, who have, however, the assistance of U.N.R.R.A., and act by agreement with the authorities in Yugoslavia itself. It is hoped that U.N.R.R.A. will at an early date take this responsibility over from the military authorities. It is the declared policy both of U.N.R.R.A. and of the authorities concerned in Yugoslavia that the distribution of relief should be carried out without discrimination between races or creeds.
    Mr. Price: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether relief on a substantial scale is now being given to the people of Yugoslavia?
    Mr. Eden: Supplies are going, but I am afraid I do not know the quantities.

    British Correspondents
    Mr. Petheriekasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many representatives of British newspapers or news agencies are now in Yugoslavia.
    Mr. Eden: There are at present no British newspaper correspondents in Yugoslavia. I understand, however, that a Reuters correspondent is immediately returning to Yugoslavia and it is hoped that other newspapers and news agencies will follow.
    Mr. Petherick: May I ask how the British people could be expected to make up their minds about Yugoslavian affairs during all these months when they got no news whatsoever from that country?
    Mr. Eden: I should very much welcome the despatch of correspondents to Yugoslavia. Perhaps I ought to add that recently an officer has been discussing these matters, I think with Allied Headquarters, with a view to some correspondents going there.
    Major Lloyd: Is it not a fact that the British public have been fed from one quarter all the time?

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Building Trade Workers (Release)
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Air why he refuses to consider the release from the R.A.F. of building trade workers capable of assisting in the repair of bomb damage.
    The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): The demands of the war upon the man-power of the Services are very heavy. It is impossible, therefore, to contemplate releases of building workers on a large scale but requests receive careful consideration when submitted in accordance with the approved procedure. A number of releases have already been authorised in certain special trades. If my hon. Friend has a case in mind and will let me have particulars, I will gladly look into it.
    Mr. Douglas: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his colleague the Minister of Works informed me that no releases were being made from the R.A.F.?
    Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sir, I was not aware of it.

    Personnel, India (Short Leave)
    Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for Air whether R.A.F. personnel in the India S.E.A.C. can come home on a system of short leave similar to that enjoyed by Army personnel.
    Sir A. Sinclair: Yes, Sir. The introduction of a system of short leave for R.A.F. personnel serving in the South-East Asia Air Command has recently been approved and steps are being taken to bring the scheme into operation forthwith.
    Mr. Turton: Arising out of that very satisfactory reply, for which I thank my right hon. Friend, may I ask whether he can give us some details of this plan, perhaps by publishing them in the OFFICIAL REPORT?
    Sir A. Sinclair: I will consider that suggestion. Perhaps the main detail in which my hon. Friend is interested is that we hope it will be possible to provide approximately 450 passages per month.
    Mr. Turton: Will they be available to all R.A.F. personnel after six months' service with S.E.A.C.?
    Sir A. Sinclair: I would rather not go further into details on this matter at this moment.
    Mr. Sorensen: Will they come by ship?
    Sir A. Sinclair: Yes, by ship.

    Aircraft Accidents (Claims)
    Sir Arnold Gridleyasked the Secretary of State for Air whether his Ministry accepts liability for loss of life, personal injuries and damage to property caused by the fall of an aeroplane when navigated by a member of the R.A.F. who exceeds his official instructions.
    Sir A. Sinclair: Claims in respect of personal injuries resulting from accidents of all kinds to R.A.F. aircraft are dealt with under the provisions of the Personal Injuries (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1939. Claims in respect of damage to property caused by R.A.F. aircraft in the course of operations against the enemy are dealt with under the provisions of the War Damage Act, 1943. No exception is made in either Act in cases where an accident is caused by a member of the crew of the aircraft exceeding his instructions. In general, my Department is prepared to consider claims for damage to property which are not covered by the provisions of the War Damage Act and if my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind and will let me have details I will gladly consider it.

    Air Crew Refresher Course
    Mr. Ivor Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Air what are the objects of the air crew refresher school at a place of which he has been informed.
    Sir A. Sinclair: The purpose of the air crew refresher course is to assist in the elimination of tendencies likely to contribute to avoidable flying accidents. The course forms part of a general scheme of accident prevention.
    Mr. Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that very gallant officers sent on this course, under the plea of increasing their mental alertness, find that they are in the atmosphere of the "glass house," and that it is very much resented?
    Sir A. Sinclair: I do not know what my hon. Friend means by being sent there "under a plea." This is a most valuable school. It is natural that some of even the most gallant officers have tendencies to slackness and to disobedience of orders at times. A course at this school has enabled many of those officers to take a grip of themselves and to render splendid service to the R.A.F. and to the country. It is a most valuable school and I ask my hon. Friend's support for it.

    Recruitment (A.T.C. Cadets)
    Captain Sir William Brassasked the Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been drawn to the unsatisfactory position at present existing in the A.T.C., where lecture attendances have fallen to a low level owing to it becoming common knowledge that such cadets as flight-sergeants with three years' service who have passed post proficiency tests are being directed to the Army, while young men who have not volunteered for the A.T.C. are being accepted for aircrew duties; and whether he will make a statement guaranteeing a certain percentage intake from the A.T.C. into the R.A.F. in the future.
    Sir A. Sinclair: I am keenly aware of the disappointment caused to cadets as the result of the curtailment of the aircrew intake for the Royal Air Force. The reasons for this curtailment were fully explained in the statement made in this House in answer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Acton (Captain Longhurst) and my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom) on 15th November last, of which I am sending my

    799
    hon. Friend a copy. To make the A.T.C. the sole avenue of entry into the Royal Air Force would be to deprive the Service of some excellent young men who, for various reasons such as working hours or the situation of their homes, are unable to join a unit of the A.T.C. The substantial advantage enjoyed by cadets of the A.T.C. when selections are made for entry into the Royal Air Force is shown by the fact that 80 per cent. of the air-crew entrants last month were A.T.C. cadets.
    Sir W. Brass: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I did not suggest in my Question that the only intake into the R.A.F. should be the A.T.C.? Is he aware that what happens is that a boy is asked to volunteer for the A.T.C.; he is then given a number, and later on, when he comes to be called up, he has a notice from the R.A.F., which says he is dismissed from the R.A.F.?
    Sir A. Sinclair: I need hardly tell the hon. and gallant Member that I very much regret that these keen young men who are so anxious to join the Royal Air Force should, at this stage of the war, have to be transferred to another Service, but the requirements of the war demand that men and women should serve where their services are most required. But, as I said, membership of the Air Training Corps does, in fact, confer great advantages on these young men who want to go into the Royal Air Force and who compete for the few vacancies we are able to offer.
    Colonel Greenwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that although the Fleet Air Arm require this type of youth, these young men are not allowed, on dismissal from the R.A.F., to join the Fleet Air Arm? They are taken straight into the Army.
    Sir A. Sinclair: This Question relates to the Air Training Corps. All I can say about the last question is that in the Air Training Corps young men are just as much encouraged to join the Fleet Air Arm, as to join the Royal Air Force.
    Sir W. Brass: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement that a percentage of these boys will be taken into the Royal Air Force so as to give them encouragement? Will he say that some of them, at least, will go into the Royal Air Force?
    Sir A. Sinclair: I say that cadets in the Air Training Corps have not merely a hope of getting into the Royal Air Force, they have a certainty of a far better chance of getting some of the few vacancies available than anybody else. In fact, last month 80 per cent. of the aircrew entries were from the Air Training Corps. In my submission to the House it would be a great mistake to lay down a flat percentage. We want to get the best men, the men who have the greatest aptitude for flying and fighting in the air. It may be that in some cases we should have a higher percentage of boys from outside and in some cases a lower. What we want to get is the best material we can for the Royal Air Force and the Fleet Air Arm.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: This is becoming a Debate. I call the next Question.

    Empire Training Schemes (Continuance)
    Sir W. Brassasked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in considering postwar air crews training for the common defence of the British Commonwealth, he will keep in touch with the Governments of Canada, South Africa and Rhodesia where war-training schemes have operated so successfully, with a view to United Kingdom and Dominion personnel being given training in different parts of the British Empire after the war.
    Sir A. Sinclair: Yes, Sir. In view of the great achievements of the aircrew training schemes in the Empire, in which all the Dominions and Southern Rhodesia have participated, I will certainly bear my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion in mind.

    Airman (Overseas Posting)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that, despite the definite assurance from his Ministry, dated 6th January, that 1678779 L.A.C. Eccles would not be posted overseas in view of his age, this airman did in fact leave the United Kingdom on 10th January and is now serving overseas; and if he will take steps to secure his immediate return to this country.
    Sir A. Sinclair: I regret that this airman was sent to the Continent in error and I have given instructions for his immediate return.

  CIVIL AVIATION

    International Conference, Chicago
    Mr. Bowlesasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will publish verbatim all the speeches delivered at the plenary sessions of the Chicago Conference on Civil Aviation.
    Sir A. Sinclair: The International Civil Aviation Conference passed the following resolution:
    "That the Government of the United States of America be authorised to publish the Final Act of this Conference, the Reports of the Committees, the Minutes of the Public Sessions, the Texts of any Multi-lateral Agreements concluded at the Conference, and to make available for publication such additional documents in connection with the work of this Conference as in its judgment may be considered in the public interest."
    Arrangements will be made for the documents issued by the United States Government to be made available in this country. I understand that my Noble Friend, the Minister for Civil Aviation, has placed in the Library of the House copies of the Final Act of the Conference, and of the minutes of all the plenary sessions, except the final plenary session, the minutes of which have not yet been received in this country.
    Mr. Bowles: I knew all that. My question is whether the Minister for Civil Aviation will publish verbatim all the speeches made in the plenary sessions of the Chicago Conference on Civil Aviation. I asked the Leader of the House last Thursday when he was announcing Business. We shall need those speeches in the Debate on civil aviation next Friday. Does my right hon. Friend realise that any hon. Member taking part in the Debate on Friday must have the political or other reasons which were given for turning down various proposals made at the plenary session?
    Sir A. Sinclair: They are all in the Library except those of the final plenary session.
    Mr. Bowles: The only speeches in the Library are Mr. Berle's speech and two speeches by the Minister for Civil Aviation. I want verbatim all the speeches which were uttered in the plenary sessions.
    Earl Winterton: Now that civil aviation is separated from the right hon. Gentleman's Department, and in view of the rather unfortunate history of the relation-
    802
    ship of that Department with civil aviation, could the Debate in this House be in the hands of another Cabinet Minister?
    Sir A. Sinclair: First of all, I repudiate any suggestion that there is anything unfortunate in the relations between my Department and civil aviation. The noble Lord's question has nothing whatever to do with the Question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Bowles: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me, before the Debate on Friday, to have a look at the verbatim copies which he or the Minister for Civil Aviation has?
    Sir A. Sinclair: The hon. Member is trying to make out that I am trying to hide something from him and the House. I am not doing so. As far as I know, what he asks for will be in the document to which I have referred. If not, I will certainly ask the Minister for Civil Aviation if there are any other documents or accounts of speeches which he has. I am quite sure that he does not want to keep anything back.
    Mr. A. Bevan: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when he thinks this document will be available? Does he say the other minutes are in the Library?
    Sir A. Sinclair: All except the minutes of the last session, the final plenary session. I am afraid I do not know when they will be available.

    Ocean Routes (Aircraft Lifeboats)
    Sir Wavell Wakefieldasked the Secretary of State for Air if post-war requirements for civil aviation will include the carrying of lifeboats by British aircraft flying on ocean routes.
    Sir A. Sinclair: I am advised that a general requirement of this character is not contemplated. The carriage of lifeboats, dinghies or rafts may, however, be stipulated for flights by United Kingdom aircraft on regular services if this is considered necessary in the interest of safety.
    Sir W. Wakefield: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that United States constructors of aircraft are making provision for the carrying of lifeboats in ocean-going aircraft, and does this not mean that the British aircraft industry will be handicapped in the post-war flying of ocean

    803
    routes if British aircraft manufacturers are not encouraged to provide lifeboats in ocean-going aircraft?
    Sir A. Sinclair: The answer I gave could not possibly mean that. My answer says that the carriage of lifeboats, dinghies or rafts may be stipulated for flights by U.K. aircraft on regular services if this is considered necessary.

    MAGNESIUM FACTORY, NORTH-WEST AREA
    Mr. Burkeasked the Minister of Aircraft Production what was the cost to the Government of the M.E.L. factory built in the North-West area for the manufacture of magnesium, now discontinued; how long was production maintained; what interest have I.C.I. in the factory; and what does the Government propose to do with the buildings and the machinery.
    The Minister of Aircraft Production (Sir Stafford Cripps): The factory to which my hon. Friend refers is State-owned, and cost £4,350,000. Production commenced in April, 1943, and was discontinued at the end of 1944. The factory was managed, on an agency basis, by Magnesium Elektron, Limited, whose shares are partly held by I.C.I., Limited; but neither company has any direct interest in the factory. As regards the last part of the Question, consideration is being given to possible uses for this factory; at present it is being retained on a care and maintenance basis, as stand-by capacity to be used in an emergency.
    Mr. Burke: Will the Minister bear in mind that the local authority is very anxious to attract industries to this part of the country, where they are very much needed, and will he allow the town clerk to have some particulars about the factory, so that industrialists may have a chance to consider the place?
    Sir S. Cripps: I have no objection to certain particulars going to the town clerk. That will be a matter, I think, for the President of the Board of Trade.
    Mr. Burke: Will the town clerk be allowed to view the premises? Everything is being kept secret at present.
    Sir S. Cripps: I should require notice of that question.
    Mr. Kirkwood: What provision is the Minister making for the workers when they are shut out of a factory such as this? I have to deal at the moment with a factory where 1,700 workers have been put off.
    Sir S. Cripps: My hon. Friend should address that question to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.
    Mr. Kirkwood rose—
    Mr. Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the question should be addressed to the Minister of Labour.

  ROYAL NAVY

    Dartmouth College (Entrance Examinations)
    Rear-Admiral Beamishasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the reasons for now holding the written examinations for Dartmouth entries before the interview; how long this method has been in force; and if it is intended to adhere to it.
    The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander): The change in procedure was made to save trouble and expense to all concerned. The change has been in force since the Spring Examination of 1940, and, in the light of the experience gained, it is proposed to adhere to the present system.
    Rear-Admiral Beamish: Could my right hon. Friend give an idea of the proportion of failures at the interview?
    Mr. Alexander: The quality of the candidates generally is very good indeed. The number of failures is very small, and we have no lack of other candidates to replace those who fail.
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: Surely the fact that so many candidates pass the examination and then fail when they come up for an interview, must raise doubts in the minds of the parents?
    Mr. Alexander: I do not consider it a bad system to see what academic attainments a boy has before his interview. Otherwise, many boys would make useless journeys, at great expense to the parents.
    Rear-Admiral Beamishasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the system of allotting, at the Dartmouth entrance

    805
    examinations, 50 per cent. of the scholarships to entries from private schools is adhered to in the event of candidates from other sources having proved themselves more highly qualified; and has such a situation occurred.
    Mr. Alexander: Candidates from private schools are eligible for scholarships only when they show themselves to be equal or superior in ability to boys awarded scholarships from grant-aided schools. The second part of the Question does not arise.
    Rear-Admiral Beamish: Has the converse situation to that described in the Question arisen, with regard to 60 per cent. of entries being awarded to entrants from State schools?
    Mr. Alexander: There has been no difficulty at all. In fact we adopt a minimum standard at which scholarships can be obtained, and we have had no difficulty in awarding the full number of scholarships both to State-aided scholars and to private scholars up to the present time.
    Rear-Admiral Beamishasked the First Lord of the Admiralty why parents of candidates winning scholarships at the Dartmouth Naval College entrance examinations are subjected to a means test for fees payable at this State school; and is this test applied to the parents of all scholars.
    Mr. Alexander: In accordance with the practice for the award of scholarships to State-aided schools generally, the fees for all boys awarded scholarships at the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth, from whatever school they come, vary according to the means of the parent. The Question does not arise in the case of non-scholarship cadets unless and until the parent applies for reduced fees. In such cases fees are assessed on the parents' ability to pay.
    Rear-Admiral Beamish: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that information is available to show that quite a number of individuals who sacrifice a great deal for the education of their boys find that failure to have a means test applied to them causes them heavy expense, compared with the parents of boys who come from State schools?
    Mr. Alexander: I do not know what my hon. and gallant Friend means by "failure to have the means test applied to them." The allowances made by the Admiralty in regard to income are fairly generous in assessing what scholarships shall be given, and my hon. and gallant Friend must admit that we have made a large step forward during the war to assist such cases.
    Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: In view of the success of the scheme, would the right hon. Gentleman not consider making all entries to Dartmouth subject to this means test, instead of having this rather silly class division?
    Mr. Alexander: There is no class division. It does not matter which group a candidate for a scholarship comes into, if it is shown that his parents are unable to contribute anything for his fees or maintenance, it is possible for him to have entirely free tuition.

    Mail Services
    Commander Sir Archibald Southbyasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what steps have been taken to reorganise the naval mail service with a view to increasing its efficiency and expediting the transmission of mails to His Majesty's ships on foreign stations.
    Mr. Alexander: The operation of the naval mail service is under constant review, and has been closely examined in detail in the light of experience gained in the landing on the Continent. As a result, special steps have been taken to strengthen the organisation to deal with the mail requirements which will be created by future operations.
    Sir A. Southby: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that the mail service to ships is not so good as it ought to be because there is a failure in London to act on the report of changes of ships' addresses? Is there any reason why the mail service to the Navy, in view of its effect on morale, should not be at least as good as that for the Army?
    Mr. Alexander: I think my hon. and gallant Friend, with his naval experience, knows that there are very great difficulties in the case of constantly-moving naval units, which do not always apply to the other Services. We do our best; but if I am asked to adopt in toto the Army

    807
    scheme, I must say that the present naval man-power situation does not allow me to do it.
    Sir A. Southby: Is it not a fact that the changes of address reported by ships are not acted on quickly enough in London, and that that is one of the causes of the delay?
    Mr. Alexander: We are doing our best to deal with that by keeping in being the extra office set up for combined operations, and also by enlarging the staff, with the help of the Postmaster-General.
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that complaints are made about the delivery of mail, not only to foreign stations, but also at home? Is he satisfied that there is adequate co-operation between the naval side and the Post Office side inside the Admiralty?
    Mr. Alexander: I am satisfied that there is good co-operation, but I have never been satisfied that we have yet reached perfection. We will go on trying.

    Sea Cadet Corps
    Sir A. Southbyasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can give an assurance that the Sea Cadet Corps will be maintained as an independent organisation after the war.
    Mr. Alexander: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given by the Deputy Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) on 2nd August. The Deputy Prime Minister's statement, of course, includes the Sea Cadet Corps, and I am not in a position to add anything to it yet.

    Newspapers and Periodicals (Distribution)
    Mr. G. Straussasked the First Lord of the Admiralty on what principle the selection of newspapers and periodicals distributed to ships of the Royal Navy through the "Charity Mail" is made; and which papers are accepted and which banned.
    Mr. Alexander: The packets of newspapers and periodicals, sometimes unofficially referred to as the "Charity Mail," are distributed to the Fleet with the object of providing recreational reading matter for personnel in His Majesty's Ships. They comprise 16 weekly, 3
    808
    monthly and 2 quarterly publications, selected from amongst those which are considered likely to have the widest popular appeal.
    Mr. Strauss: May I ask whether there is any political discrimination in the papers that are supplied, and whether some are banned because it is thought that their politics are not favourable? Is there any political discrimination whatsoever?
    Mr. Alexander: No, Sir.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is there any Co-operative paper in this arrangement?
    Mr. Alexander: I am not aware of one.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: There is an extraordinary tendency to-day to debate every Question. We have spent three-quarters of an hour and have only got to Question 34.
    Mr. Strauss: In the second part of my Question, I asked for the names of periodicals. Could the right hon. Gentleman publish them in the OFFICIAL REPORT?
    Mr. Alexander: Certainly. I have given the number, but they would take some time to read out.
    Following are the publications:
    Weekly:

    Weekly Sketch.

    Weekly Times.

    Illustrated London News.

    Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News.

    Sphere.

    Punch.

    Sunday Graphic.

    Hampshire Telegraph.

    Weekly Telegraph.

    Answers.

    London Opinion.

    Titbits.

    News of the World.

    Western Times.

    Illustrated.

    Picture Post.

    Monthly:

    Strand Magazine.

    Trident.

    Scientific American.

    Quarterly:

    Journal of the Nautical Research Society.

    The Seagoer.

    Royal Hospital School
    Mr. Ross Taylorasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is satisfied that the necessary steps have been taken to ensure that the naval tradition of the Royal Hospital School will not be impaired as a result of the appointment of a civilian head in place of a naval officer; if he can give an assurance that preference in entry will continue to be given to boys who have a seafaring connection; and that, in general, there will be no change in the character of the school.
    Mr. Alexander: The answer to the first and second parts of the Question is in the affirmative. As regards the last part, it is hoped to raise the educational standards and widen the curriculum, and thus, incidentally, make the school more useful as a source of supply for the Sea Services.

    Schoolmasters (Status)
    Miss Rathboneasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has considered the grievance of certain men employed in the education service of the Navy who, although qualified by length of service, by the nature of their present duties and by their university degrees and teaching experience, for commissioned rank, are still ranked and paid only as warrant officers; and will he make a statement on the matter.
    Mr. Alexander: The whole question of the status of schoolmasters in the R.N. is at present under consideration, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

    W.R.N.S. (Overseas Service)
    Major Sir Jocelyn Lucasasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that a married member of the A.T.S. on foreign service is allowed to return to the United Kingdom if her husband is serving at home; and if he will amend the regulations for the W.R.N.S. in order to bring them into line with the other Services.
    Mr. Alexander: I am aware that, in certain circumstances, some married members of the A.T.S. are posted to home establishments when their husbands are repatriated at the end of their tour of service abroad. Sympathetic consideraion is always given to applications for return to England from married members of the W.R.N.S. serving abroad, when there are strong compassionate reasons, whatever the circumstances of the husband.
    Sir J. Lucas: If I give my right hon. Friend an instance where a husband of a member of the W.R.N.S. is now serving at home, while his wife is at Gibraltar, and in which the husband will be sent abroad when the wife comes back, will he give sympathetic consideration to this case, in which there is a strong medical reason for granting the application?
    Mr. Alexander: Most certainly, if there are strong compassionate grounds, it will be considered. Of course, I cannot undertake to shift every married member of the W.R.N.S. about, irrespective of the requirements of the Services.

  SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY
  Colonel Greenwellasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how soon the new Shipbuilding Committee he has recently set up will take over the work of issuing licences for the construction of merchant tonnage; and whether he is aware, in view of the necessity for maintaining steady employment in the shipbuilding industry and of increasing our export trade, of the urgency for an early decision on what volume of work can be permitted to be put in hand for foreign owners.
  Mr. Alexander: The new Committee is an advisory body, and the Admiralty will continue to be the responsible statutory authority for the issue of licences. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the affirmative.
  Colonel Greenwell: What was the urgency which made it necessary for the answer to this Question to be given in the public Press, before an opportunity occurred of asking the Question in this House? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, with berths falling vacant, orders that come in from foreign owners are already being refused licences?
  Mr. Alexander: I am afraid that the question of publication in the Press has not been brought to my notice. I will look into it. In regard to the second part of the supplementary, I can only say that the Advisory Committee to the Ministry of War Transport are giving urgent attention to the particular need, and I do not think that my hon. and gallant Friend will have reason to be dissatisfied with their decision.
  Mr. Kirkwoodasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what steps he is taking to ensure full employment in the shipbuilding industries and, in particular, if he will give an assurance that he will not purchase any of the 55 to 65 million tons of shipping which it is anticipated will be in the ownership of the U.S.A. at the end of the war.
  Mr. Alexander: I informed the House on 1st November that a Committee had been established to advise my Noble Friend the Minister of War Transport and myself on the employment of shipbuilding facilities, and I then made it clear that this Committee would have regard to the arrangements most likely to contribute to the well-being, efficiency and stability of the industry. This Committee has already commenced its work. The second part of the Question is a matter for my Noble Friend the Minister of War Transport.
  Mr. Kirkwood: I want to know whether the Admiralty in particular, and the Government in general, have any idea of taking these ships from America, because we shipbuilders in this country ought to know. This same thing happened after the last war, when we got the German mercantile marine, which ruined the whole industry, and the same thing is going to happen again.
  Mr. Alexander: The point raised by my hon. Friend was dealt with in some detail by my Noble Friend in another place, and also in the Debate on 1st November. We have now set up a Committee, which, for the first time, I think, includes representatives of labour, and I am quite sure that all these matters will be considered in their proper perspective.
  Sir A. Southby: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind very closely the grave mistake made after the last war, when we took over ships from Germany, instead of building them ourselves?
  Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister take note of the need for encouraging and developing shipbuilding after the war, and will he recommend to the Government the appointment of a special committee to deal with the development of travelling facilities for the people of this country to the Dominions and other countries?

  NYASALAND (PROVINCIAL COUNCILS)
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the members of the Nyasaland Provincial Councils are exclusively nominated by the Provincial Governors and appointed by the Governor; whether he will consider the proposal that two-thirds of the Nyasaland African Provincial Councils should be nominated by the Nyasaland African Congress; and whether any attempt will be made to compile an electoral roll based on educational qualifications.
  The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Colonel Oliver Stanley): Each Provincial Council consists of 20 chiefs and 5 other responsible Africans. The chiefs are chosen as far as possible by the district councils of chiefs while the Governor appoints the remaining members in consultation with the chiefs of the council. Careful consideration was given to the composition of the councils and to the method of selection of their members and I am satisfied that this arrangement is the most satisfactory at the present stage of development. The answer to the second and third parts of the Question is, therefore, that no change in the method of nomination and selection is at present contemplated.
  Mr. Sorensen: Is the Minister aware that there is a demand in certain quarters that reconsideration of the basic franchise should be made; and will he not, therefore, reconsider the last part of the Question?
  Colonel Stanley: No, Sir. I gave careful consideration to this. The experiment has only just been introduced. We must see how it works and make any necessary alterations in the light of experience.

  MAURITIUS

    Constitution
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether consideration has been given to the necessity of revising the obsolete Constitution of Mauritius; and whether any proposals are likely to be made.
    Colonel Stanley: Yes, Sir. The question of constitutional reform in Mauritius is under close consideration. I am informed

    813
    by the Governor that, after preliminary discussions with his Executive Council, he had intended to start local consultations on proposals to which I referred in my reply to the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) on 20th December. But the cyclone which has just caused such serious damage in the Island has necessarily deferred this action for the moment, but as soon as essential services, etc., have been restored, and normal life has been resumed, these discussions will be proceeded with.

    Inquiry (Report)
    Mr. Rileyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he proposes to make any statement on the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the disturbances which occurred in Mauritius in 1943; and whether an early opportunity will be afforded for the consideration of the Report.
    Colonel Stanley: I refer the hon. Member to a reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) on 20th December last. The Governor of Mauritius has since reported that an Indian has now assumed duty as extra assistant director of labour, and that the Bill transferring the control of the magistracy to the chief judge, as recommended in the Report, is now awaiting its third reading. In several areas in the Colony, welfare committees have been formed and are being given every possible encouragement.
    Mr. Riley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an answer to the last part of my Question—whether an opportunity will be provided to consider the Report?
    Colonel Stanley: The hon. Member knows that that is not a Question which I can answer. I shall be only too glad that, at the earliest opportunity, it should be considered.

    COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
    Mr. Rileyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make any statement regarding the appointment of Sir Frank Stockdale as Adviser on Colonial Development Planning; and whether Sir Frank Stockdale will continue to have charge as Controller
    814
    of the Colonial and Welfare Work in the West Indies.
    Colonel Stanley: The new post of Adviser on Development Planning has been created as part of the Colonial Office organisation to assist me in the co-ordination of plans for social and economic development now in preparation by Colonial Governments. The need for such an appointment has been increased by the intention of His Majesty's Government to augment the financial provision for development under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act. Sir Frank Stockdale will be succeeded as Comptroller for Development and Welfare in the West Indies by Sir John Macpherson, at present a member of the Anglo-American Caribbean Commission and head of the British Colonies Supply Mission in Washington.
    Mr. Riley: Does the statement of the right hon. Gentleman mean that Sir Frank Stockdale is in charge of all planning, under the Development and Welfare Act, in all Colonies except the West Indies, and that he is adviser to the Colonial Government on their plans?
    Colonel Stanley: I think that, if the hon. Member will study my answer, he will see what it does mean.

  AFRICAN COLONIES

    Native Service Personnel (Pensions)
    Captain Prescottasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether pensions are paid to the native rank and file of the King's African Rifles who are discharged as unfit for service on account of war wounds; and, if so, at what rates;
    (2) whether pensions are paid to natives recruited under the Compulsory Service Ordinance in East Africa for the Eastern African Military Labour Corps, Pioneer Corps and Signals, who have been discharged as unfit for service on account of war wounds; and, if so, at what rates.
    Colonel Stanley: Disability awards are payable at common rates for all the units he has mentioned. For full details I refer him to the memorandum entitled "Colonial Troops (Pay, Allowances and Pensions)," a copy of which was sent to the House of Commons Library on 28th August, 1943.
    Captain Prescott: Is it not a fact that the payments are in the form of a gratuity, and not by way of pension, and that, therefore, recipients who spend their gratuities have nothing of a permanent nature to compensate them for their war injuries?
    Colonel Stanley: No, Sir, that is not the fact. Normally, they can get both disability pensions and disability gratuities. It is only where the degree of disablement is less than 20 per cent., that they are paid only gratuities.
    Sir W. Wakefield: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider issuing or making a statement about plans for rehabilitation?
    Colonel Stanley: That is rather a different question, and I should be glad if the hon. Member would put it down.

    Crops (Government Marketing)
    Mr. G. Straussasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give an indication of the funds accumulated from Government marketing of cotton, coffee, cocoa and similar products grown in the African Colonies during the war; and whether he can give an assurance that these surpluses will be devoted to the establishment of enterprises which will benefit the colonies as a whole.
    Colonel Stanley: In the case of most of the crops grown in African Colonies and bought on Government account, the whole purchase price is paid to the producer, and no profit is made by the Governments of the Colonies concerned. Certain crops, however, have been purchased by Government organisations and subsequently resold at a profit, and I am circulating with the OFFICIAL REPORT figures showing the profits earned in this manner up to the latest dates available. In all the latter cases the profits accruing are being retained to be used in due course for the benefit either of the producers concerned, or of the areas in which production takes place.
    Mr. Strauss: Is it not very important that the profits obtained, which come from the Colonies as a whole, should be used for the benefit of the Colonies and the people living there and not for producers?
    Colonel Stanley: They will not be used for individual producers but where there are cases where profits are earned in one
    816
    particular district or region, inside the Colony, they will go back to the district or region.
    Mr. Strauss: For the benefit of the people as a whole living there?
    Colonel Stanley: That is so.
    Following are the figures:

    Profits from Marketing:

    £

    Uganda cotton crop for crop years 1942–1943 and 1943–1944

    2,400,000

    Uganda hard coffee crop (to May, 1944)

    119,400

    Nyasaland cotton crop (1943)

    15,000

    Cocoa, Gold Coast to end of 1942–43 season

    2,240,188

    Cocoa, Nigeria to end of 1942–43 season

    1,169,906

    Ginger, Sierra Leone (1942 crop)

    14,000

    MONOPOLIES
    Sir Percy Harrisasked the Prime Minister whether he will give an opportunity for a Debate on the Motion dealing with Monopolies in the name of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and other hon. Members.
    [That this House takes note of the recent declaration of His Majesty's Government regarding combines and price-fixing agreements and urges His Majesty's Government to introduce legislation in the near future designed to protect the consumer against exploitation; to remove those defects in the law (such as those relating to the law of patents) which have encouraged the growth of monopolies; to convert into public utility companies such complete monopolies as are found to be necessary or desirable because of the character of the commodity or service provided; and to prevent trade associations from limiting the right of entry into their trades or industries.]
    Mr. Eden: In view of the state of Business, I regret that I cannot hold out any hope of facilities being granted, at present, for a discussion of this Motion.
    Sir P. Harris: Is the Leader of the House aware that in the White Paper presented by the Government dealing with employment they insisted on the importance of dealing with this problem in view of post-war issues? If he cannot give an opportunity for a discussion on our Motion, can the right hon. Gentleman suggest when the Government will produce their own legislation?
    Mr. Eden: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade did deal with this, as my right hon. Friend knows, on the Debate on the Address. I am afraid, in view of the many other demands on our time at present, I cannot go beyond what he said then.
    Mr. Petherick: Will my right hon. Friend consider trying to find a date as early as possible so that we may discuss the greatest of all monopolies, namely, Socialism?
    Mr. George Griffiths: Is the hon. Member getting afraid of it?
    Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recollect that the White Paper contained the specific promise of legislation, and in view of the fact that there is no prospect of any legislation coming from the Government, does not that entitle the House to have a day to discuss it soon?
    Mr. Eden: Certainly, Sir, if there is legislation there will obviously be discussion. If there is much discussion there cannot be any legislation.
    Sir A. Southby: That is a new one.
    Mr. A. Bevan: Has the right hon. Gentleman yet obtained the permission of the monopolists to bring in legislation?

    JAMAICA (RELIEF RATES)
    Mr. Rileyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has now received a statement from the Governor of Jamaica on the adequacy of the rates of wages paid to relief workers in Jamaica.
    Colonel Stanley: The Governor reported some time ago on the subject of relief rates in general but not particularly on the point of their adequacy. The whole matter is now, however, primarily one for the new Executive Council and Legislature.
    Mr. Riley: Does not the right hon. Gentleman remember that, before the Recess in December, a promise was given that this information would be given?
    Colonel Stanley: The hon. Member must realise that the new Constitution has now come into force, and has granted to Jamaica, with the approval of this House,
    818
    a considerable degree of self-government in matters of this kind, which, primarily, are matters for settlement there.

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Food Offices (Amalgamation)
    Mr. Petherickasked the Minister of Food in how many cases in 1943 and 1944 has he amalgamated food offices; what was the total saving in money and man-power; and whether he will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the savings in each individual instance.
    The Minister of Food (Colonel Llewellin): The figures are, 204 in 1943 and 72 in 1944. As other staff changes are made, the savings in man-power can only be given approximately. They were 450 in 1943 and 206 in 1944. The latter figure is not yet complete. I regret that I am not able to give the total saving in money or the further detailed information desired by my hon. Friend. Apart from the reductions in staff at the Food Offices, there are considerable savings in administration at Divisional Food Offices and at Headquarters by way of banking accounts, auditing, stationery, etc.
    Mr. Petherick: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman explain to the House why it is that he cannot give the savings desired in view of the fact that the claim of the Ministry for bringing about these amalgamations is that they are savings?
    Colonel Llewellin: I gave my hon. Friend the figures of the savings, as far as I have got them, in man-power. It is difficult to give the savings in money because there are promotions in the staff at the same time, and without a very considerable amount of investigation, which would take a great deal of time, it would not be possible to assess the economies.

    Fish (Cold Storage Facilities)
    Mr. Boothbyasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that the experiments carried out by the Torry Research Station in connection with the preservation of fish have now proved that the method of quick freezing is highly satisfactory; and whether he is taking any action to provide appropriate freezing plant and cold storage facilities at the various fishing ports.
    Colonel Llewellin: The results of this limited experiment have so far been very satisfactory. Arrangements are in hand for larger scale experiments in order to see whether this process promises to be commercially successful.
    Dr. Morgan: Will the Minister consider the advisability of placing his report in the Library?
    Colonel Llewellin: There is no one report. There were a number of experiments at the station in Aberdeen.
    Dr. Morgan: There must be a report on the experiments and we would like to know about them.

    Herring Industry
    Mr. Boothbyasked the Minister of Food whether, in fixing the maximum prices for herring during the forthcoming season, he will bear in mind the increased cost to the fishermen of fuel, nets, gear and of repairs to craft.
    Colonel Llewellin: Yes, Sir, both these and all other relevant considerations.
    Mr. Boothbyasked the Minister of Food whether he is taking any steps to ensure that an adequate supply of barrels will be available for this year's herring fishing.
    Colonel Llewellin: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Boothby: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman bear in mind that the total quantity of wood involved is really very small?
    Colonel Llewellin: Yes, Sir, and I hope that they will get all the wood this year. Arrangements have been made by which the Timber Control will provide in full all the timber required for this purpose.

    Wireless Talks
    Mr. Petherickasked the Minister of Food what payment is made by his Department to the B.B.C. for talks, etc., designed to help the work of that Department; and what was the cost involved during each of the last two years.
    Colonel Llewellin: None, Sir, now and up to now.

    Food (Labelling) Order
    Sir John Mellorasked the Minister of Food what steps he has taken to co-ordinate the new Food (Labelling) Order, No. 1447, with the Control of Paper Orders; and why manufacturers are required by the new Order to use labels, packages and advertisements, the printing and use of which are prohibited by existing Orders.
    Colonel Llewellin: Prior consultation took place between my Ministry and those responsible for the paper control and I am advised that the orders referred to do not conflict.
    Sir J. Mellor: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that many manufacturers believe that if they comply with one Order they will infringe the others; and will he arrange with the Minister of Supply that no prosecution can arise from any conflict between the Orders which may subsequently appear?
    Colonel Llewellin: All the prosecutions under the Food Order have to be approved by the headquarters in my Ministry and we have deferred the date of the coming into force of the Order so that all existing labels ought to be used up.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Sir J. Mellor: On Business, may I ask the Leader of the House whether, in the event of the two Orders being debated beyond 3 o'clock this afternoon, he will give an indication of what will be the latest hour at which the Second Reading of the Local Authorities Loans Bill will be commenced?
Mr. Eden: I would rather not make a definite statement but see how we get along. I would not ask the House to take the Second Reading at a very late hour.
Sir J. Mellor: May we have some assurance that this very important Bill will not be dealt with just at the last moment of the day?
Mr. Eden: Not only will it not be, but it cannot be. We have not suspended the Rule for the Sitting.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY [19th January]

    SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE OF CREDIT, 1944
    EXPENDITURE ARISING OUT OF THE WAR
    Resolution reported:
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,000,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, towards defraying the expenses which may be incurred during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, for general Navy, Army and Air services and supplies in so far as specific provision is not made therefor by Parliament; for securing the public safety, the defence of the realm, the maintenance of public order and the efficient prosecution of the war; for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community; for relief and rehabilitation in areas brought under the control of any of the United Nations; and generally for all expenses, beyond those provided for in the ordinary Grants of Parliament arising out of the existence of a state of war."
    Resolution agreed to.

  VOTE OF CREDIT, 1945.
  EXPENDITURE ARISING OUT OF THE WAR
  Resolution reported:
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,000,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, towards defraying the expenses which may be incurred during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, for general Navy, Army and Air services and supplies in so far as specific provision is not made therefor by Parliament; for securing the public safety, the defence of the realm, the maintenance of public order and the efficient prosecution of the war; for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community; for relief and rehabilitation in areas brought under the control of any of the United Nations; and generally for all expenses beyond those provided for in the ordinary Grants of Parliament arising out of the existence of a state of war."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  12.3 p.m.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): In commending this Vote to the House it will be appropriate that I should give hon. Members some little indication about the financial implications of this Vote, as well as of the Vote which has just been passed, and I hope I am right in assuming that it will be in Order for me to deal with the general situation to cover the ground of the two

  839
  Votes. The first Vote relates to the current financial year which ends on 31st March next, and represents our requirements, as far as they can be foreseen, for the remainder of this year.
  The second Vote, as hon. Members will understand, is to provide for expenditure in the opening months of the year beginning on 1st April. This latter Vote represents, in fact, little more than a sum on account of the requirements of the new financial year, and it has to be passed before the year opens in order that the money may be available on the 1st April. Accordingly that vote is put at the customary figure of £1,000,000,000 and, again according to custom and for the general convenience of the House, it is presented at the same time as the concluding Vote for the old year. On the present occasion, Mr. Speaker, it happens that the final Vote for the expiring financial year—perhaps I ought to say, what I hope will be the final Vote for the year—is also put at a figure of £1,000,000,000, but in this case the sum represents a definite estimate—as good an estimate as we can make—of probable requirements in a specified period.
  Hon. Members may recollect that when the last Vote was taken in October last, I stated that it would probably cover our expenditure for war purposes up to the end of this month. Events have borne out the forecast very closely, and it now appears likely that the resources made available from our existing Vote of Credit will be exhausted within a day or two of the end of this month. As I mentioned on a corresponding occasion about this time last year, it is exceptionally difficult at this stage in the financial year to estimate with any certainty what our requirements in the last two or three months of the year are likely to be. During recent weeks our daily expenditure has averaged a daily rate of approximately £14,250,000, of which about £12,500,000 a day has been on the fighting and supply Services. However, these are only averages spread over a period in which the actual daily and weekly expenditure has fluctuated very greatly, both by reason of heavy and irregular items of expenditure, and by the incidence of equally irregular receipts in connection with trading and similar services. In dealing with a strictly limited period such as that with which we are
  840
  now concerned, average rates of past expenditure cannot obviously be relied upon with complete confidence as a guide to future possibilities. Again, experience in previous years has shown that, apart altogether from the fluctuations to which I have referred, the average rate of expenditure itself rises in the final stages of the financial year.
  There is one further point which has to be taken into consideration at this stage. As I explained at this time last year, the expenditure chargeable to the accounts of a particular year does not necessarily agree exactly with the cash issued from the Exchequer during that year. In war conditions, many Departments have to keep large working balances spread over various remote parts of the world, and it inevitably occurs that, on the one hand, part of the cash issued from the Exchequer goes perhaps merely to augment some of those balances without affecting the chargeable expenditure on the year, while, on the other hand, part of the expenditure charged to the year's accounts may be defrayed out of similar balances in other quarters without affecting the cash drawn from the Exchequer in the particular year.
  In calculating the total amount of the Votes required in the year, therefore, it is essential to allow a fair margin to provide for all those various contingencies, and, after the most careful consideration of all the factors concerned, I come to the conclusion that I must ask the House for a further vote of £1,000,000,000, making a total of £5,250,000,000 for the current year.
  In the course of my Budget Statement last April, I said that if the war in Europe were to continue throughout the financial year, the Vote of Credit expenditure might be anything between £5,000,000,000 and £5,200,000,000. As hon. Members will appreciate from what I have just said, about the difficulties of estimating the requirements of the last few months of the year, it is rather early yet to say how nearly this expectation will be realised, but I think it will be equally clear from the amount of the Vote which I am now asking the House to agree, that I see no reason to expect any really serious divergence between the out-turn of the Exchequer accounts for the year, and the possible range of figures which I indicated in my Budget speech.
  12.11 p.m.
  Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: We have listened to the Chancellor of the Exchequer moving the Vote of Credit, and this House, which throughout the war has upheld and urged on the Government not to be sparing in the resources of the country in order to prosecute this war to a successful conclusion and to do so at the earliest possible opportunity, will support him to-day as it has done in times gone by. We realise that the amounts are very large; we recognise that they have been in the main necessary to carry the struggle to a successful and early conclusion; and we can only hope that though it seems unlikely now that the war will come to an end before the financial year, yet the year with which this particular Vote of Credit is concerned—the year 1st April, 1945, to 31st March, 1946—will see the termination of the war in Europe and some reduction, even if it may not be very large, in the outlay that this Vote of Credit covers.

  A.T.S. (OVERSEAS SERVICE)
  I do not propose to say more on that subject, not because it is not exceedingly important, but because the House is in general agreement on the issue, but I wish to take the opportunity that this Vote of Credit provides to raise a question on a decision which, I think I may say without offence, was sprung on the House of Commons on the day of the Adjournment before the Recess. I hope that the Secretary of State for War will be present because it is to this question that I am proposing to address myself with, I understand, the general agreement of all sections of all parties in this House—that of the proposed compulsory posting of members of the Auxiliary Territorial Service overseas.
  In my opinion, there is no question but that this does represent a fundamental change of policy, and, as such, surely it is essential that it should be discussed and debated in this House before final adoption by the Government. I am aware, of course, of the point to which the Secretary of State for War drew attention when he made that statement, that the W.R.N.S, already go abroad, but I would point out to him and to the House that the conditions of service of the W.R.N.S. are substantially different from those of the A.T.S., and therefore I still consider that in spite of the fact that the
  842
  W.R.N.S. have been going abroad for some considerable time, the present proposal is a fundamental departure, and as such, merits the careful consideration of this House.
  Before I come to the specific point, I would like to say a general word with regard to the service of women in the Armed Forces of the Crown. I should like to pose and to answer the general question why it is that in civilised countries women have not taken part in the combatant Services. Is it because women are incapable of bearing arms? I think the answer to that may be in doubt in the minds of some people, but it is undoubtedly "No." Women are capable of bearing arms, they have borne arms in previous wars, some of them are bearing arms in other countries to-day. Undoubtedly women could bear arms and many of them would be willing to do so. Is it because women are less courageous than men and less willing to face risks? In view of the fact that the women in the Services in this country have faced exceptional risks in some cases, in view of the marvellous service women have rendered in the Fire Service and in other ways, where they have taken great risks and shown very great courage, I do not think that that view can be maintained. Is it because they fall behind the men in patriotism and in a desire to secure the success of this country in the war? I do not think anyone will answer that question except in the negative.
  The real reason why civilised nations in general have refused to employ women in the combatant Services of their country is because it is not the wish of the country that women, who have a pre-eminent service to render, should be taken away from that and run risks of death and injury when that service is so essential to the life and to the continuation of the country.
  Mr. Wootton-Davies: May I interrupt my right hon. Friend?
  Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Well, I should not have thought it was necessary to do so, but if the hon. Member wishes—
  Mr. Wootton-Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that women who are manning anti-aircraft defences are engaged in combatant service?
  Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I leave that to the Secretary of State for War, but I should have thought that in a sense they were. I am talking of the problem in general, and I am just coming to the point I was making. I have dismissed three reasons which might be put forward and I want to come to the real reason: it is because the essential function of child-birth is so necessary to the preservation of the race that civilised nations have in the past almost invariably excluded women from the danger of the fighting combatant Services. In a lesser degree we take the same view in regard to the service which men render in other occupations. We exclude—I think we should have done it earlier to a greater extent—coalminers from going into the Services because we recognise that the getting of coal is essential to the continuance of the economic life of the country, and nations have chosen to exclude women because they have realised that for the preservation of the race women must not be allowed to face the dangers of war to the same extent as in the case of men.
  Of course I am not under the illusion that the proposal of the Secretary of State for War is to send women into the combatant Services overseas. I recognise that he is proposing to send them there for other duties. I am not in a position to judge the comparative danger to the women who are being sent overseas as against the women who are utilised at present in the Auxiliary Territorial Service in this country. The hon. Member who interrupted me just now pointed out one individual case where women were undoubtedly in a very dangerous combatant position, and I certainly accept that view, but those are individual cases and the House is well aware of what is going on in that respect. Whether the danger to which the Government propose to subject women in sending them overseas is greater or less is a matter which I cannot judge, but undoubtedly it is opening the door to an entirely new conception of the use of women in war.
  The first question I should like to put is: Is it really necessary to make this very considerable change? I think the House ought to demand from the Government more evidence than it has yet received on whether this step is really necessary. Is the Army really using its present resources to their full capacity, or
  844
  is there a waste of manpower, and is there not a good real of slack which could be taken up before these fresh reserves are tapped from a hitherto excluded class?
  Captain Cobb: The other Services, too.
  Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Undoubtedly. When I say "the Army" I mean all the Armed Services of the Crown, but the right hon. Gentleman who will no doubt reply can speak only on behalf of the Army, and it is in regard to the Army that this proposal has been made. Therefore, it is on that point that the House needs full assurance and some further facts and evidence. Undoubtedly this proposal is not merely one of general politics, it is a great human question. When we are dealing with great human questions many considerations arise, and different Members of the House will see the matter from different human points of view. I am speaking to-day for my party, but obviously I cannot represent exactly every member of the party. What I am going to say however does, I think, cover in the main the point of view of all who belong to my party. In principle, for the reasons which I think are generally realised, my party do not favour the principle of compulsory posting overseas in the case of women. They regard it as a step of a very serious character, and unless it is really necessary they do not favour it. It is not that we think that women are unwilling to go overseas. It is not that we think that they must be wrapped in cotton wool and kept from aiding in the larger patriotic services which are rendered to the country. It is that we do believe that in the main human considerations make it less desirable to send women abroad compulsorily than in the case of men.
  Now I come to the question of age. In the statement that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War made on 21st December he definitely promised that no woman should be sent overseas compulsorily who was under the age of 21, but I gathered that he was not proposing to make that the age for those who volunteer to go overseas. I want to call that point in question. I shall show later that a good many dangers are facing women in going overseas, and though some girls are willing to volunteer at an age below 21, it is, after all, a question

  845
  which this House should decide. When this war began this House, remembering the last war, very carefully laid down rules about the age at which men were to go overseas. The House was aware that a great many young boys would have willingly volunteered to go overseas below that age, but the House said that the perils and dangers of life overseas are such that they could not know what they were facing and that we should lay down a limit of age for them. I venture to put it to the right hon. Gentleman, that however willing young girls may be to go overseas, he should bear in mind that there is an age below which they should not go even voluntarily. For my part and in the view of most of those who sit on these benches the age of 21 is, we should have thought, an age which would have been a reasonable one to fix for overseas service in the case of women, quite apart from whether they go compulsorily or voluntarily.
  I have said that I am not in a position to judge the danger from enemy action to the young women who are to go overseas under this proposal, but we all realise that there are other dangers besides those arising from enemy action. I do not want to exaggerate and I certainly do not want to take a prudish view of these matters, but we have to face realities in this House, the one place where realities can be talked about quite openly and frankly. We all know that the conditions and the attitude taken overseas are not precisely the same as in this country. There is a good deal of laxity. I am not making any charge against the splendid fellows in our Army, but the conditions of war are such that certain restraints which prevail at home under normal conditions are somewhat relaxed when we get into foreign countries. I am well aware that the girls of to-day are able to take care of themselves in a way that they would not perhaps have been able to do in days gone by. We have some splendid young women. The great bulk of our young women in this country, in spite of a great many things that are said against them by people of a former generation who do not understand the vitality, the determination and the nobility of the young womanhood of our country, are able to take care of themselves in a way which people have not believed possible in days gone by. At the same time I do not think we can altogether shut our eyes to what I have already said about the greater laxity in matters of this
  846
  kind which prevails overseas. That is the reason why I think this House, without being prudish and without being unduly sensitive on the matter, should exercise its judgment and wisdom in dealing with this question. I have said enough in regard to that, and I will pass on to the next point.
  The Secretary of State for War, in his statement on 21st December, said a good deal—as far as he could in a short statement—about the conditions of welfare and position of the A.T.S. forces when they go overseas. I think the House is entitled to have a good deal more information about what he really intends to do, because the welfare of these girls is one with which we, as Members of Parliament, are very properly concerned, and when the time comes, if there have been conditions which are undesirable or unsuitable for women, it is to us that they themselves, or their parents, or their husbands, or their brothers will come to make very proper and desirable complaints, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can assure this House that such conditions will prevail that, if there are complaints, they will be very few and far between. But now is the time when we can get assurances from the Government as to what they are proposing to do, and we have got to be satisfied—indeed, it is our duty to demand to be satisfied—that the conditions shall be such as we shall approve.
  There is another point that applies equally to volunteers and, if the proposal to conscript women continues, will apply to those conscripted. As I have said, when we are dealing with women in this way we have great human considerations to take into account, and the matter of leave, important as it is to men, becomes of even greater importance when we are dealing with women, and my party feel that leave should be even more generously accorded to women who go overseas than it is accorded to men.
  There is another matter which bears on this question, though not perhaps directly part of it. There is a feeling among those who have been in touch with the A.T.S. that there is a greater gulf fixed between officers and privates among them than in the case of men. Let me not be misunderstood. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Hen-

  847
  derson) shakes his head, but I have not explained what I mean. I do not mean that there is less fraternising, or whatever it may be, or intercourse of the proper kind, between officers and the ranks. What I do mean is that there is less opportunity of promotion from the ranks in the case of the A.T.S. than is true of the men. There is a tendency, and there has been throughout, for the lower ranks of the A.T.S. to consist of people from the lower ranks of the social order in the country, and the officers to be almost exclusively persons from the higher ranks of society. Broadly speaking, the girls who come from the elementary schools have less chance of promotion than in the case of the men. That is the feeling which has been expressed, and it is one which does play a part when we are proposing to deal with the matter of sending women overseas on the same basis as men.
  Now we come to the question of conditions generally, and pay. I think it would be disastrous if it comes to be the idea that the Government are sending women overseas because they are cheaper soldiers than men. If women are to go overseas to replace men, if they are to take over duties behind the lines that men would otherwise perform, I think this claim that they can be paid at a lower rate than men, whatever grounds there may have been for it before—and I do not think they were very strong before—becomes weaker than ever, and the right hon. Gentleman, in answer to a question made after that statement, as I understood it, definitely turned down the suggestion that women going overseas to take part in the Army abroad should receive equal pay with the men. But I believe the time is coming when this House, willing as it is to allow women to be employed in all sorts of occupations, will refuse to allow the Government to get away with this idea of using women because they are cheap. Women's lives are, as I have already said, of equal, and in one respect, of superior importance to men for the purpose of the race, and it is getting contrary to the public opinion of the country, and to a large part of opinion in this House, for the Government to continue to employ women on the cheap. I would go further in this particular case and say that if the right hon. Gentleman wants women to
  848
  volunteer, wants to recruit these additional forces abroad by volunteers rather than by conscripted women, then I suggest to him that he should look to the pay and general conditions of the women in the Services and see whether—even if he is so hidebound that he cannot strike right through and institute equal pay—he can, at any rate, get nearer to it than he has done up till now.
  I will now sum up our point of view. We do not look with favour on this new proposal, not because we think women are not willing to serve abroad, not because we think they will not succeed in the task, but because we think, first of all, that the case for it has not been made out and, secondly, we are not satisfied that adequate safeguards will be provided. We shall listen, therefore, with great interest and attention to the case that the right hon. Gentleman makes out. Unless it is a very good case, we shall feel unwilling to accept this proposal without opposition. We desire that the age limit of volunteers, as well as of conscripted women, if conscription is to come about, shall not be as low as I think the right hon. Genteman has indicated before, and we think he should re-examine, with an open mind, the old shibboleth of "Unequal pay for women" in one of the essential Services of the country.
  12.41 p.m.
  Mrs. Cazalet Keir: I find it very difficult, indeed, to understand the reasons which have prompted some hon. Members to ask for this Debate. Having fairly close contacts with all the three women's Services, I am afraid I do not share many of the fears and apprehensions which have been so sincerely expressed by my right hon. Friend who has just spoken. Surely, there is only one overriding consideration to-day. How can both men and women most speedily help to win the war? When the Secretary of State said, in his very full statement before Christmas, that the A.T.S. would welcome the opportunity of making a still further vital contribution to the war effort, he was only saying what all of us who are in contact with that Service know to be true. When he added that it was a contribution on which will depend in no small degree the maintenance of Britain's war strength, I should have thought there was really nothing further to be said and that it completely answered the question which my right

  849
  hon. Friend, the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), put this morning.
  Had the House been asked to agree to some new policy I could have understood the wisdom of insisting on a Debate, but what are the facts? We all know that large numbers of women in the three Services have already volunteered and gone abroad. Although I have not been there myself, I am assured that the greatest possible care is taken of their welfare and I think hon. Members who are worried about the matter can feel reassured. In addition, it is only fair to say that W.R.N.S. officers have already been posted abroad compulsorily for the last two years. It has been a condition of service for the last 18 months that ratings should serve abroad. This is common knowledge, and it was done for exactly the same reason as the Secretary of State is now asking that A.T.S. can be posted abroad to-day, namely, that at that time there were not sufficient volunteers in the trades and categories necessary to fill those jobs that were required.
  As far as I can recollect, no one questioned that decision. It was not raised in the House of Commons. Of course, it may be said that the W.R.N.S. do not come under the Naval Discipline Act, but, after all, that is merely a legal quibble. They are exactly the same girls as in the other two Services, and, as hen. Members know, they are now serving all over the world, in India, East Africa, Gibraltar and the Mediterranean. I might add, that no distinction is made between the married and unmarried, as I understand my right hon. Friend said would be made in the case of A.T.S. Of course, if a married woman requests exemption for any good reason, it is invariably given. And, then, what about nurses? No one has ever raised the question of the nurses.
  Mrs. Hardie: May I point out to the hon. Member that nurses are not conscripted? Theirs is a voluntary service.
  Mrs. Keir: No, it is a condition of service in their case. I think my hon. Friend will find that is so, and that they can be sent anywhere. In fact they are. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War does not intend to send A.T.S. to Burma where nurses are serv-
  850
  ing. Nurses have also served at Singapore, at the Anzio beachhead, in Normandy, and many other places, and no fears have ever been expressed in this House about them. I think the main reason why members of the W.A.A.F. have not been posted compulsorily abroad, is that until last year only an infinitesimal number had been sent abroad and, therefore, they still had a large reserve of volunteers. My right hon. Friend explained very clearly that it was mainly signals personnel and clerks who are required to replace men for the fighting fronts abroad at the present time, and it is in those categories that volunteers are not forthcoming in large numbers. I think two things are quite clear. The first is that women are anxious and glad to go abroad.
  Mr. Reakes: I understood the hon. Lady to say that it was due to the fact that women had not volunteered in sufficient numbers that it had been necessary to resort to conscription. One of the statements she has made contradicts the other.
  Mrs. Keir: If the hon. Gentleman will only wait to hear what I have to say I may be able to answer him satisfactorily. Two things are quite clear. The first is that women are glad and anxious to go abroad, and I believe that doing it this way will be much fairer for the girls and will make it much easier for them if they are actually posted than if they had to make the decision for themselves, and risk worrying or hurting their parents. The only concern among the girls—and I am quite sure my right hon. Friend knows it—is in connection with compassionate posting. I feel quite certain that they will be dealt with very sympathetically in the same fair and understanding way which has proved so satisfactory in the W.R.N.S. However, I should be glad if the Minister would deal with this point when replying to the Debate.
  It is quite clear that the cause of this Debate cannot be concern for the safety of the girls, for men and women have stood shoulder to shoulder in all the dangers which have confronted this country during the past five years. I believe that, fundamentally, what is worrying Members is the question of the parents. Of course, parents are concerned and worried but, then, in these days who is not? I do not know many parents who, realising the urgent and national import-

  851
  ance of this matter, would wish to prevent their daughters from making their full Contribution towards helping to win this war in what we believe to be its final stages. Further, whether we like it or not, in war-time we all belong to the State, just as I hope and believe that in peacetime the State will once again belong to us. We know that the War Cabinet have agreed on the urgent necessity of the proposal under discussion. We know that the women themselves overwhelmingly support the proposal. [An HON. MEMBER: "Do not believe it."] Well, perhaps the hon. Member will get his chance of expressing his views later. It only remains for this House to show unqualified approval of a measure which will, undoubtedly, assist in the unrelenting prosecution of the war.
  12.51 p.m.
  Dr. Edith Summerskill: I believe that before any hon. Members take part in this Debate they should ask themselves whether they are being swayed by emotion or reason—
  Viscountess Astor: Do not ask such a question; it is embarrassing.
  Dr. Summerskill: The noble Lady has a one-track mind. If Members are being swayed by emotion, they should think carefully before they express their views. I remember male Members of the House being incensed some time ago when they heard that women over 45 were to be registered. We listened to the reasons given, and waited for the outcry in the country from the women who were to be registered but I, at any rate, did not have one letter. There was no outcry from the women: it came only from the male Members, who seemed to know more about women than women apparently know about themselves. So I do ask male Members, sincerely, to let us know something about our own sex, how our sex feels, thinks and reacts on this subject.
  I must say, however, that on many occasions the Secretary of State for War has failed to anticipate the mood of the House. His recent bold statement that the A.T.S. were to be sent abroad certainly showed a failure to understand the psychology of the House and of the parents of these girls. I am wondering
  852
  whether it was courage or ignorance which led him to make that statement without any prior consultation with the Committee which has been set up by a Government Department to discuss these things and advise Ministers about them—the Women's Consultative Committee. We have discussed every question of the direction and registration of women, and although I agree that I happen to be a member of that Committee, with all modesty I suggest that we could have given the Minister a few tips which might have prevented this Debate.
  We would have told him to take into account those powerful forces, prejudice and custom, which we all know play a big part in the life of women, and perhaps that would have made him walk a little more warily. I can quite appreciate what an outcry there was in the 19th century when Florence Nightingale decided to take nurses abroad. Listening to some of the male Members, as I have done, I felt it hard to realise that a century had passed since then. I realise now what opposition Florence Nightingale must have had to face, and what obscene innuendoes must have been bandied about. Fortunately, since the Secretary of State made his announcement on this subject, there has been an interval, and women of the country have been able to express their views on this matter. This interval has coincided with the announcement that the entry age of the A.T.S. was to be raised, and it has surprised us all to find that the A.T.S. has become more attractive than industry, although those now joining would be eligible to serve abroad. I would like some of the male Members to explain that. If these women objected to service abroad, why are they now volunteering to join the A.T.S.? How else can we find an index of the feeling of the country? I would like every male Member who speaks to-day, to tell us how many letters he has received on this matter. I have a fairly big post-bag from women and from all parts of the country I have received only four letters.
  Viscountess Astor: I have received only two.
  Dr. Summerskill: One letter was from an A.T.S. girl, who said she was engaged to a man in the Forces and who was afraid that, if she was sent away, they would not be able to get married. Two other letters were from men who were fond of girls in

  853
  the A.T.S., and who did not want them sent away. There was no question of principle in it; they just wanted to protect their own interests. The fourth came from a mother who protested in very strong terms and who told me that she had told her girl in no uncertain fashion that she was not to go abroad. If the mother told her girl in the terms in which she wrote to me, I am quite sure that the girl would not have dared to volunteer. I wonder how many other Members have had the same experience, or whether for some reason or other women have failed to write to Members on this subject.
  I want to remind the House that Members made little fuss when girls were sent from villages to towns 100 or 200 miles away and directed into work, sometimes dangerous work and sometimes night work, in vulnerable areas. I think the only real objections came from the Scottish Members, chiefly because they thought girls could work in Scotland without being sent to England. If that is accepted, I find it a little difficult to understand why these objections should have been raised because girls are to be sent 20 miles away or something like that across the English Channel. What is the proposal? We are not taking unhappy girls away from country villages. We are taking girls in the A.T.S., who have already formed friendships, who are well-clothed, well-fed and well cared for by responsible welfare officers and doctors. The Secretary of State said that they would be sent to comfortable quarters, well behind the lines, and would be provided with adequate hospital accommodation.
  I ask Members to compare the lot of these girls with the lot of the friendless girl who is directed away from her home into industry. No wonder the A.T.S. has proved popular during the last few weeks. These girls would much rather go with their friends than be alone in a strange town. When it comes to this curious hint of danger, is not a girl in a town exposed to more danger if she is friendless than a girl in the A.T.S., who has her friends and who has responsible women to advise her? Let us look at the danger from the physical point of view. There is far less danger involved than there is in working in London during air raids, and we have directed girls to work in the London area during the blitz.
  854
  To be logical, those who are opposing this measure should have opposed women being directed to vulnerable areas. The right hon. baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), when the question was raised last week, jumped up and asked the Secretary of State for assurances that these girls would be protected, and would be well behind the lines. I wonder if he asked the Bethnal Green council that the women's A.R.P. services should be protected, and not allowed to run into danger. I wonder if he made representations to the Minister of Labour, that no girls should be directed to Bethnal Green during the blitzes. If he did not, he is illogical and is to be suspected of being swayed by his emotions.
  Women's standards of morals are not determined by geographical boundaries. The weak and irresponsible girl will get into trouble in London, Bristol, Manchester or Wigan. If she is going to get into trouble, she will not wait until she gets to the other side of the Channel. Hon. Members must not think that the modern girl is unable to care for herself. She can protect herself. She has her head screwed on the right way. This is not the 19th century, when women had the vapours and were carried away by their emotions. You cannot live in the 20th century during a war of this kind, without having a real sense of values. I am a little surprised to hear so many Members express this interest in women's welfare. When we have had Debates on women's questions the House has been noticeably empty. Few of the male Members, who are now showing themselves champions of women, have ever, in my six years' experience, raised their voices on behalf of women. I hope that this may mark a new departure and that the interest aroused by this Debate will be sustained in the future when questions of the pay and conditions of women are discussed.
  My last point concerns the conditions of these girls overseas. Why is the Secretary of State going to recruit a cheap army of women? I find it difficult to understand how a Government of men can accept this proposition, as it stands. Surely, it must be distasteful to them to send women soldiers abroad at cheap rates. This is a historic occasion. It is the first time in history that women have been sent abroad to help to fight a war on foreign soil. Yet they are to be sent at cheap rates, at two-thirds the price of

  855
  a man, and we all know that the work of these women on the gun-sites demands a high degree of intelligence and skill. It cannot be argued that it is not combatant work. I am quite sure that the enemy would not scruple to bomb a gun-site because women were manning the guns.
  Probably the Secretary of State will advance all the old arguments, but they are not valid. He will say that women are not in the same danger, that the degree of danger does not determine the payment, and that they are non-combatants. The men working in the War Office in Whitehall are not in danger, but they are not paid at the same rate as the private in the front line. If he says that the women are non-combatant, I would remind him that the R.A.M.C. are non-combatant, but they are not paid at a cheaper rate than others for that reason, and the principle of pay at equal rates is accepted because women doctors refuse to be exploited by the Services. They are the only women who get the same rate as men, and they are non-combatant. The Minister of Labour at the beginning of the war felt that he could not direct women to other parts of the country at cheap rates and he made it clear that when a woman undertook a man's job, she would be paid at the same rate as a man. The U.S. and Russia pay men and women at equal rates. Why should we depart from that principle? Is it in accord with the principles of the Atlantic Charter that we should send our women abroad as a cheap army?
  1.7 p.m.
  Mrs. Adamson: There seems to be very great interest taken in this question, and rightly so. I do not think anyone, in or out of the House, would do anything to injure the war effort but I am bound to say that before I consent to this principle I require more information and guarantees than have been given by the Secretary of State up to the present. Women have done magnificently, and tribute has been paid to them from all sections of the community. They have risen nobly to the occasion, and to every obligation that has been imposed upon them. It is all very well to talk about the attitude of the parents. As a parent, I can appreciate their attitude in relation to the young people. I receive many letters on these questions, particularly from
  856
  parents and sweethearts, and from the girls themselves. If the young people are bursting to go overseas, why is not the rate of volunteers higher than that of which we have been told? If they are all so anxious to go, why has the right hon. Gentleman been unable to get the necessary quota without resorting to this proposal of conscription?
  Miss Rathbone: Because of the parents making a fuss about it.
  Mrs. Adamson: The hon. lady is not a mother and does not appreciate the position as well as those who are. The hon. Member for East Islington (Mrs. Keir) has a right to her own opinion but she should not belittle that of parents. We should realise that some parents have been up against it, as regards sons as well as daughters. I have a letter from a man in the ninth Army—
  The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): There is not a ninth Army.
  Mrs. Adamson: I will hand over the letter to the right hon. Gentleman. This man writes that he is 25 years of age, and has been in the Army for five years, three years and four months of which have been spent in the Middle East. He has been engaged to a young lady for 3½ years.
  Sir J. Grigg: May I withdraw what I said? From what the hon. Lady has said now, I can identify the unit.
  Mrs. Adamson: He says he has no possibility of getting home for perhaps 18 months and, if the young lady is sent overseas, she will have to do three years. What possibility is there, if he should come home, of re-union and marriage? He hopes that I, as representing him in Parliament, will voice the views of the men in the Services as well as the women. I have also a letter from parents 74 years of age, whose daughter wants her release from the A.T.S. Of course, there are girls who will want to go abroad. There are high-spirited, adventurous girls who will do their bit in any circumstances, and many of them, like the lads, want to see the world. We all take it for granted that there is a need for man-power. I should like an assurance that the manpower available at present is being used to the best advantage. My correspondent does not suggest that it is. More-

  857
  over, we hear about the call for another 250,000 men. I know a great many cases of young men of military age who have successfully dodged military service. I want to know why effective action has not been taken to implement the legislation that has gone through the House.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Fulham (Dr. Edith Summerskill)has raised the question of equality as far as pay, conditions and welfare are concerned. We have raised this question constantly ever since the war started. I had to put up a fight with the War Office years ago about women taking over work which had previously been done by men, while being treated as cheap labour and paid two-thirds of the normal rate. Why cannot we follow the example of America and be decent with our women about rates of pay? Why cannot we give them equality? In regard to conditions, reference has been made to the position of the W.R.N.S. I say candidly that I do not think the conditions in the A.T.S. come up to those in the W.R.N.S. The Admiralty has always had a better tradition, which came from the last war, with regard to the W.R.N.S. We know that they were able to have the cream of the women of this country, and had a long waiting-list, while the A.T.S. could hardly get volunteers. I put that down to the fine conditions and satisfactory position of the W.R.N.S. as compared to the A.T.S.
  I emphasise what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) has said in regard to promotion. I know it is a hard job for men who have been to elementary schools, to rise from the ranks and become officers. I know that from my own relatives and friends. It is a much harder thing for a young woman, no matter how clever she may be, who has been to an elementary school, to become an officer in the A.T.S. Some of the women Members of this House in the early days of the war raised, over and over again, questions about the officer class in the A.T.S. The welfare conditions are not respected in the A.T.S. as much as in the other Services. I would like an assurance that the personnel in the Services is being used to the best advantage before I agree to this proposal. I do not want anyone under 21 years of age to be sent abroad, and I do not want any woman who is
  858
  married or engaged to be married to be sent out. (Interruption.) I have read parts of a letter from a man who has been overseas all these years, who is engaged and wants to come back.
  Viscountess Astor: May I ask a question?
  Mrs. Adamson: No, the hon. Lady cannot ask anything, because she interrupts everybody. With regard to compassionate leave, about which my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mrs. Keir) spoke, if the War Office are not any more considerate with women, in regard to compassionate leave, than they are with the men, there will not be much hope of any substantial numbers of women getting leave. I can understand the fears that are expressed from all quarters about this question of sending women overseas, and I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman makes his statement to-day, he will treat the matter seriously and give replies to the points that have been raised, especially those of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh. We all hope and trust that we shall be able to bring this war to a victorious conclusion at the earliest possible moment and that there will be no necessity to send women overseas to other countries where, perhaps, there are dangers—not dangers of the battlefield; but where the moral standards do not perhaps compare favourably with those of this country.
  Viscountess Astor: May I ask a question? The hon. Lady is a sensible mother. Does she consider it sensible to suggest to the Secretary of State, that he should not send overseas women who are engaged to be married?
  Sir J. Grigg: I will deal with that point.
  Viscountess Astor: If that suggestion were adopted, would it not mean that there would be hundreds of people getting engaged so quickly, that there would be few women to go abroad?
  1.20 p.m.
  Colonel Sir Arthur Evans: I find myself much more in sympathy with the practical contribution to this Debate which we had from the hon. Lady the Member for West Fulham (Dr. Edith Summerskill) than with the

  859
  speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Dartford (Mrs. Adamson). I think that the misunderstandings which have arisen on this matter are due to the unfortunate handling of the question by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The way that this problem has been posed to the country has been very unfortunate. What happened? My right hon. Friend chose the last day before the House adjourned at Christmas to make an inadequate statement which gave no facilities for debate, and owing to the pressure of Parliamentary Business many of the questions which hon. Members desired to ask could not, unfortunately, be put. At the time of the statement, my right hon. Friend made no allusion to the fact that the military situation was such that it was necessary to raise an additional 250,000 men for the Army. He left that until after the House had adjourned, and announced it in a statement to the country, unrelated to the necessity for obtaining further personnel for the Auxiliary Territorial Service overseas. When the House resumed, I asked my right hon. Friend, in an effort to get at the facts of the problem, if he had formed any estimate of the percentage of volunteers required to meet his requirements.
  Sir J. Grigg: When did the hon. and gallant Gentleman ask that?
  Sir A. Evans: On the Tuesday when the House resumed, in the form of a supplementary question. My right hon. Friend did not tell me what I wanted to know but he did so yesterday in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones) and said that volunteers would meet only 25 per cent. of his requirements. I feel that if it had been possible for my right hon. Friend to come to the House and give a complete picture of the military requirements and conditions of service, it would have cleared up all these questions, which, after all, Members have a perfect right to pose, and large amount of the misunderstanding and anxiety which has existed would have been dispelled.
  To come down to the practical problem, there is not the slightest doubt about the valuable work which members of the A.T.S. can do behind the lines of an expeditionary force on the Continent and in other parts of the world. They enable men who are employed as clerks at bases,
  860
  and on lines of communication as well as the Signals Corps, to be replaced by women so that the men can be used for other military duties for which they are much better fitted. Hon. Members in all parts of the House have personal experience in this matter. As far as efficiency goes, I would venture to suggest that, in some cases, women clerks discharge their duties with a higher efficiency than men because they are able to bring to their duties a persistency and freedom from boredom which men employed on these duties often show.
  Let me deal with the question of danger, which was raised by the deputy Leader of the Labour Party. I think it is true to say to-day that the physical dangers abroad are less than they are at home. At the moment, fortunately, our Allies, as far as one can judge from newspaper reports, are not suffering attacks from V.2 bombs to which we are subjected, and the numbers of V.1's which are launched successfully against the bases of military operations on the Continent are not of a character to bring undue anxiety to parents in this country. Therefore, from the point of view of physical risks, these young girls and women are perhaps safer across the Channel than they are on this side. The moral danger, again, I think is less. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I say that advisedly, because at bases in this country, when these young girls get their leave they can enjoy it in circumstances of complete freedom and go where they like. In places abroad, the conditions do not allow of such complete freedom. The care which is taken for their welfare by officers and others is of a character which places temptation a little further from them than they would experience at home. On that ground alone I do not think that there is any abnormal danger.
  On the larger issue, I might be old-fashioned, but I rather like to feel that before we take the step of compulsorily sending women abroad, every effort should be made to see whether there are not sufficient volunteers to fill the bill. I do not mean volunteers solely from the A.T.S. I think that every young woman in the country, whether they are serving in the W.R.N.S., the W.A.A.F., the National Fire Service, or any other conscripted service, should be given the opportunity of transferring to the A.T.S.

  861
  if they feel so inclined in order to be allowed to volunteer for service overseas. If such steps were taken, my right hon. Friend's percentage of 25 would increase substantially. I find myself in complete sympathy with the views which have been expressed about extra pay for overseas service. I feel again that if such an inducement were held out to the women—an inducement which they have a right to ask—the percentage of volunteers would substantially increase.
  The only other question I want to raise concerns the feminine personnel of mixed formations of the anti-aircraft batteries of the Royal Artillery. My right hon. Friend has assured us that only volunteers will be accepted for that service. I think that, in general, that is true, but I have had one or two letters, which I will privately bring to my right hon. Friend's notice, in which it is alleged that in some cases the women are not volunteers at all. It is hinted that a parade sometimes takes place at which it is suggested that numbers 1 to 20 will volunteer. We are all aware that that kind of method has not been unknown in the past, but I am sure that if I bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend the cases that have been brought to my notice, for the accuracy of which I cannot vouch, my right hon. Friend will investigate them to assure himself that methods of which he would not approve are not being applied in order to produce the necessary numbers. On the general question, I take the view that in the last round of this fight and at the eleventh hour, the fine standard of service and sacrifice that has been shown by the women of this country will not falter, and that if they are given the opportunity they will place their services at the disposal of the nation at the time and in a place where their services are of the greatest use. I only ask my right hon. Friend to be generous, to give the opportunity to women in other services as well as the A.T.S., and to ask the Treasury to approve of an additional rate of pay for services overseas, which, after all, is their right and just reward.
  1.30 p.m.
  Colonel Thornton-Kemsley: Until my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cardiff South (Colonel Sir A. Evans) spoke, I confess I felt some trepidation about a mere male raising his voice on what is
  862
  really a ladies' day at Westminster. I want briefly to say one or two things in favour of the proposals which have been made by the Secretary of State for War. I am in favour of them for two reasons. The first is that I think they are in the interests of the Army itself. There is not the slightest doubt that if carried into effect, they will save man-power. It would not be true to say that for every A.T.S. that goes overseas one male is saved for another, and perhaps more combatant, task, but I think it is true that for every four A.T.S. who go overseas, something like three men will be released for another form of service.
  The second reason is that there is no doubt about the efficiency of the A.T.S. That has not been disputed by anybody. My hon. and gallant Friend has instanced the A.T.S. clerk. It has been my lot to serve as staff officer for nearly five years, most of the time at headquarters where A.T.S. are employed, and I know that the A.T.S. clerk—and I say it definitely—is infinitely preferable to the male clerk. I think A.T.S. drivers are better in many ways than male drivers, and the same is true of A.T.S. signallers. I can say nothing at first-hand about the work of A.T.S. girls on gun-sites, although I have seen their predictor work and I am told that it is of the highest order. There is no doubt that the efficiency of the Army overseas will be very greatly increased, if we are allowed to have a very large A.T.S. contingent.
  I am anxious that the Army of Occupation of Germany itself should contain a large A.T.S. component. If we insist, as I am sure we must, that there should be no fraternisation with the Germans, we must do three things. First, we must see that our men live in barracks and are not billeted among the civil population. Secondly, we must ensure that they get as generous as possible periods of home leave. Thirdly, we must see that there is a large A.T.S. element in the Army. I simply put that point of view because I believe very greatly in the natural and healthy companionship of young men and young women in the Services. It can work and it does work. I have seen it working at headquarters perfectly naturally. It is the right thing, and it should be encouraged, if the Army of Occupation overseas is to be happy and efficient.
  The second thing I want to say is that I believe in the proposals because I think

  863
  they are in accordance with the wishes of the girls themselves. There has been talk in this Debate about the apparent lack of volunteers, but I can say, from many questions I have put to many of these girls, that having to volunteer to go, forces many girls to say "No," because they do not want, as they say, to let their mothers down. In many cases, girls have said to me: "I would like to volunteer and I want to go, but my mother does not want me to." Many girls have said—and this is absolutely true—since this announcement was made, that they were delighted now, because there was now no choice about it, and they were going to be sent. It will be in accordance with their wishes and they will have no objection whatever.
  In all Home Commands there is a very excellent way of obtaining the opinions of auxiliaries. I think I can speak for two Home Commands and perhaps for others. They hold regular conferences for the A.T.S., at which senior officers of the A.T.S., very often down to junior commanders, are present, and problems concerning the administration and welfare of the A.T.S. are discussed. I know about those conferences because on more than one occasion I have been asked to talk there upon certain aspects of matters concerning the A.T.S. that have arisen in this House. I know that if there were any strong body of opinion in the A.T.S. against these proposals, it would, by now, have been brought to light. I have not the slightest doubt about that. My information is that it has not come to light at all. On the contrary, the experience is that these proposals have been very well received indeed, and that they have commanded much greater support in the A.T.S. itself.
  Some of the objections which have been raised in the Debate have been answered by other hon. Members. One was about the difference between serving in this country and serving overseas. I cannot see that there is anything illiberal or degenerate in the decision of the Canadian Government, or of the United States Government, to send girls to this country, and there is nothing illiberal or degenerate about our sending our girls a comparatively few miles across the seas. Is it because there is an element of compulsion? I fail to see the difference
  864
  between compelling a Cornish girl to serve in Inverness, and compelling an Essex girl to serve in Holland. Is it because a sea-crossing is involved? Have Britons come to fear the waves? Or is it because there is an element of risk or of danger in it? If that is suggested, ask any girl who served on the gun-sites through the blitz, or any girl who is serving now in the South of England, about that, and see what their answer is. I do not think there is any great or fundamental objection to this proposal. I do not believe there is a widespread objection at all. I support it because I believe it is in the interests of the Service and of the girls themselves and that it will be welcomed by a large majority of that loyal, efficient and splendid branch of the Service.
  1.38 p.m.
  Colonel Viscount Suirdale: I will not attempt to follow the line taken by my hon. and gallant Friend, who has just made such an admirable speech. He knows so much more about this subject than I do. I must confess to a certain personal reluctance to sending a lot of young girls overseas on a compulsory basis, if it can reasonably be avoided. It seems to me that the crux of the whole matter was brought out by the hon. Lady the Member for East Islington (Mrs. Cazalet Keir), who said that if it was absolutely necessary to the efficiency of the Army that these girls should be sent overseas, it was right that they should go. If it was not necessary, then it would be wrong.
  I, therefore, feel that if my right hon. Friend can say, as he already has said in the House, that it is essential, then basically it is right that these proposals should go through. I agree however with the hon. Lady the Member for Dartford (Mrs. Adamson) that the House is entitled to further explanations and assurances before we agree to the proposal, because the fact remains that parents are very worried. I have had a certain amount of correspondence with my constituents on this subject and I have interviewed a number of people. The curious thing about it is that they were all parents. I have not been approached by any members of the A.T.S. whatsoever on the subject That leads me to suspect that very likely the

  865
  A.T.S. do not mind very much whether they go or not. They cannot be very keen about it or a few more of the types such as clerks would have volunteered, but I suspect that they do not feel very strongly against it. It is the parents who are worried, and it would help a great deal if my right hon. Friend could give them assurances which would remove certain misunderstandings which I believe to exist.
  One point which is made in some of the correspondence which I have received is in relation to danger. People write and say: "Our men are being sacrificed; is it really necessary that we should sacrifice our daughters as well?" If my right hon. Friend could explain as clearly as possible exactly what dangers these young women will face and what they are in for I believe he could show that it is no more dangerous to be in France or Italy than it is to be in London at the present time. Another point frequently brought to my attention is the moral danger, referred to by the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence). Parents have come to me and said "We are worried about what may happen to our daughters when they go overseas." They seem to feel that the girls will be unreasonably exposed, as it were, to the importunities of the licentious soldier. Hon. Members know that that is not true. I have seen members of the A.T.S. and of other women's Services overseas, and I know from personal knowledge that it is not true. If my right hon. Friend will explain exactly how these girls will be looked after when they get overseas he may be able to convince those parents, who are now worried about the matter, that the danger to young women of being led astray on the Continent of Europe is no greater than it is in this country.
  There is one other point that I would like to bring forward, and it is on the question of hard cases. The Regulations covering hard cases among men are very narrow. Hon. Members know that they have to make a very definite and overwhelming case in order to persuade my right hon. Friend to let a man out on compassionate grounds. I feel that it might be possible to draft rather broader Regulations to cover cases of hardship among the A.T.S. I hope that my right hon. Friend can make all these points clear, and so do quite a lot to remove
  866
  misunderstanding, which I believe now exists.
  1.43 p.m.
  Viscountess Astor: This is a most interesting Debate and I wish there were more Members here to listen to it. The sad and tragic part of it is to see the Labour Party, which is supposed to be solidly behind equality of the sexes, putting up the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), the man who went to gaol to get women votes, to speak against sending our daughters abroad. The hon. Lady the Member for West Fulham (Dr. Edith Summerskill) made a most magnificent speech. I do not see how the men behind her can possibly vote against her, if they vote with their heads, instead of with their emotions. She said something which was not quite fair to the men. She said she had been in this House for six years and had not seen men fighting for the welfare of women. If she had been in this House for 25 years, she would look upon the men in this Parliament as almost angels from heaven, compared with men who were here in those days. Many men are as deeply interested in the welfare of women as we are. I think that was the only unfair thing she said. I want to get after the Labour Party.
  Mr. James Griffiths: Too late.
  Viscountess Astor: I have always known they were humbugs—equality, serving their brother men, taking the profit motive out of industry and all that nonsense. They have to answer for it to-day. Here is the party opposite taking this attitude during a war, when there is a Government in which are their best men, and when the Government have made this decision, which I am perfectly certain no one wanted to make, unless it was absolutely necessary. I do not believe that people would send girls abroad unless it was necessary; I am certain they would not. There is no reason why they should. They know it is a military necessity, and after all we cannot at this time merely say that the parents do not like it. I do not like my sons going abroad. I dislike it very much. I am very apprehensive when I hear that one of my boys is jumping out of an aeroplane at night, with only a string between him and eternity. That is uncomfortable, but he has to do it, and it is no use talking about parents

  867
  not wanting their daughters to go abroad. No parents want their children to go abroad and fight, but we know they have to do it, that it is a necessity, and we have to face it.
  A good argument was advanced by an hon. Member who spoke earlier and who said he was certain that a good many of these girls would not volunteer because of their parents, because it might be awkward for them, because they love their parents and do not want to put them, so to speak, "on the spot." But after all the House cannot listen to timorous parents, and there are very few timorous parents. There are many heartbroken parents in this country. Every day one can see tragedies. Only a week ago a woman at Plymouth walked into the river and was drowned. The reason was that she had four boys serving abroad, and the fifth was going on a secret mission. She could not stand the strain. I can understand that; it is tragic; but do not tell us that because parents object to their children going abroad we are not going to send our women. Take the United States. Their women are over here, and they have had to travel thousands of miles to serve abroad. The more I listen to the arguments against this step, the more I am convinced there has only been one real objection against it, and I am astonished that we should have required this Debate.
  On the aspect of physical danger, I can tell the House a very amusing story. A W.V.S. woman had to drive to a hospital a man who was to give a blood transfusion. This was during the bombing. On the way to the hospital the bombing was fierce, and the man became so nervous and fidgety that when they reached the hospital they had to take the blood of the woman driver instead of that of the man. I have always known that women have physical courage, and that they have moral courage. As many women as men have physical courage, just as a great many more women than men have moral principles. As for being nervous about their morals, the House knows that people do respect the uniform, and people abroad respect it. I was talking to one of the girls from America who has been out on the Devonshire moors in her Red Cross uniform. She said she had been out among men the whole time. She said "It is a most extraordinary thing to find the respect
  868
  men have for the uniform." That is perfectly true. I think that a great many of these girls would be much safer in uniform abroad, than they would be in ordinary clothes here at home. Some girls who are at home have a very difficult time. The hon. Member for West Fulham said that if a girl wants to get into trouble, she will not wait to go abroad to do it. I hope the House will take a sane view of this question and will not be led off by an agitation. I do not know who is agitating. It is like that agitation over Greece. We come to the House and hear that the country is roused, but one does not hear anything in the country about it.
  Mr. Butcher: In regard to the noble Lady's reference to the Greek situation, the position of "The Times" was not as clear as it might have been.
  Viscountess Astor: I wish I owned "The Times." I am not ashamed of "The Times." I am very proud to be connected with it. I do not always agree with "The Times" or the "Observer." I do not always agree with my husband. I really would like to know from whence this agitation comes. I want to call the bluff of the Labour Party.
  Miss Rathbone: Is the Noble Lady really doubtful about where the agitation comes from? It comes from a number of quite naturally agitated mothers and fathers who do not want their darling girls to run into danger. If the Conscription Act for men had been put to the mothers of the country, does she think it would have been carried? People will run risks for themselves but not for their wives, sons and daughters if they can get out of it.
  Viscountess Astor: I do not agree with the hon. Lady. I think the average mother of this country has been absolutely marvellous. The morale of the women of Britain has astonished every visitor from abroad. Hon. Members may have had letters about this matter, but I should not have thought they were enough to cause a Debate in the House of Commons.
  It is much better to have conscription. If that is done, the officers can choose which women should be sent abroad. They can choose the best. If service abroad is voluntary, we shall get the wildest, the most courageous, the most daring women, and they may not be the

  869
  kind of women needed to do a particular job. So far as the women are concerned, it is far better to have compulsion. I have great faith in these officers of the A.T.S. I have faith in the A.T.S. organisation. Some of the insinuations that are made are very unfair, such as "Of course, if you come from a council school you cannot get promotion." We all know it is difficult, that some people who may have a certificate, or who may have come from Oxford with the highest honours, have not the qualities to make an officer. They may be highly educated, well-born and with money in the bank, but they may not have the qualities that go to make an officer. I see the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) in his place. Let him go to Russia and see what they do with officers there. The ordinary soldier is not allowed to look an officer in the eye—he has to look above.
  Mr. Pritt: Will the noble Lady say from where she gets this drivelling nonsense?
  Viscountess Astor: I get it from men who have been there. The hon. and learned Member has not been there lately. I hope he will go to Russia some day and stay there. In regard to this insinuation that in the A.T.S. there is favouritism and so on, I only want to say that I am more and more struck with the high quality of the officers they have got, and the intense interest they have in the welfare of their girls. We ought to be proud of them. Women have been for four and a half years in most cases doing a magnificent job. Do not let class prejudice creep into everything. We shall never get complete equality; we do not even get it in the Labour Party.
  I put one point to the Secretary of State. I hope he will reconsider the present attitude towards equal pay. I want equal pay. I will not say anything about compassionate leave. I know that, as far as possible, one gets it, but in dealing with large numbers, one has to look very strictly into the question of compassionate leave. One wants to grant it when it is right, but very often a case is not what it appears to be on the surface. I have complete faith in the Secretary of State to do what is right in that matter. I am truly shocked at the attitude of people who at this time think that because the
  870
  girls are to be sent abroad, they are to be put in more physical or moral danger than they have been in at home. Some women can "take it" and some women cannot, but at this late stage, and after the wonderful work women have done, I think it is positively insulting to make a plea that they should not go abroad to serve their country, as the men are doing. I do not believe that the men are making that plea. I think it is just a few "nervous nannies."
  Mr. Reakes: I ask the Noble Lady to withdraw that expression.
  Viscountess Astor: I will certainly withdraw it, but how does the hon. Member know I was saying it about him?
  1.58 p.m.
  Mr. Reakes: I will not detain the House long. I find it very painful to disagree with the Noble Lady who has just spoken, but I must challenge her statement that the men of to-day are angels, and compare favourably with the men of 50 years ago. Why are we considering this subject to-day, the question of sending women overseas compulsorily? Because we have had men in public life for the last 25 years through whose criminal complacency and lack of courage in telling the truth we are now in the sixth year of war. I say that is the crux of the whole thing. I have been most interested in the speeches to-day, but I am sorry they have been tinged too much with the sex outlook of men versus women and women versus men. To justify this step we have to look at it from the point of view of the State and the prosecution of the war to a successful conclusion. There is only one thing for us to do, that is, to demand and secure from the Secretary of State for War a definite statement, that can be microscopically examined, as to why this procedure is necessary at this late stage of the war.
  It came as a shock and surprise to the people of this country to hear that women were to be sent overseas on a compulsory basis, because they had been lulled into a false sense of security by the standing down of the Home Guard. I have experienced that in every part of the country in which I have been since that order was issued. It was said "Oh the war is over". I am not one of the fools who thought that. It gave people the

  871
  impression that the man-power problem had eased and that there was no necessity for the Home Guard to remain in existence, and they were stood down against their own wishes. If a vote of the Home Guard had been taken, they would never have agreed to it. The men who are now out, idling, want to be back in uniform, doing their duty to the country. That is the atmosphere which was created. It will take a lot of dispelling. The Home Guard would have been of tremendous value at this time, when we are told that the manpower problem is so critical. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will deal with that aspect of the matter. I am now going to make a sensible suggestion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I do not care twopence for those sarcastic "Hear, hears." Up to now I have spoken sound commonsense, and no doubt I have stunned party politicians by my opening remarks. This question of sending women overseas on a compulsory basis should be postponed for three months, to enable the War Minister and the Minister of Labour, together, to see whether it is not possible to find more men to do the duties of other men who could be released to go overseas. I will take the War Minister, at any time he likes, around the West End of London and other parts, and show him able-bodied young men doing duties in luxury hotels and night clubs and in a hundred and one other places, who could be put into uniform.
  Miss Ward: How does the hon. Member know they are able-bodied?
  Mr. Reakes: Even if they are not, they are stronger than the frail young women who are to be sent overseas. There are thousands of men who could be released from clerical duties, in order to ease the man-power situation, if it is as serious as has been made out. I hope that if ultimately it is considered necessary to send these women overseas on a compulsory basis—and if the necessity is proved beyond argument, I shall be the first to support it—some better arrangements will be made for their welfare, particularly in regard to compassionate leave and transfer back to this country for duty when domestic and other circumstances merit it. In the case of illness, when there is a danger of an operation, I hope they will be returned to this country, so that,
  872
  if they have to die, they shall die on their native soil. It is not so serious a matter for a man to die overseas, but parents would grieve if their daughters, who had been sent overseas, were buried on the Continent. That is a sentimental point of view, but, believe me, the parents will support it up to the hilt.
  2.4 p.m.
  Lady Apsley: This Debate appears to me to be rather archaic. Not only has magnificent service been given already overseas by the women in the Forces from this country, but many hon. Members appear to have forgotten that in the last war the women in the Q.M.A.A.C., who were the A.T.S. of the last war, served in a very distinguished way, and very satisfactorily from their point of view, in France, under very similar conditions to those which my right hon. Friend is proposing this time. In my view, the whole trouble, which has made this Debate necessary in these busy days, is the way the notification was put over. There I associate myself with the hon. Member who said that there is a great deal of ignorance about what the women are going to. I suggest that my right hon. Friend should arrange for someone from the Adjutant-General's Department of the War Office and, better still, for the Director of the A.T.S. to broadcast to the nation, and say what these girls are going to do. From misty oblivion we should come down to earth, and remember that there are two things only which have enabled us to win the war. The first is the magnificent quality of our men, fighting on sea, on land, and in the air; and the second is the woman-power which came forward to fill the gaps, to enable those men to go overseas, and to get to close grips with a cruel and ruthless enemy. Without those two things no effort of the home front, no amount of leadership, of political unity, and so forth, would have been of the slightest avail. The ignorance to which I have referred exists, in the first place, among the parents, who in my view should be assured of the conditions to which their daughters are going.
  I would like to have assurances from my right hon. Friend on four main subjects. The first is that they will go to suitable quarters, selected and passed by senior officers in the Service, to whom the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor)

  873
  has referred, and whose judgment, knowledge, and self-sacrifice cannot be too highly praised by this House. Secondly, I would like to know that there will be sufficient capable medical advisers, and, thirdly, that members of the Service will go under the supervision of reliable senior officers, not below the rank of senior commander, and that they will go in sufficiently large parties. It was the small isolated groups, of three, four, five, and six, that caused so much trouble in the early days of the war. Then, I should like to know that their welfare and wellbeing would be as well looked after overseas as it is at home. I feel that if these four points receive suitable attention, the parents will have no grounds for putting any sort of spoke in the wheel of these girls going overseas.
  I cannot help referring to the Report which was made to this House in August, 1942, on the amenities and welfare conditions of the three Women's Services. Paragraph 48 pointed out that the Women's Services only existed in virtue of the national need, and that if women were told that they had a national duty to fulfil, rather than the fulfilment of their own wishes, subsequent discontent might be diminished. I think that the women serving to-day in the A.T.S., the great majority of whom, in my view, are ready and willing to go if they are required, should be told plainly that this is their duty. The things that worry them are whether there will be compassionate postings home, and whether there will be an opportunity for leave on the grounds of marriage or proposed marriage. I hope that these two things will be made plain, and the answers will be in the affirmative. The British Army has always been our best ambassador abroad, and I believe that the members of the A.T.S. will be equally good ambassadresses from this country to the Continent I wish them luck and a speedy return.
  2.12 p.m.
  Mrs. Hardie: As one of the few Members who opposed the conscription of women originally, I would like to call attention to the reasons given by the Prime Minister for asking for that Measure to go through. He stated then, in his usual picturesque language, that two vultures hung over us. One was the threat of invasion, and the other was the
  874
  bombing which we were being subjected to. He based his argument on the need for women for home defence. Home defence was the whole reason for mobilising the women in national service. There was no suggestion that they would ever be required to go abroad and fight in other countries. Another point he made—on which I agreed with him—was that women taking part in combatant service would continue to do so voluntarily. He said that it was a matter of quality of temperament, of feeling capable of doing this form of duty, and that every woman must judge of this for herself. That reference was to taking part in combatant service, but my view is that the same argument applies to women going abroad. Some hon. Members, women Members particularly, have been very sure that they knew exactly how the women in the Services felt about this. I do not pretend to have any such knowledge. I can tell you what some girls think about it, and what some parents think about it, but I cannot speak for all of them. But I take it that if the girls were very anxious to go overseas, as some women Members make out they are, they would volunteer. No one can make me believe that women of 21 and over are so much under the control of their parents, especially if the women have been in the Services for some time, that they would not do what they themselves think right. I would like to think that woung women were as much under the control of their parents as some Members make out.
  I am glad that the Secretary of State for War has not managed to slip this measure through without some discussion in the House, as he did the reduction of the age for boys. We are becoming very used to this method. When the Government want to get a Measure through the House, and know that it is not popular, they make all kinds of promises. Promises were made that the age for boys would not be less than 19. Promises were made that women would not be compelled to take part in combatant service. I regret very much that the same action was not taken when the age for sending boys away was reduced to 18½, although we were told that they would have a longer training to toughen them up for the war. Whenever it suited the Government, they came along and the Secretary of State got it through by putting up a "stooge" questioner, who, however, never turned

  875
  up to ask the Question, so that the answer appeared as a written reply.
  Another point I want to make is this. We were in a bad position when this particular Measure was put through. What is the position to-day? What about all the Frenchmen, Belgians, Dutch and all the rest? What about these people doing a little bit? Why should our girls be compelled to go over there and face all the horrors? Reference was made to the position of nurses. I have never claimed that it was any worse for a woman to be killed than a man, and I have never been the kind of feminist that looks only at one side of the position. Nurses always have gone abroad and faced dangers, and they have never been conscripted. That is a woman's job; but war is not a woman's job and never was. I do not know what the modern man is coming to, when we have to send women out to face the horrors of trench life, for that is what it amounts to. It is all very well for the Secretary of State to say that they will be behind the front line, but where is "behind the front line" in a modern war? The position changes from day to day. Again, nurses are under international control. Every soldier, whether enemy or Allied, respects a nurse, who goes out to nurse friend and foe alike because it is a woman's job.
  I am not one who believes all the atrocity stories we are told. Some of the refugees who came to this country told stories about the Germans that did not make sense, and I never believed that kind of story. I never believed that all men are evil, and that women were running great risks. But there are certain risks which women run in countries in which there is a state of lawlessnes. Is such a country a place to send our young women? When this particular Measure was put through to conscript women for the Services, the feeling in the Forces was so strongly against it that the Government did not dare to take the married women, because it was feared by the men in the Forces that there was a possibility of their wives being sent away. Now it is the girls of from 17 to 20 who are to be sent away—the women who have no one to speak for them.
  It is said that the young women will be treated in a proper way. If you take the conditions regarding tuberculosis, and the
  876
  increase of this disease among young women to-day, you will find whether they are being treated in a proper way. It has gone up by leaps and bounds, and it is among women of between 18 and 25 that there has been the biggest increase. Now the Services are asking the young women to do more than they are fit to do, and are asking that they should be sent away to other countries. That was the Prime Minister's excuse for bringing it in. Any woman will defend her home, as any man will, but it is very different when you send her away to other countries. Why is it that this nation is expected to do so much in mobilising its resources? If you take America, there is conscription only up to 26, and no man or woman has been directed into industry. What about the Paris cafés being raided, because people were having such a good time? What about the Frenchmen and the Dutch and all the rest? There are also a good many refugees here—able-bodied men, who could do something.
  I have been surprised at the way that some of the women Members of this House, particularly the older women, have offered up the young women as a kind of bloody sacrifice. The hon. Lady the Member for the Combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone) was one of the first, and she is an old woman like myself. She said she believed that the young women would be glad to go and die for their country. It is all right dying when you are 70, but it is a different thing to suffer and die between 17 and 21. It is a nice new world that some of these women picture for the rising generation of women, who now not only have to produce innumerable children but fight wars as well.
  I hope this proposal will be withdrawn and that the matter will be kept on a voluntary basis. Some women, it may be, would like this work, because they like adventure and do not care about hardships. If so, the road is open for them to volunteer. To say that young women shall be compelled to go away to foreign lands and face danger and discomfort is, I think, asking too much, and I hope the Government will think again before putting such a scheme into force.
  2.21 p.m.
  Colonel Greenwell (The Hartlepools): I think it is fair to say that the compulsory system has always been anathema to the British temperament, but, in this war,

  877
  we have had to take some weapons out of the enemy's armoury. We have come to realise the inevitability of compulsory systems of service, but we are fighting for certain definite principles, and I submit to the House that one of those principles is a proper place, as we conceive it, in the world for women. I cannot see that the time has yet arrived in this country when we should have to resort to compulsion for our women. I cordially endorse the arguments put forward by the hon. Lady opposite, in suggesting that it is not right for the Secretary of State to ask that this proposal should go through until we are quite satisfied in this country that, at least, some of our Allies are on something like a similar footing. We know that, in America, there is no compulsion for women, and that, as far as their men-folk are concerned, they are far away from having anything like the degree of compulsion that has been necessary in this country during the war. I feel that, until somebody else takes a certain amount of the weight off our shoulders, we should not be expected to go as far as this.
  I would also draw the attention of the House to the fact that there are, to some of us, signs that the Minister might well apply a fine-tooth comb to good effect, in combing out some of our staffs—not just officers, but other ranks as well—employed in certain parts of the world. I have a considerable suspicion myself that there is a very large number of people in Cairo on military duties in the Army, and that the number might be considerably lessened without seriously impairing our war effort. I feel, too, that our military mission in America is getting rather top-heavy in these days. These fruitful fields might, I think, be considered before we get to such a degree of urgency as entails sending our girls, against their will, to foreign parts of the world. I hope that, before the Government asks the House to express its opinion, they will take further thought.
  2.25 p.m.
  Mr. Hubert Beaumont: Perhaps the most characteristic feature of this Debate has been the difference of opinion amongst the women Members of the House on this question. I refer particularly to the speech of the Noble Lady the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor). I would dearly love to follow her characteristic digressions and
  878
  irrelevances, but I refrain, except to ask her this. The Noble Lady has ventured to assert in the House that this Debate is nothing but a Labour Party bluff. I do not know what the Noble Lady means, and I doubt whether she knows herself, but, surely, this House is entitled, if it is entitled to anything at all, to consider matters that affect the youth of this country. This House is surely the guardian of youth and anything that affects youth is, rightly, brought up in the House. I am extremely surprised—I will give way in a moment; I knew I should have to—that the Noble Lady, who stands up as a defender of women's rights, should object to this question being debated in the House.
  Viscountess Astor: The hon. Member has answered his question when he said that I stand up for women's rights. We have put women into compulsory military service and, having done that, we have no right to say that they, any more than men, should be excluded from doing what is right. The hon. Member knows perfectly well that the Labour Party has talked for years about equality among the sexes. This is an instance which shows that they do not mean it.
  Mr. Beaumont: That is a characteristic, simple answer from the Noble Lady. What I suggest the Noble Lady said was that this Debate was unnecessary; in other words, that there is no occasion for the future lives of women in the Services to be discussed in the House. We say that there is. It may be that what is said will not alter the decision of the War Cabinet, but the point remains that the House expresses its determination to discuss these matters before they become the law of the land and are put into practice.
  Viscountess Astor: Is the hon. Member going to divide the House?
  Mr. Beaumont: I have not yet said which side I am on. I wish the Noble Lady would not jump to these hasty conclusions, which generally lead her down the wrong lane. I have suggested that this House is the guardian of youth, and it is quite right that we should have a say on what is to be done with regard to young men and women. I well remember that in the Debates on the Military Service Act, we were discussing for many, long hours what should be the military age, and it was decided then that,

  879
  although young men should be called up at 18, they should not be sent overseas until they were 19. The House registered its opinion, and I am sure the Secretary of State will raise no objection to having this Debate, because the right hon. Gentleman will be able to appreciate what the feelings of the country are.
  Another extraordinary thing emanating from the lady Members is this. They have claimed that women of the A.T.S. desire to go abroad, that they are anxious to go abroad. If that be so, how is it that there are not sufficient volunteers and why the necessity for compulsion? The two things do not tally. I am not opposed, personally, to their going abroad, provided certain safeguards are entered into, on a voluntary basis, but I am, at the moment, opposed to their going abroad on a compulsory basis. So far, I have yet to have it proved to me that it is really necessary that they should go, and that is the important factor. It may be said that they should get their parents' consent, and you may have the strange and anomalous position of the parents dissenting and the member of the A.T.S. wanting to go, in which case one might ask who should decide—the father or the member of the A.T.S.? My answer in that case would be that, given certain safeguards and conditions, the member of the A.T.S. should decide, inasmuch as it would be she who would be endangering herself and taking on risks. We must make the stipulation and condition that only those young women over a certain age shall be allowed to volunteer. I understand that it is agreed that the age for compulsion shall not be below 21—I am willing to be corrected if that is incorrect—but surely, if there are reasons why no one under 21 should be compelled to go, just the same reasons apply whether they volunteer or not. There should be a definite age limit below which neither volunteer nor conscript should be sent.
  There is, too, the question of the conditions of service. It is being asked that these girls shall be sent overseas and I notice that it is suggested by one hon. Member that they might be nearer home just across the Channel, than they are at the present time in this country. It is true, but it is not suggested that they are only going to be sent nearer home. Once they can be compulsorily conscripted for
  880
  foreign service, I presume they can be sent almost everywhere, with the possible exception of India and Burma.
  Mr. Loftus: Why the exception? Will there be an exception?
  Mr. Beaumont: I do not know why there should be an exception in respect of Burma and India, except because of the climatic conditions. It means that Once these women are sent compulsorily they can be sent to almost any part of the globe and they will not be near their homes. There is this difference between a man and a woman. If anything goes wrong at home, if there is sickness at home, if there is distress in the family, it the mother is taken ill, it is not the son who is called back, but the daughter, who may be in one of the Services. Therefore, the home ties of members of the women's Services are much closer and stronger. Further, the justification for compassionate posting is much greater in the case of the women's Services. That being so, that factor has to be considered. It may be said that this is an agitation. In fact, the Noble Lady the Member for Sutton said it was an agitation. How she knows that, I do not know. I want to be perfectly frank. As far as my constituency is concerned, I have only had one letter of protest about it. Therefore it seems to us that there is no organised opposition, because had there been an organised opposition, one would have received a larger number of letters. The Noble Lady is interested in matters affecting temperance and licensing—
  Viscountess Astor: Very much.
  Mr. Beaumont: —with the result that we get on these matters organised protests from those societies all over the country. I assume that the Noble Lady approves of that sort of organisation. Is there anything wrong in people who are concerned about the interests of their children, organising themselves and trying to bring pressure to bear on their Member of Parliament?
  Viscountess Astor: The hon. Member has just said that they have not done so.
  Mr. Beaumont: I said that they had not, but the Noble Lady said it was an agitation. Even if that were true, it is unlikely that there would be anything wrong at all. Even if the Noble Lady were right, there would be no harm in

  881
  organising opposition, particularly when it was something affecting the lives and well-being of their children. But it is not an organised opposition. It is quite understandable that parents do not want their girls to go overseas. They have had five years of war, they may have had several years of separation from their husbands and sons, and even their girls may have been separated from them and they do not want them to go further away. We should go very carefully into the matter and until it is definitely proven that the journey of the A.T.S. to foreign countries is really necessary, no further steps should be taken to enforce it in a compulsory manner.
  One realises that it is not a question of danger. The women folk in this country have faced danger equal to the dangers of the battlefield. In the Battle of Britain and when the blitz was on, these girls in the A.T.S. and the other Services rendered magnificent and yeoman service. They flinched not against any dangers; they were courageous even unto death. Therefore, one is not going to suggest that it is a question of danger. It is not necessarily a question of the moral and physical aspect. There is a difference between the three Services. Possibly owing to the greater number of women in the A.T.S., there is less chance of promotion for the women of the A.T.S. than there may be in some of the other Services. I think I am right in saying that in the W.R.N.S. it has been a compulsory service, and one can understand that, because traditionally the Navy is an overseas Service and a service away from these Isles. That being so, one can appreciate that one who joins the W.R.N.S. has joined recognising the possibility—and the very likelihood—of their being sent overseas. In the W.A.A.F. it is a voluntary service, and I hope that it will be a voluntary service in the A.T.S.
  There are two or three questions I would like to put to the Secretary of State for War reinforcing those of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence). I think that the majority of the Members of this House are, in principle, opposed to compulsion.
  Viscountess Astor: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Beaumont: It goes against the grain and we resort to compulsion only when it becomes absolutely necessary and when
  882
  it is proved that it is necessary. We should ask of the Secretary of State for War—if he is determined to carry on with the imposing of compulsion on members of the A.T.S.—that he shall justify the position he takes up. Is there no other way of meeting the needs of the Services? It has been suggested by Members who have much more knowledge than I, that in some of the military establishments, both at home and abroad, a certain weeding-out might be done, possibly to the advantage of the organisation, thus reducing the necessity for the employment of women abroad. We ask that no woman should be sent overseas compulsorily under the age of 21. Let 21 be the age of volunteers. We ask further that adequate provision should be made for the welfare of the A.T.S. who go abroad, from the point of view of medical services, and that there should be a good opportunity granted for leave. We ask that where women take on the duties and obligations of men, they should have the pay which the men receive for performing those duties. Here is a chance for the Secretary of State for War to stand high above his fellow-Ministers. He could introduce, in a very simple way, equal pay for equal work by seeing that the women who go overseas shall be paid the men's wage for the men's work they have to do. There might be a decided inducement to go overseas because of that.
  I think that this has been a worthwhile Debate and that this House has lived up to its reputation of being concerned with the well-being of the people of this country. I am certain that the House will want real and adequate reasons why women should be compelled to go abroad, and should be given to understand what arrangements will be made for their security, comfort and health. Also, the House should be given the assurance by the Secretary of State for War that, as soon as the need disappears, opportunity shall be given to those who volunteer to return to this country. We want to restore as speedily as we can after the war the home life of this country of ours. If we are to recreate the home life in this country, it will be essential that the young women who have done so gallantly and valiantly in the past and who are working and serving their country at the present time shall be afforded an early opportunity of

  883
  returning home so that we can rebuild the homes of Britain.
  2.41 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): There have been inherent in this Debate throughout two dilemmas for the Government spokesman. The first is that, in justifying the need for the compulsory posting of A.T.S. overseas, if one pitched the need too high, one would of necessity rather decry the willingness of the A.T.S. to go, and cast some sort of aspersion on a very fine Service. That dilemma has been present in the Debate. Another dilemma will appear in the course of my remarks when, in trying to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the House the need for this particular measure, it will be impossible, for very obvious reasons, to give anything more than a selection of figures. Therefore those dilemmas will be present throughout my remarks. I imagine in this country the dilemma of Scylla and Charybdis is one of the fundamental conditions of political life.
  The right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) is extremely anxious that I should establish the need for this measure and I will do my best to do so. The essential fact in establishing this need is that the Army, even less than other Services, have never been given the allotment of man-power that has been asked for; never have we had more than a dividend on the allotments thought to be necessary. But, in spite of all that, we have throughout the last years, since the offensive on the part of the Allies started, put all our efforts into creating the maximum impact on the enemy, whether it be in Italy, in Burma or in Western Europe; and, of course, the question arose particularly in Western Europe, because that looked like being the final effort which would have a decisive effect on the war.
  Therefore, we put everything we possibly could into the forefront of the battle, and we knew that we would have great difficulty in keeping the battle formations going, in replacing casualties, or meeting other needs which might arise in the course of the battle, and so it has turned out. The Prime Minister announced on 22nd December that we were going to make an extra 250,000 men available to nourish and sustain the troops in contact with the
  884
  enemy, and as was pointed out in that announcement, that 250,000 will come from three sources: first, from a call-up from civil life; secondly, from transfers from the other Services, which must naturally, having regard to the needs of the other Services, be the smallest element of the three in this finding of the additional men; and third, there was to be a rearrangement of the known resources in the Army.
  I do not need to say—and it would be very wrong for me to give any such impression—that the rearrangement of our known resources has not just occurred to us for the first time. It is a process which has been going on for months and years. In fact, I do not know any question on which I have been more chivvied or have done more chivvying, and even if at any time my own zeal for trying to make the most of our man-power showed signs of flagging, there was always the Prime Minister to make quite certain that it got another wind. I believe there was a factor even more potent than the Prime Minister in making quite certain that we should do our utmost to avoid any waste of our resources, and that was that on no occasion have we ever been given the full allotment for which we have asked in order to maintain our Forces.
  The hon. and gallant Member for The Hartlepools (Colonel Greenwell) talked about Cairo and the United States of America, and people sitting around and wasting time. The Middle East theatre goes a good way beyond Cairo, and Cairo has been, to my knowledge, combed. Special missions have been sent out, committees have sat, replacements have been stopped or restricted from time to time, and there is a very severe scrutiny going on there now to find men for this quarter of a million. As regards missions to the United States, every testimony I get from the United States, and from a very senior American general in the last few days, is that our missions in the United States are extremely overworked. The lamentable example of Field-Marshal Dill is only one of the instances which demonstrate that. Some other Members talked as if there were a large number of men in this country. I think the expression was "dodging the draft." Well, it is not the business of the Service Departments to produce the draft, it is the business of the Minister of Labour, and I have never yet heard it seriously

  885
  suggested that he had not been extraordinarily successful in mobilising the man-power of this country. By universal consent and to the admiration of our Allies overseas, it is admitted that the degree of mobilisation of the men and women in this country has been higher than anything ever seen before, and higher than in any other country.
  Now let me come to the actual process of finding the allotment towards the 250,000 which has to be found by a rearrangement of our own resources. Of course, one fruitful source is by a reduction, a reduction which the strategic situation permits, of our static defences. We have taken away from the static defences, and retrained for other occupations, tens of thousands of men in the last year or 18 months. Then we shall have to accept, in the places where it hurts least, a lower standard of administration. The third way is the one which has led to our Debate to-day, and that is by moving men in static occupations, or line-of-communication occupations overseas further forward, and replacing them by A.T.S.
  This is where I have to be a little vague in my figures, for obvious reasons. The replacements in this last category are in number about one-fifth of the whole contribution to be made by the Army towards this quarter of a million. At present, only one in 30 of our A.T.S. are serving overseas, and all of those are volunteers. We shall, in order to produce the results I have described, have to multiply this number four or five times. At this period of time the known and identifiable possibilities of replacements are more than twice the number now overseas. Towards these known possibilities the volunteers available will cover in number only one quarter of the vacancies, and these are not all in the right place; I mean that in some trades or some occupations there are more volunteers than we require, in others there is a great deficiency, so the effective number of volunteers is probably less than a quarter. It is, I submit, clear that the possibility of finding volunteers from A.T.S. to replace soldiers who can be moved into a more active occupation is far below what is required of us if we are to continue to nourish and maintain the fighting troops.
  So much for the need. Now let me come to some of the objections and misgivings which have been urged during
  886
  the course of the Debate. The right hon. Member for East Edinburgh stated that this course represented a fundamental change of policy. A change of practice, yes, but to speak of a fundamental change of policy goes, I think, too far. I certainly consulted the Minister of Labour on this, as well as all the rest of my colleagues, and in particular I consulted him on the question of Parliamentary pledges to the country. The Minister of Labour assured me that there was no Parliamentary pledge against this, and I have now looked up what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour said in the Debate on the original Bill. He made it quite clear that under the Bill women could be posted overseas. He made that quite clear. He said he expected that volunteers would be available in such numbers that the question would not arise. For a number of years it has not arisen, and from time to time announcements of current practice have been made in this House that women in the A.T.S. are not being sent overseas unless they volunteer. The practice in other Services may have differed, but I do not want to go into that.
  Mr. Kirkwood: The right hon. Gentleman said that he went to the Minister of Labour. He went to the Minister of Labour because he thought, quite naturally, that he should have objected.
  Sir J. Grigg: Not in the slightest degree—to make quite certain. The assertion had been made when the matter was mooted inside domestic circles. I naturally said, "I cannot find any Parliamentary pledge which prohibits this. I will naturally take every precaution and go to those who, if pledges have been given, would have given them."
  Mr. A. Bevan: When the Government come to the House for general powers of that sort, that is the precise form in which it always occurs—the powers are presented to the House on the ground that they will not be used in certain directions, and two or three years later they say that no specific pledge was given that they would not be used and, therefore, it is taken as permission to do that.
  Sir J. Grigg: I do not think the hon. Member could have been listening to what I said.
  Mr. Bevan: I was.
  Sir J. Grigg: Well, he did not pay much attention to it, because it is quite clear that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour said at the time that under that Bill there was power to post women overseas compulsorily.
  Mr. Bevan: Really the right hon. Gentleman just asks for trouble. Of course, the Parliamentary Secretary said that, but he also gave the assurance that it was not intended to use the powers in that direction, as the right hon. Gentleman himself said in his statement, and that is why general powers are usually conferred upon the Government without proscriptions against their use in certain directions.
  Sir J. Grigg: It was not an assurance at all; it was a statement that he thought there would be enough volunteers for the present.
  Mr. Bevan: Exactly.
  Sir J. Grigg: That is not an assurance, that is a statement of fact, and the statements made later on were statements of current practice. No assurance was given which prohibits this and, in any case, the Minister of Labour is a perfectly good defender of his own conscience. Now let me come to some of the arguments addressed to the House as regards the practice and position in other countries. The practice in other countries I gave in reply to a Question in this House on Tuesday.
  Viscountess Astor: What about Russia?
  Sir J. Grigg: I do not know about Russia, but it is quite clear that several of the Allied Nations have power to post A.T.S. overseas, and I understand that the only one which has exercised that power is the United States. But all this springs, and the argument was specifically raised in this House, from the argument that we have done enough, let somebody else do their share. I must say that I do not think that arguments based on comparative sacrifices are going to get us very far. It is quite true that we alone of the major Allies have been in this war from the very beginning, and, moreover, we shall have to be in the war after the war in Europe has ended, but I submit that that is no reason for taking in the sail now. Surely, it is for all to do their
  888
  utmost to bring the horrible business to an end as quickly as possible. Sacrifices, and disinterested sacrifices, will be one of our main claims to consideration in the post-war world, and, besides, I think it is a little late for us now, after having given so much, to begin thinking of the "nicely calculated less or more."
  Then the suggestion has appeared, not very openly, it is quite true, but it has been made, that really this going abroad and carrying out war duties in a theatre is not a woman's job. But they have done at home precisely the same thing as they will do abroad, and what indeed have they not done since the war started? The women of this country are not on their trial, and there is almost nothing that they cannot do, as I think the hon. Lady the Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summer-skill) pointed out.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Pay them accordingly—the wage for the job.
  Sir J. Grigg: The next point I would like to come to is the question of the conditions abroad—whether the conditions will be suitable or not—and if the House will bear with me, I would like first to read what I actually said in the original announcement and then comment on it a little:
  "Apart from those who volunteer, no member of the A.T.S. will be posted overseas to any theatre unless she is 21 years of age or over, unmarried and medically fit for service abroad.
  "Accommodation for A.T.S. auxiliaries overseas will be of the best possible standard. In winter they will be accommodated in huts or billets; in the summer months tents may be used, but certainly not in winter. The Government recognise the need for welfare amenities and recreational facilities on a generous scale and the utmost care will be used to make every possible provision. The A.T.S. overseas will receive the same medical attention as at home, including their own women doctors, and accommodation in their own special wards. They will be eligible for leave on exactly the same terms as soldiers.
  "The work which A.T.S. overseas will be doing will be similar to that which they have performed, with such success, at home; in particular, signal personnel and clerks are required. The majority will be employed at the larger headquarters and installations in the rearward areas."
  They might, of course, I went on to add, at any time come under the same kind of bombardment as in London—I think rather less frequently and rather less probably, but there is always the possibility, if they are in large cities.

  889
  "Here their work will be invaluable. The mixed batteries of anti-aircraft artillery and other associated formations will be strictly confined to volunteers."
  Perhaps I should interrupt there and say to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Cardiff (Sir A. Evans) that I shall be perfectly ready to look into the cases which he said he has had sent to him, but has not yet been able to check, of allegations that the volunteering was pretty near compulsion. I will certainly look into those cases. It is certainly against all intention. The statement continued:
  "and will, of course, be employed in any circumstances or stations in which the High Command may require them."—[0FFICIAL REPORT, 21st December, 1944; Vol. 406, c. 1957.]
  I would now like to make one or two comments on the points raised during the Debate. The right hon. Member for East Edinburgh said: "Will you raise the age for volunteers from 19 to 21?" I would not like to give an assurance on that now because, for a long time a great many of the A.T.S. coming into the Army have been under the age of 21. We were only getting young women, but I have not the slightest doubt that the girls who volunteered to go overseas were between the ages of 19 and 21. Therefore, I would like to examine that point and see what is involved. I should be very glad to answer a question on the matter after I have had an opportunity of considering it. If it can be done without undoing with one hand what we are doing with the other by posting women compulsorily abroad. I would be very ready to consider the matter, but the dominating consideration must be, I think, the effort to strengthen the impact of our Forces on the enemy, and not merely to make changes which keep it stationary, or even reduce it.
  On the question of the moral dangers, raised by the right hon. Gentleman for East Edinburgh, I, personally, thought that he was a little unnecessarily fearful, and I do not believe that there is any doubt of the truth of what the hon. Lady the Member for West Fulham said, that these girls have their heads screwed on pretty well. But, in any case, what are their officers for?
  Mr. A. Bevan: That is why they are not volunteering.
  Sir J. Grigg: I will come to that in due season. In regard to welfare, I was asked how I intended to assure myself that what I have promised here will be carried out. The answer is that we do not intend to send girls abroad until senior A.T.S. officers have satisfied themselves that conditions are suitable, and that the assurances I have given to the House are, in fact, fulfilled in advance. I have not the slightest doubt that if there is any uncertainty in the matter I shall hear about it before they go. Then, as a reassurance, there are some thousands of A.T.S. in the Middle East, and I believe it is true to say that nobody in my office has had a single complaint about the welfare arrangements there. I do not remember a single one, and my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary confirms me in that experience.
  Let me come to other questions which were asked and misgivings which were expressed. I was asked what would be the effect on compassionate posting. I now give an absolutely explicit assurance that A.T.S. who have been already posted in this country near their homes on compassionate grounds will not be compulsorily posted abroad, and that compassionate posting will hold good as long as the circumstances remain. As regards exemption from posting abroad on compassionate grounds, provision will certainly be made for that. Instructions are already on their way, and I think there is no doubt whatever that that exemption will have to be given, and will be given, on terms very much more lenient than can be given for men. On that, too, I will give an assurance to the House.
  Then we come to the third class of case—of A.T.S. serving abroad—when compassionate circumstances arise after they have been posted abroad. Certainly, we will make provisions for that class of case, and I think—in fact, I am quite clear about it—that the rather severe standards that have to be adopted for men must be alleviated in the case of these girls posted compulsorily abroad. Then the question was asked—and it shows how easily misunderstandings can arise—"What is going to happen if a soldier who comes home on leave under the Python scheme, finds his wife has been posted to the Far East?" That shows how easy it is for rumours to get abroad and be disseminated. Wives are not being com-

  891
  pulsorily posted anywhere, and nobody is being posted compulsorily to the Far East. Another question asked was whether A.T.S. abroad will be given leave to come home and get married when their fiancés come back. The answer to that is certainly, a far as possible. Marriage leave will certainly be admissible from Europe and from overseas theatres in so far as shipping and leave quotas permit, which should not lead to any serious delay in the achieving of the ideal state. Then the question was raised—I have forgotten by whom—of sending the girls abroad together.
  Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the question of leave, I would remind him that I did ask that A.T.S. should be given a rather greater opportunity of leave, generally, than is given to the men. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will answer that.
  Sir J. Grigg: I will certainly look into that. The tendency will always be that way. I said in my original statement, "On the same terms." Whether they should have a greater proportion of quotas, and so achieve the result which the right hon. Gentleman wants, is a matter I would like to consider, and certainly will consider.
  I was asked whether friends will be sent together, and whether units can be sent as one draft. In the case of the A.T.S., where the unit organisation is much looser than in the case of the male Services, the opportunity for sending units abroad is not as great as it is in the male part of the Army. All I can say, therefore, about units is that we will do our best where the circumstances are suitable. If units are sent overseas, a certain number of them, of course, will be ineligible for posting and their places have to be filled with other people. They have to be filled with individuals, and not by truncating another unit. But, subject to this, we have every intention of making every effort to keep units together, and friends together, so that they are not starting a completely new existence without friends when they get abroad.
  Then we come to the question of equal pay. I think the right hon. Gentleman must expect to get the answer from me that I am not in a position to give him any assurance on what is, after all, a
  892
  matter of general Government policy, on which there has been a great deal of discussion, and on which, I think I am right in saying, there is a Royal Commission now sitting.
  Mr. Reakes: The business of the Royal Commission does not embrace a matter of this sort.
  Sir J. Grigg: Of course it does. In any event, a parallel principle holds. The hon. Member for West Fulham was a little out in her facts. The whole object of this is to produce the maximum effect on the enemy and not to get a cheap overseas army. There is no idea of saving money by sending A.T.S. abroad. I think I must point out that in a good many spheres the replacements are not on a head per head basis. It takes more women to replace a certain number of men. Anyhow, the question is far beyond my competence.
  Dr. Summerskill: How many women does it take to replace one male clerical worker?
  Sir J. Grigg: I was referring to certain other spheres. If the hon. Lady likes to put down a Question about it I will give an answer, but it varies in accordance with the particular form of unit. Undoubtedly, in some kinds of work replacement is not on a head for head basis.
  Mr. Kirkwood: The Minister said this involves more Departments than his own. Can he tell the House what is his own point of view, and how he will vote in the Cabinet?
  Sir J. Grigg: I am certainly going to resist my hon. Friend's blandishments I have no voice but what the Cabinet gives me in these matters.
  Mr. Reakes: But the right hon. Gentleman has a mind of his own, I hope.
  Sir J. Grigg: Yes, and a very good one. Now I come to a question which has been touched on a great deal in the House, namely, the attitude of women towards this question. A number of women Members have spoken here to-day, and although there has not been unanimity I think there has been a preponderance of view in favour of the proposals I have put forward. Even the hon. Member for West Fulham gave noble support although, of course, not without a due

  893
  allowance of back-handers on side issues. A very important point, which has not been satisfactorily dealt with, is the attitude of the A.T.S. themselves. I think the nearest approach to what I regard as the truth of this matter was contained in the speech by my Noble Friend the Member for Central Bristol (Lady Apsley). It is very important to get this clear, for the reasons I mentioned in my opening sentences. It is true that the figures of volunteers are, at first sight, disappointing, but they are not as disappointing as they look, because there are all sorts of people who were not eligible to volunteer. In some trades at the time volunteers were called for there were no vacancies or requirements abroad. I think the main reason for the attitude of the girls is that they are, and regard themselves as, a part of the Army and think it is only fair that in this matter they should be dealt with as the men are dealt with and go where they are told that they are wanted. It is not fair to place on them the onus of distributing among themselves the harder work, the extra burden. That is a view with which I greatly sympathise.
  Mrs. Hardie: What proof has the right hon. Gentleman?
  Sir J. Grigg: No proof, because there cannot be proof of mass opinion, but I have a great deal of justification. The House does not suppose that I have not taken all the steps open to me to find out what the girls are thinking. I am told by those best qualified to judge that the overwhelming majority of girls are in favour of being told to go where they are wanted.
  Mrs. Hardie: How could any woman want to be told to go somewhere?
  Sir J. Grigg: I have known it done. [An HON. MEMBER: "With what success?"] Varying. Now perhaps I may sum up by saying that I think I have demonstrated that this measure is very much needed to nourish and sustain the fighting troops who are in contact with the enemy. I have assured the House to the best of my ability that these girls will be well looked after. May I repeat that nobody under 21, no married member of the A.T.S., nobody who is not found to be fit after a proper medical examination, nobody who is not recommended by an officer not below the rank of senior commander, will be sent overseas?
  Mr. MacLaren: Will that be a male officer?
  Mr. R. C. Morrison: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that those who volunteered some months ago to go abroad, and who are being kept back on the ground that their work here is said to be essential, will not be prevented from going unless they are doing most exceptional work and must be kept back?
  Sir J. Grigg: I am glad that the hon. Member has raised that point, because I heard yesterday for the first time that there was a feeling among girls who wanted to go overseas that they were being kept back on inadequate grounds. I will take up that matter, because it is quite wrong that that should be so. In reply to the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren), nobody will go abroad who is not recommended by an A.T.S. officer not below the rank of senior commander. Further, nobody will go to Burma or West Africa, and only volunteers will go to India to which the assurances I have given about pre-satisfaction of conditions before they go in any numbers will apply. For operational roles, certainly only volunteers will go. I am a little sensitive about there being a certain amount of justification for the suggestions which have been made, that if I had not produced this announcement on the day we rose for the Christmas Recess a certain amount of misunderstanding and heat might have been avoided. I am quite conscious of that. I did my best to get the announcement ready before then, and I apologise to the House for having to produce it at that unseasonable time. But the House will remember that the need to take steps to nourish and sustain our Forces in the field at that time was very serious, and that must be my excuse. So I hope that with the further explanations and assurances I have given the House will agree that we might go ahead with this policy.
  3.18 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War on the most conciliatory speech I have ever heard him make? For reasons which I will not enter into now he has gained a reputation for being a combative, aggressive and most unaccommodating speaker.

  895
  To-day, I congratulate him on his change of attitude, which I hope he will continue to practise when making announcements and speeches to the House. In all quarters of the House I think there was a feeling of dismay at the statement he made on the day the House rose for the Christmas Recess, and I think that feeling was justified because I shared it myself. We asked for a Debate and we have had it. I think the Minister has done his best to reply to questions and has given assurances, which are there to be carried out. I might have been speaking in different terms if my right hon. Friend had not polished up his manners in the House—
  Viscountess Astor: Oh, really!
  Mr. Greenwood: Yes, if my right hon. Friend had not honestly tried, as I believe he has to-day, to satisfy the doubts of the House I might have had to speak in harsher terms. Assurances having been given, it will be the duty of the House to keep my right hon. Friend up to those assurances. We are marking a development of policy about which people on all sides are uneasy. If it is necessary for the prosecution of the war, something must be done, but it must be done in circumstances and conditions which commend themselves to the people of the country and to the House. I am prepared to let it go now, warning the right hon. Gentleman that we shall keep a watchful eye on him in the near future.
  3.21 p.m.
  Mr. A. Bevan: May I ask the Secretary of State if it is his intention to proceed now with the sending of A.T.S. overseas after the discussion that we have had?
  Sir J. Grigg: The answer to that is, "Yes."
  Mr. Bevan: So we are to assume that a discussion of this sort which has taken place on a Vote of Credit—against which it is practically impossible for us to vote—is to be regarded as a proper discharge of the promise given before Christmas, to have the matter discussed before action was taken? I should have thought it would be very much wiser if we had an opportunity of considering what the right hon. Gentleman has said, before action is taken. I am very reluctant to say this because I was hoping the right hon. Gentleman would listen to what I had to
  896
  say, consider it, and, if he took serious exception to it, make representations through the usual channels so that we could have the discussion again in a form which might enable us to express our views. Instead of that, we have a number of general assurances given and now we are to assume that these blandishments from the Front Bench satisfy our case. I consider it Parliamentary humbug.
  Viscountess Astor: I consider this Parliamentary humbug. I have sat here—
  Mr. Bevan: Nothing equals the willingness with which the Noble Lady puts burdens on her own sisters.
  Viscountess Astor: It is worse than anything I have ever done in my life.
  Mr. Bevan: The Noble Lady gabbles and gabbles all the time. We really ought to have some protection, Sir. I see no reason at all why we should have a ragbag mind of that sort inflicted on the House. Before Christmas we had a discussion when a number of serious questions were addressed to the Secretary of State. One was whether A.T.S. under 21 were going to be conscripted for overseas service. We are told to-day that they are.
  Sir J. Grigg: I gave an explicit assurance that no one under 21 would be sent abroad. The hon. Member had not been in the House for a second until my speech, and he did not even listen to that.
  Viscountess Astor: I have sat here throughout the Debate and the hon. Member comes in, never having heard a word of it, and then he calls me names.
  Mr. Bevan: I listened to the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I withdraw the word "conscripted"—sent overseas under 21. That is one assurance that we wanted and we have not got it. We have heard from various sources that volunteering is not volunteering in the proper sense of the term, that pressure is being brought to bear upon them to volunteer. Many under 21 will have succumbed to that pressure and will have been sent overseas. I am not satisfied by the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that he will look into the matter. We have had assurances of that sort over and over again, and they mean nothing at all. Furthermore, there is this aspect of the matter which the House ought to consider. The

  897
  reason why A.T.S. are required overseas is that the Government have dispersed our Forces in so many theatres of war and followed so many adventures that they now find themselves short of troops in France. I am not going to accept the assurances that have been given. The next assurance that we wanted was as to rates of pay. The Secretary of State says that equal rates of pay for equal work is a matter under consideration by a statutory Commission. There is nothing to prevent the Government altering the Royal Warrant, so as to give equal rates of pay for women in the Services. Before the Royal Commission reports and the Government act upon the Report, if they ever do, the whole thing will be completed. In the next place I am not satisfied with the statements made by lady Members, although they speak for their own sex.
  Viscountess Astor: The hon. Member was not here to listen.
  Mr. Bevan: I know what has been said. My experience of public life goes to show that women can never be trusted to protect the interests of women. The last person to be trusted is a woman, when it comes to talking about the interests of her own sex, especially the feminists.
  Mrs. Keir: If the hon. Member could see my postbag, he would find that what he is saying is absolutely contrary to the fact.
  Dr. Edith Summerskill: Will my hon. Friend tell the House how men in the past have protected the interests of women? If they had done so we should not now in 1945 be pleading for equal pay.
  Mr. Bevan: I would not regard the Noble Lady opposite as a great pleader for the interests of women, especially working-class women.
  Viscountess Astor: That is personal and very rude.
  Mr. Bevan: I should have thought that, if lady Members desired to protect the interests of the A.T.S., they would say, "If you wish the A.T.S. to go overseas in present circumstances, make their conditions so attractive that they will volunteer to go." Now, by their interruptions, they are helping to provide the Government with cheap women for overseas ser-
  898
  vice. I do not consider, despite what the right hon. Gentleman has said, that the state of the country makes it necessary for us to make this final concession. I do not consider that my right hon. Friend has made out that case. We would be ready on this side of the House to make further concessions, if that case had been proved. Has it been proved? All we had from the right hon. Gentleman is that he requires more men and women for France. He knows as well as I do that, if the disposition of the troops at the service of the Government had been intelligently directed, he would not need to come to the House for these further powers. He knows that very well. I make this charge, that when the announcement was made to the House before Christmas that 250,000 additional men were required for the Forces and that A.T.S. would be conscripted for overseas service, the Minister of Labour had not been consulted.
  Sir J. Grigg: I am in a position to deny that absolutely. It is within my own personal knowledge, and what the hon. Gentleman says is absolutely inaccurate.
  Mr. Bevan: I repeat it—
  Sir J. Grigg: And I repeat my denial.
  Mr. Bevan: I repeat what I have said. The announcement was not made to the House first; it was made, as a matter of fact, to the Press first. I make the categorical statement here in the House that the decision to call up another 250,000 more men and to send A.T.S. overseas was a decision announced by the Prime Minister without consultation with the Minister of Labour.
  Sir J. Grigg: I am in a position to know that that is inaccurate, because I was present when the Prime Minister read over the announcement to the Minister of Labour.
  Mr. Bevan: Now we are having it. The Minister is now condemned out of his own mouth. He says that the Prime Minister read the announcement to the Minister of Labour. I am not going to be thwarted in this matter. I am now going to pursue it to the bitter end. We have been having so many lies in this House in the course of the last three or four weeks, and it is now necessary for us to track them down.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): May I ask whether, if the House is told that there have been "so many lies," there should not be an explanation of what those lies are?
  Mr. Bevan: Certainly, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is one of the principal offenders, because last week—
  Mr. Magnay: On a point of Order. Is it not intolerable that an hon. Member should say that the Leader of the House has been misleading the House and telling lies?
  Mr. Speaker: The word "liar" was not used, and, therefore, a point of Order does not arise. If I may say so, there was an occasion when the present Prime Minister got round it by calling it a "terminological inexactitude."
  Mr. Magnay: The hon. Member said there had been many lies told in this House and that the Leader of the House was the chief offender. What does he mean by that?
  Mr. Speaker: It is most unfortunate that the word "lie" was used. If some other word had been used, it would have been better.
  Mr. Bevan: The Secretary of State says that the Prime Minister announced to the Minister of Labour—
  Sir J. Grigg: I said nothing of the sort. I said that he read over the draft announcement to the Minister of Labour.
  Mr. Bevan: Read over the draft announcement in his presence. Whose draft was it? Was it a draft agreed, first of all, by the Minister of Labour? Surely that is the whole issue. My statement was that the announcement was made that a further 250,000 men were to be called up and A.T.S. were to be conscripted for overseas service without first consulting the Minister of Labour. That is what I said. The right hon. Gentleman said that the announcement was read over in the presence of the Minister of Labour himself. That does not contradict what I said.
  Miss Ward: Would the hon. Gentleman give me a moment? When the right hon. Gentleman made the announcement in the House on 21st Decem-
  900
  ber that A.T.S. would be posted abroad, I put to him this question:
  "While not disagreeing at all with the Government policy I should like to ask my right hon. Friend whether the Women's Consultative Committee of the Ministry of Labour were consulted, in view of the fact that in the past we have been consulted on very many matters?
  My right hon. Friend replied:
  "I certainly consulted my colleague the Minister of Labour at every stage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st December, 1944; Vol. 406, c. 1962.]
  Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will direct himself to that answer.
  Mr. Bevan: I do not understand for a moment why the interruption was made. Of course, as soon as a Cabinet decision is made to call up 250,000 men and to conscript A.T.S. for overseas service, the Secretary of State for War would consult the Minister of Labour at every stage from that point.
  Sir J. Grigg: The Minister of Labour was present at every stage of the discussions leading up to the decision and was a participator in the decision. The hon. Member is, I am afraid, indulging in terminological inexactitudes.
  Mr. Bevan: The right hon. Gentleman is amending his statement from time to time.
  Sir J. Grigg: Not in the least.
  Mr. Bevan: What I want to know is this—Were there Cabinet discussions in the presence of the Prime Minister at which it was decided originally to call up 250,000 more men, and was there a Cabinet decision to conscript A.T.S. for overseas service before the announcement to which the right hon. Gentleman referred was read out in the presence of the Minister of Labour himself?
  Sir J. Grigg: If the hon. Lady the Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) will look at another paragraph in the HANSARD from which she quoted, she will find a statement by the Leader of the House that this was a decision of the War Cabinet.
  Mr. Bevan: It may be, and probably is correct, that the decision was confirmed by the War Cabinet. I am talking about the original announcement.
  Miss Ward: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to read what the Leader of the House said, for it would be a good

  901
  thing to have it on the record in view of the statements that have been made:
  "The announcement my right hon. Friend made this morning was one which was carefully considered by the War Cabinet before he made it, and I can assure the House it was made only after deep reflection by all my colleagues, because we felt it was absolutely necessary to do it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st December, 1944; Vol. 406, c. 1962.]
  That is very conclusive.
  Mr. Bevan: I wish the hon. Lady would not persist in interrupting me in this entirely irrelevant fashion. I am not discussing the discussion in the Cabinet precedent to the Secretary of State for War making his statement to the House. If the hon. Lady will clear her brains, I am discussing the original decision and not that decision at all, and I am challenging the right hon. Gentleman that an announcement was made to the Press by a Government spokesman that 250,000 additional men were to be called up and the A.T.S. conscripted for overseas service before there had been consultation with the Cabinet and before the Minister of Labour had been consulted.
  Sir J. Grigg: I cannot help intervening again to say that unfortunately, by the Rules of Debate in this House, I cannot go beyond "terminological inexactitudes."
  Mr. Bevan: If a proper investigation were made it would be shown that what I am saying is correct and that, in fact, the Minister of Labour, although deeply involved in this matter, has made no appearance at all from the very beginning; I see that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour has just come in. I am bound to say that his size does not carry equivalent authority and I cannot accept his presence as equivalent to that of the Minister. I say that it is not necessary to try to measure the extent of the sacrifice, because the case has not been made out for the House of Commons to give these additional powers to the Government. There is no justification for this further tightening up of the call-up of this country. I say to my right hon. Friends on this side of the House, with all seriousness, that, although ever since the war began I have put no obstacle whatsoever in the way of recruitment for the Armed Forces of the country, this proposal shows a frivolous disregard for the privacy and amenities
  902
  of domestic life and that we should not acquiesce, without further investigation, in the proposal to send A.T.S., drawn almost entirely from the working class—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I am saying that it is a frivolous disregard of domestic amenities to send them overseas without having far more assurances than we have had.
  I am astonished at the lady Members of this House. Even their own Committee was not consulted. They have a Committee which is supposed to advise the Minister of Labour on these matters. If we are to assume that the Ministry of Labour had been consulted at every stage of this process, do hon. Members seriously believe that so important a decision would have been reached without first consulting the Women's Advisory Committee? The fact of the matter is that it was one of those impulsive, romantic and demagogic decisions reached for the purpose of impressing public opinion outside this country. [An HON. MEMBER: "America."] Yes, for the purpose of impressing America. Therefore, I say quite frankly, and I am sorry to have to disagree with my right hon. Friend—[An HON. MEMBER: "The hon. Member would be sorry to agree with him."]—that we should not assure the right hon. Gentleman that he will have the permission of this House to send A.T.S. compulsorily overseas until we have first had an opportunity of examining what he has said to-day, and of making further representations and providing additional safeguards for helpless people that we are too frivolously disposing of, according to our whims, in this House from time to time.
  3.44 p.m.
  Miss Ward: I propose to be very brief. I did not endeavour to catch your eye, Sir, during the earlier part of the Debate, but now I should like to make my position perfectly clear and plain. I support the Secretary of State for War entirely in this decision to post A.T.S. compulsorily abroad, and I really only rose to say that I hope my right hon. Friend will resist the suggestion put forward by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan), and that we all should take our decision here and now. There was just one point in the hon. Gentleman's speech with which I should like to deal—if he will give me his attention for one moment. He tried to score a point over the fact that the Women's Consulta-

  903
  tive Committee to the Ministry of Labour was not consulted on this matter—at least was not asked to give its advice to the Minister of Labour, for transmission to the right quarter. I felt that it was rather a mistake that that Committee, which had been in at every stage of the conscription of women, and the registration of women for national service, should find that its advice was not asked.
  Mr. A. Bevan: Why was it not asked?
  Miss Ward: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my argument I will give him the facts, and I do not think he will like them. I think he has made the most mischievous speech I have ever listened to.
  Viscountess Astor: He always does.
  Miss Ward: Perhaps I might follow my argument. It was a mistake that we were not asked or invited to give our views or informed that this decision was going to be taken. In his speech this afternoon the Secretary of State for War said that he was conscious of the fact that the matter might have been somewhat differently handled. I am glad to find myself, on this occasion, on the side of the Secretary of State for War. On the point which was put by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale I must say in fairness that, in fact, the Women's Consultative Committee to the Ministry of Labour has no locus standi in this matter whatsoever, because once girls are enrolled in the A.T.S. they come under the control of the Service Minister and under the direction of the Secretary of State for War. A civilian committee has, therefore no locus standi whatsoever in the matter. If the hon. Gentleman wanted to score a point out of this he is, therefore, batting on a very poor wicket.
  Mr. Bevan: Does the hon. Lady really mean that a Committee consisting largely of women Members of this House has no means of intervening, and no locus to be consulted, on a matter involving the welfare of citizens of this country, once those citizens have passed into the Army? A more ridiculous statement I have never listened to in this House.
  Miss Ward: The hon. Gentleman is once again wrong in his facts. The Women's Consultative Committee to the Minister of Labour is not composed mostly of women Members of this House.
  Mr. Bevan: I said "largely."
  Miss Ward: Well, largely, if it pleases the hon. Gentleman. The fact is, that there are nine members on the Women's Consultative Committee and that three members of the nine are Members of the House of Commons. I would again emphasise the point I was trying to make. The Advisory Committee is a civilian committee to advise the Minister of Labour on matters of policy affecting women appertaining to his Department. Once either men or women become members of His Majesty's Forces, they are no longer under the direction and control of a civilian Minister of the State. They then come under the control of the Service Minister. The hon. Gentleman is, as usual, wrong in his presentation of the case. He only came down this afternoon to make one of his mischievous speeches, and I deeply resent it. [Interruption.] I have a right to resent anything and I do resent the speech which the hon. Gentleman came down this afternoon to make.
  I want to refer once again to the statement made by the Leader of the House, because the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale tried to make a point out of that, and it was a false one and it is just as well that it should be referred to again. He tried to make out that what the Leader of the House said was that the announcement was agreed to, but, in fact, the Leader of the House said that the policy that A.T.S. should be compulsorily posted abroad was carefully considered by the War Cabinet before the Secretary of State for War made it. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman, in all the statements he has made this afternoon in that whirlwind speech, was against the war effort, and I have the greatest possible pleasure in saying it. I hope we can come to a decision without any further discussion on this matter. The only things which really concern us to-day are the efficiency of the Army, the welfare of the State and the successful prosecution of the war.
  Personally I thought that the assurances given by the Secretary of State this afternoon were extremely satisfactory. There is a vigilant House of Commons, and if any cases of difficulty do crop up, we can raise them on the Floor of the House. I was very satisfied with the assurances given. I am glad also to know personally from a fairly wide contact with

  905
  women in the Services that they do overwhelmingly support this decision of the Secretary of State. I hope we shall now proceed to other business, and that the decision on which the Secretary of State wants the support of the House in the compulsory posting of members of the A.T.S. abroad, will be put into operation immediately.
  3.51 p.m.
  Mr. Stokes: I do not propose to allow the hon. Lady to have her wish in that matter. Nor do I propose to trouble to enter the lists in defence of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) except for this reflection. If the views he expressed in his speech were, as I believe, in direct proportion to the popularity of those views in the country, I can only say his speech has been most effective. I was unfortunately not here at the beginning of the Debate, but I have yet to learn that it is necessary to sit through a Debate in order to make a speech; it is only necessary to hear the Minister's speech. [Interruption.] I have seen Members come in, read their speeches and go out. If the House of Commons were sitting at more reasonable hours, some of us would find it easier to be here.
  I support my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale in this matter, in that I do not see from the right hon. Gentleman's speech what proper assurances we have got. I listened most attentively to his speech, as I always do. I am in agreement with the remark that it is the most conciliatory statement he has ever made, but there was nothing in it. On this very major issue of pay, we got no satisfaction of any kind whatever. It is all very well for the Minister to say that all kinds of protection are to be provided so that compassionate cases are properly reviewed. Perhaps he will pay attention, I want to ask him a question. He has said that all kinds of compassionate cases are to be properly reviewed. When I was out of the country recently, the following question was constantly put to me: "If I, a serving soldier overseas, do not wish my fiancée, who is in the A.T.S., to go overseas, if I dislike her going overseas, will that be regarded as a compassionate case, and will she be
  906
  allowed to stay at home?" That is a perfectly reasonable question for a fighting soldier to ask, and if I were a fighting soldier myself, engaged to a member of the A.T.S., and I made that representation and did not get the assurance I wanted, I should feel most depressed and distressed about it. Can we have an assurance of that kind?
  I can never get sufficient assurances from the Minister, because I am unalterably apposed to this course of action. We have not had the assurances for which we as a party have asked; they are not there. I ask the Minister whether he cannot possibly consider trying once more the voluntary system. My own opinion, for what it is worth, is that a great number of people are probably not volunteering for the simple reason that they have heard that there is to be conscription, and that if that threat were removed, probably a great number of people would come forward. That seems to be a much more desirable way of proceeding. I am opposed to this system, because I think there has been quite sufficient breaking-up of family life. This will be another and perhaps the worst blow of all. I heard the Minister calmly telling this House that there has been a most careful rake-through of what I call the "base wallahs." Well, well. There is not a single responsible civilian—I will not say soldier, I cannot say that—whom I know in the Middle East, who does not think there are thousands of people in Cairo and the Middle East who could quite well be combed out and taken to other spheres of action. It is common knowledge in Cairo that almost a brigade of infantry could be recruited from superfluous brigadiers. It is regarded as a standing joke in the Middle East. I do not see how this House can possibly agree to this measure until we are satisfied that there has been a proper comb-out, and that at least we shall have the assurance that, before any further step is taken, we shall have a further Debate in this House, in which we shall have an opportunity of examining the statement which has been made in this Debate
  Question, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

  WAYS AND MEANS [19th January]
  Resolutions reported:
  "That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, the sum of £1,000,000,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
  "That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1946, the sum of £1,000,000,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
  Resolutions agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Peake.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL,
  "to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and forty-five, and one thousand nine hundred and forty-six"; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 12.]

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES LOANS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.59 p.m.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): I beg to move, "That the Bill be read a Second time."
  The main purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the policy in regard to borrowing by local authorities which I announced in this House on 25th July last. In the first instance, may I recall briefly to the House the statement I then made? I first pointed out that for a period which could not yet be defined after the end of hostilities in Europe the combined demands of the central Government, of local authorities and industry on the capital market, will, inevitably, be very great I do not think I need give instances; many will occur to hon. Members' minds. What is important is that all the capital expenditure with which we shall be faced in the early post-war period will be vitally necessary in the national interest, and that it must be financed in an orderly manner, and as cheaply as possible. There must be no scramble between competitors for capital, and everything must be done that is necessary to maintain effectively the Government's
  908
  cheap-money policy. In such circumstances, the Government propose that, subject to certain exceptions for special types of borrowing, which I will explain later in my speech, all local authorities should borrow only from the Local Loans Fund, which fund will be kept supplied by the Treasury. At the present time, by an administrative arrangement, loans from the Local Loans Fund are, in general, made only to local authorities with a rateable value not exceeding £200,000 in England and Wales, and £250,000 in Scotland. These limits will, of course, be abrogated for the purpose of the new scheme.
  Hon. Members may point to the fact that we already have our capital issues control, which applies to borrowings by local authorities as to all other borrowings. They may ask what further advantages will accrue from the scheme which the Government now put forward. I think there will be solid advantages both to the Central Government's cheap-money policy and to the local authorities themselves. So far as the Central Government are concerned, the advantage will be that a great portion of the demand on the capital market, instead of being made by a large number of local authorities, as and when each of them needs funds, will be made by the Treasury itself, at such times and in such ways as are most convenient in the light of the general borrowing programme. The advantages to the local authorities are, I think, equally clear. They are twofold. In the first place, the local authorities will be getting the capital resources they need, exactly as and when they need them. They will escape the possibility—this applies particularly to stock issues—that even when a particular borrowing programme has been authorised the market conditions at the moment may impose some delay on carrying out that programme. That has been a frequent experience in the past. There will thus be no reason for delays on financial grounds in the execution of public services. In the second place, local authorities will be enabled to borrow more cheaply than they otherwise could do, because the rate of interest they will pay for loans of any given period will be approximately that which the Treasury itself pays, or might be expected to pay, on its borrowings for such a period. I think the House will agree that in the sphere of capital finance the Government

  909
  are, through this scheme, affording local authorities a considerable measure of assistance towards the speedy and cheap fulfilment of the responsibilities which will rest upon them after the war.
  Since I made my statement in this House last July, the Government's proposals have been discussed with representatives of local authorities in England and Wales, and also in Scotland. Those representatives have accepted these proposals in principle, and I think we may take it, therefore, that they recognise both the necessities which have given rise to the scheme and also, not less, the advantages which the local authorities will derive from it. The discussions, over a period of months, have turned on points of relative detail. Some of them have given rise to provisions which now appear in the Bill, but a number of them concern matters of administrative procedure, and I do not propose to go into these now. I think I am fully justified in saying that, as at present conceived, the scheme is acceptable to the local authorities, and that it will be carried into effect with their full co-operation.
  Since the scheme is a novel one in certain features, I think that it is, in the nature of the case, scarcely practicable to adopt the course—which I see certain of my hon. Friends wish to urge—of putting a definite time limit on its operation in the Bill itself. Certain assurances have, however, been given to local authorities, of which I should make the House aware. In the first place, it has been confirmed that the new scheme will continue in operation only for so long as it is necessary, and that it will be reviewed, in consultation with the local authorities, in any event, four years after the end of hostilities in Europe.
  Mr. Graham White: That is not in the Bill.
  Sir J. Anderson: No, that is an assurance. As I have said, there is no definite time limit in the Bill. Secondly, local authorities have been assured that the Treasury will be always ready to consider any representations which they wish to put forward about the working of the scheme, and that if, for that purpose, the associations of local authorities wished to appoint small standing committees, one for England and Wales and one for Scotland, to maintain contact with the
  910
  Treasury, such a procedure would be acceptable.
  I turn to the Bill itself. Clause 1 is the principal Clause, giving effect to the policy I have just explained. It provides that local authorities shall not, without the approval of the Treasury, borrow otherwise than from the Public Works Loan Commissioners, whose loans are, of course, made from what is known as the Local Loans Fund. It is not expected that the giving of Treasury approval for borrowing elsewhere, in individual cases, will be other than a very rare occurrence, but the Clause goes on to provide that the Treasury may, by Regulations, allow exceptions from the operation of the Clause, and Regulations will in fact be made, to permit of certain exceptions of a general character. The Regulations will, under Clause 7, be laid before Parliament when they are made, but the House may like me to indicate now what the first Regulations are expected to contain. I will not trouble hon. Members with every detail or every qualification which may be found in these rather technical Regulations. The Regulations will be discussed with representatives of the local authorities before they are finally issued.
  Broadly speaking, they will permit local authorities to borrow in ways which I will briefly specify and which will be by way of exception to the general practice laid down in the Bill. These are the exceptions: First, borrowing on mortgage and on certain other securities, provided that the total debt outstanding in such ways shall never exceed the amount outstanding at the end of the financial year 1943–1944. The second exception is borrowing temporarily, in anticipation of revenue, or pending the raising of a permanent loan—temporary accommodation. Third, borrowing from any superannuation fund to which the authority contributes. Fourth, borrowing from another authority any funds which the other authority has power to lend. Fifth, by the issue of a new stock, in replacement of stock which an authority has an option to redeem, or which has finally matured. The use of any of these facilities which I have just enumerated will, of course, be subject to any necessary Treasury consents under the Capital Issue Control, or to any necessary consents of the Minister of Health or other appropriate Minister.
  Mr. Colegate (The Wrekin): May I get this point quite clear? The second heading was temporary accommodation, by which, presumably, the Chancellor means a bank overdraft. Does he include bills?
  Sir J. Anderson: I did not exclude any particular form of accommodation.
  Mr. Colegate: The Chancellor knows that certain authorities use bills.
  Sir J. Anderson: That is, perhaps, a point that may be raised in Committee.
  Mr. McEntee: There are quite a number of small banks known as municipal banks in this country, and I happen to be chairman of one myself. They are limited in the use of money to loans to local authorities, and if they are not permitted, under this new Bill, to continue to lend their money to local authorities, I wonder what is to happen to them. Will Treasury sanction be readily given to such loans?
  Sir J. Anderson: This would not affect the lending powers of these banks. But long-term loans by banks would not be among the general exceptions for which provision is made. Temporary accommodations—yes.
  Mr. Gallacher: Will the Chancellor not include in these exceptions, the encouragement of local authorities, in view of the situation that will exist after the war, to get from organisations or individuals in their localities interest-free loans?
  Sir J. Anderson: I do not think there would be any difficulty about that.
  Mr. McEntee: There will not be many loans, either.
  Sir J. Anderson: That may be regarded as a special case. Clause 2 of the Bill contains provisions affecting the Public Works Loans Commissioners, and gives me an opportunity of saying a word or two about the position of the Commissioners in relation to the new scheme. It is, I think, fortunate that, faced with the necessity of making this considerable innovation in the method of providing capital funds for local authorities, we have, ready to hand, the existing organisation of the Public Works Loan Commissioners and the machinery of the Local Loans Fund. For over 100 years, the Commissioners, who are appointed by Statute and are, therefore, indepen-
  912
  dent of the Executive of the day, have been charged with the function of making loans to local authorities, and their primary duty has been to see that the security for such loans has been adequate to ensure public funds against losses on the loans. That is a duty which will still have to be performed, in relation to the much larger sums which will be involved in the future, and in which the Exchequer will be more closely concerned than it has been in the past. The country is, I think, much indebted to the successive bodies of Commissioners who have given their services over so long a period, and I am glad to be able to inform the House that we are assured of the full co-operation of the present Commissioners in the scheme we are now inaugurating. They have also readily agreed to certain simplifications of the technical details of their procedure.
  It has been necessary to arrange for the fullest co-ordination—and this is a very important point—between the various authorities who will be concerned in any local authority's application to borrow from the Local Loans Fund. Such an application will, normally, have to be considered from three angles. The sanctioning Department, for example, the Ministry of Health, or the corresponding Department in Scotland, must see that the services for which the money is required is in accordance with approved policy and that it is done reasonably economically. Next, the Capital Issue Committee must be able to consider the proposed borrowing in the light of any rules laid down in the general control of capital issues. Finally, as I have explained, the Public Works Loan Commissioners must satisfy themselves about the proposed loan from the point of view of the security of the Local Loans Fund. I hasten to assure the House that the process of obtaining these necessary authorities will not, in practice, be as formidable as it might sound, and that we have arranged a procedure which will involve, I believe, the minimum of labour, delay or inconvenience to applicant local authorities.
  The procedure will be this. A local authority will submit one application, accompanied by one set of supporting details, and that application will be submitted to the Department concerned with the policy. If it approves the application, that Department will send it on to the Capital Issues Committee and then to the

  913
  that all three bodies may consider the one Public Works Loan Commissioners, so application, before any reply goes to the local authority. All three Departments will send their replies to the authority simultaneously. If the general policy governing the application is agreed, it will be the exceptional case in which difficulties will arise from either of the other two aspects. Nevertheless, questions or doubts may, quite properly, arise, which are entirely within the competence, and responsibility of either of the other two Departments concerned. If such be the case, the matter will immediately be considered by all three Departments jointly, before any one of them replies to the application, and such steps as may seem best in the circumstances will then be decided. It may be, for example, that, having regard to representations received, about the importance in the national interest of the policy involved in the particular case, the Public Works Loan Commissioners will feel that they ought to give an applicant authority the benefit of any doubt about the security of a loan; and, in the event of any consequential loss to the Fund, I should think this House would be disposed to accept such an explanation from the Government Front Bench as sufficient justification of the Commissioners' action.
  I have explained, in this way, the procedure we propose to follow for removing any misgivings that may be in the minds of local authorities as to the administrative inconvenience of a procedure which involves, inevitably, getting three different consents. We will do it, as I have explained, in a way that will involve the local authority in no more trouble than if they had to make one application to one Governmental authority only.
  Perhaps I may return briefly to the actual provisions of Clause 2; they are, in fact, mainly technical. Sub-section (1) ensures that the Public Works Loan Commissioners will have power to lend for any purpose for which a local authority has power to borrow. The effect of Sub-section (2) is that the maximum period for which the Commissioners may lend will not, in future, be subject, as at present it is in some cases, to a limitation of 50 years, but the period will be, in all cases, the maximum period prescribed for any particular purpose of borrowing by the Act under which the local authority borrows or in the authority given under the Statute
  914
  by the appropriate sanctioning Department. Thus there will be the maximum of elasticity. The object of Sub-section (3) is, I think, fully explained in the Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the Bill. At present borrowers from the Local Loans Fund pay a lump sum fee to the Public Works Loan Commissioners which is fixed by those Commissioners by reference to their expenses. In addition, the annual rate of interest charged on loans from the fund, which is fixed by the Treasury, includes an element to cover the cost of managing the local loans stock issued to finance the fund and any further expenses of the Government Departments concerned beyond those covered by the fee to the Public Works Loan Commissioners.
  That is the present system. Under the plan, in future borrowers will pay one lump sum fee only, of an amount to be prescribed by the Treasury after consultation with the Commissioners. The fee will be prescribed in Regulations to be laid before Parliament and the intention is that the fees will be sufficient to cover, without any profit to the Exchequer, all the expenses of the Commissioners and of the Local Loans Fund. Assuming that the fee is expressed as a percentage of any advance from the fund, the amount of the necessary fee will, of course, depend on the amount of the expenses to be covered and on the volume of advances to be made, and it will be reviewed from time to time in the light of experience. At the outset, it is proposed to fix the fee at 4s. for each £100 of an advance.
  It follows that in future the annual rate of interest to be charged to loans from the Local Loans Fund will contain no element in addition to the pure interest charge. As I have already said, the interest charge for a loan of any given period will be approximately the rate which the Treasury itself pays or may be expected to pay on borrowings from the public for the same period.
  This is perhaps a convenient place at which to refer to one point which arises on the question of interest rates. Under the existing Statutes loans from the Local Loans Fund for housing, small holdings and allotments must be made at the minimum rate in force for the time being for loans from the Fund. That minimum, which is at present 3¼ per cent. is, in fact, a long term rate, being based on the current yield of Local Loans Stock. Under

  915
  the new scheme rates will vary according to the periods of the loans. The minimum rate will apply to loans for quite short periods and it will not be appropriate to apply it to long term loans like those for housing. The change will not involve on local authorities any increased cost for housing loans and they will, of course, benefit, in a variety of other services, by the lower rates that will be payable on loans for shorter periods. I regret that the necessity for dealing with this was not noticed before the Bill was introduced and I shall, therefore, have to move an Amendment in the Committee. But I mention the point now, in order that my explanation of the scheme of the Bill may be complete.
  Now I turn to Clause 3, which makes provision for the financing of the large commitments of the Local Loans Fund in future. This Clause, if the House gives the Bill a Second Reading, will have to be the subject of a Financial Resolution. When the Local Loans Fund was set up in 1887, it was provided that it should be financed by the issue of local loans stock, which was to be a perpetual stock carrying 3 per cent. interest. That proved at times an unsatisfactory method of financing the fund, but it was not until as recently as 1935 that an alternative power was taken to issue, in lieu of Local Loans stock, other securities carrying whatever terms the Treasury thought fit. Actually, the alternative power so taken has never been used. In the circumstances likely to exist in the period immediately after the end of the war, when the Treasury is likely to continue to be a borrower for its own purposes, it may very well be inconvenient to make special issues for the purpose of the Local Loans Fund and it will certainly be more convenient if the Treasury can borrow to raise money which can be applied indifferently to whatever State purpose needs the money at the time. Hence Clause 3 provides that the Local Loans Fund may be financed by the Consolidated Fund and that for that purpose the Treasury may borrow in any way in which it is authorised to borrow for its other needs. In effect, therefore, the Local Loans Fund may be financed out of the proceeds of the Treasury's general borrowings. In form this power will be alternative to the other two powers that I have mentioned, but we may expect that it will in fact
  916
  prove to be the normal method of financing the Local Loans Fund for some time to come.
  As stated in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum attached to the Bill, it is not possible at present to estimate the amounts which it will be necessary to issue to the Local Loans Fund or the Consolidated Fund under this Clause. That will depend on the needs of local authorities which cannot yet be assessed. It would be impracticable to insert any money limit in this Bill. The absence of such a limit does not, however, mean the absence of normal Parliamentary control over the amounts of issues under the Bill. The House will remember that money can be issued out of the Local Loans Fund for the purposes of loans by the Public Works Loan Commissioners only under the authority of Public Works Loan Bills which are introduced periodically, normally about once a year. Such Bills authorise issues up to a stated total. Parliament by this means will have in future, as in the past, strict and continuous control of the use to be made of the powers sought for in this Clause.
  As regards Clauses 4, 5 and 6, which are of a technical character and are all designed in their respective ways to assist local authorities in dealing with their capital liabilities, a very brief reference at this stage will suffice. As regards Clause 4, the Treasury obtained powers in 1941 to assist local authorities to save interest costs where they had a chance to do so by the conversion of interest bearing securities at lower rates of interest. This was done by taking money from the Local Loans Fund to enable such authorities to redeem securities in respect of which the holders did not accept conversion. The powers taken in that way were limited in time to the period during which the Emergency Powers Defence Act, 1939, remains in force. Clause 4 is simply for the purpose of removing that time limit. On Clauses 5 and 6 I do not think that it is necessary for me to add anything to what is contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.
  Clause 7 provides that Regulations made by the Treasury under the Bill should be laid before Parliament and be subject to opportunities for Parliament to annul them if it thinks fit to do so, in accordance with the normal procedure, by negative resolution. The Regulations in question will be those in Clause 1 which

  917
  will deal with exemptions from the provisions of that Clause, and those under Clause 2 (3) which prescribes the fees to be paid by borrowers from the Local Loans Fund. On those points, therefore, Parliament and this House will have full control.
  On Clause 8, the only point that I need mention is that the effect of the Clause is that the Bill will apply to all local authorities having power to levy a rate or a precept ultimately payable out of a rate. This, therefore, will cover the case of joint boards of local authorities, catchment boards and other drainage boards.
  Clause 10 provides for the Bill coming into operation on an appointed day. The general scheme for centralising the borrowings of local authorities in the Local Loans Fund was originally designed to come into operation as soon as hostilities ended in Europe. Before then local authorities will not require to borrow large sums. There will be borrowing for such purposes as sites for houses. On the other hand, many authorities have accumulated capital funds. However, there may well be advantages in putting the scheme into operation as soon as the necessary administrative arrangements can be completed. Those arrangements can then be tried out in a small way before the larger post-war operations have to be carried through.
  So much by way of explanation of the provisions of the Bill. In conclusion—
  Mr. Gallacher: I would just like to ask—
  Sir S. Anderson: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish, I would say in conclusion that though this Bill starts off in a rather negative manner by imposing, or appearing to impose, new restrictions on local authorities, its object is, as I have tried to make clear, and its result will be, as I believe, to afford a well-conceived measure of positive assistance to local authorities in the great task of reconstruction and redevelopment which they will have to undertake after the war. It involves what must be regarded as a notable departure from our traditional methods of Government finance, and it imposes important new duties and responsibilities upon His Majesty's Treasury. The extent of these changes is a measure of the importance which the Government attach to their proposals. They offer, I feel, a new field of fruitful co-operation
  918
  between the central and local governments, and with these words I confidently commend this Bill to the favourable consideration of the House.
  Mr. Gallacher: One question before the Chancellor sits down. In view of recent events, can the Chancellor—
  Hon. Members: Order.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Mr. Woodburn.
  Mr. Gallacher: Why not allow me to ask the question, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? The Chancellor agreed to answer my question.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity later.
  Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I rose to ask the Chancellor a question and he courteously asked me if I would hold it over until he had finished. I want to ask that question now, and the Chancellor is willing to answer it. Why am I not allowed to ask it? Why should the Chair prohibit me from asking this question?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Perhaps I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. I thought he was beginning to make a speech. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Then it is my fault, and I am sorry.
  Mr. Gallacher: In view of recent events, which show us the very great need for controlling the borrowing and directing the expenditure of the local authorities in Northern Ireland, can the Chancellor tell us why Northern Ireland is excluded from this Bill? It is a very important Bill for Northern Ireland.
  Sir J. Anderson: I can explain quite easily why Northern Ireland is excluded. Northern Ireland has a fiscal system of its own, and we do not interfere with that.
  4.34 p.m.
  Mr. Woodburn: The House, I think, will welcome this Bill and on behalf of my hon. Friends I welcome it as a step towards the tidying up and the improvement of our general financial relationships. The money system of this country has grown up very much like Topsy, and to-day it would take a Philadelphia lawyer to know all the ramifications of

  919
  modern finance. On occasion, I think the Chancellor himself has had difficulty in following some of the questions which hon. Members have wanted to raise and probe with a view to elucidating the financial system of this country. The MacMillan Committee was set up by a former Chancellor with a view to trying to put the picture in some sort of order, and, while it made great steps towards doing that, I think everyone will agree that much still remains to be done before the subject of finance is what might be called an open book.
  The main points of this Bill are that it makes it illegal for local authorities to borrow except through the Public Works Loans Board, and that, in my view, eliminates a good deal of the chaos which takes place in the money market, and which might occur after this war, when all sorts of people will be hastening—probably during a panic rush—to demand loans and trying to borrow. In the past, I think it has been the case that when one authority thought it wanted to borrow all the authorities wanted to do so, and, as the Chancellor said, it became a veritable scramble. Under this Bill the other important point that strikes me is the fact that money can be supplied from the Consolidated Fund, and that that money can be, and will be, borrowed by the Government. I was very glad to hear the Chancellor confirm my own impression, gained from the Bill, that probably in the future most of the money lent to local authorities would come from that source. However, the fundamental point about the Bill is the question of the rate of interest, because, in the long run, the local authorities do not care where they get the money so long as the cost of it is not exorbitant, and it is important that under this Bill they will be able to borrow at approximately the rate which the Treasury itself pays, or might be expected to pay, on borrowing from the public for the same period.
  On the face of it it looks like a Bill to benefit the local authorities and, to a large extent, that is the case, but the benefit is not all to the local authorities. Certain borrowings of local authorities affect the expenditure of the Treasury. If, for instance, a housing subsidy is established on the basis of limiting the local authority's expenditure, say, to a penny or a twopenny rate, then if the
  920
  cost of borrowing money for that housing scheme or housing programme rises, it is not the local authority that bears it but the Treasury, which must bear it by paying an extra subsidy. Therefore, in some cases, it will be true that this will mean a saving for the Treasury, because if local authorities were borrowing inefficiently or extravagantly, on an account to which the Treasury had some obligation, then the Treasury itself would be the loser.
  After the last war, and I believe it is still the case to-day, local authorities paid as high as 6 per cent., 6½ per cent., and, I believe, 7 per cent. for housing loans. To-day that just looks scandalous, and I fear that if such a situation were allowed to arise after this war the burden on the financial resources of the country might be such that a large number of our financial arrangements would break down. When we get the assurance that the rate will be that at which the Government will borrow, then the question arises, what kind of rate will that be? The Chancellor, I am very glad to say, gave me on 11th July an assurance that it would certainly be one of the objects of the policy of cheap money that necessary loans for housing and other local government purposes should be raised as cheaply as possible. I accept the intention of the Government that the policy of cheap money must continue and, if that is to be the case, then, of course, it involves a certain amount of control. I took the trouble to look into the meaning of this question of interest in regard to housing, which will be one of the biggest problems after the war, and I took the case of a house at £1,000 over 60 years.
  The interest on that at six per cent. amounts to 17s. a week. If the interest is brought down to 3¼ per cent., which I think is the present rate, it brings the cost down to 7s. 10d. a week, and the interest is down to two per cent. it brings the cost down to 4s. 5d. a week. The Chancellor smiles, but he ought to be proud of the fact that the overall borrowings of the country for war purposes are under two per cent.
  Mr. Colegate: There is a lot of short money in that.
  Mr. Woodburn: It is short enough, but if you keep it going it soon becomes a long period. The point is that the Government are going to control lending and if they are going to control interest rates

  921
  they have to see that those interest rates are small.
  Mr. Colegate: I agree.
  Mr. Woodburn: Co-operative societies have proved that there is a great deal of bunkum in the talk about people being willing to save their money only if they get high interest rates. The old co-operative societies used to proceed on that basis, but were forced to lower the interest to deter people from saving. In spite of that, people kept on saving. One of the troubles later might be to break that habit to some extent and get people to spend more money, so that it can be used if there are slumps. That is the Government's policy in regard to full employment. It is not just a question of relating these rates of interest. A storm was raised in the House some months ago over the cost of land. One would have thought, from some of the statements that were made, that the whole rent of a house depended on the cost of land. The cost of land amounts to only 3½d. per week. In other words, if we got the land for nothing we should save 3½d. per week; but the interest can amount to as much as 17s. a week. Therefore, the subject we are discussing to-day, after the captains and the kings have departed from the battle that has just finished, is much more fundamental than the matter we had all the row about in the latter part of last year. However, it may be wise that we should pass these things in a cooler state of mind.
  If the rent and the rate interest is limited the extra cost of this interest falls on the Government, and it is right that they and the local authorities should co-operate in this matter for this purpose. The question has been raised in the House several times as to the desirability of having interest free loans for housing. They are not an impossibility. It is possible for the Government to grant loans free of interest, but it must not be forgotten that there are no such things as costless loans, which are a different proposition. If the Government want to give a subsidy by making loans free of interest that is one way, but I am against it for this reason: it is wrong that it should not be clear what things cost. If a house costs a certain amount of money it should be clear to the country and the local authority what is the cost of that house. The subsidy should be clear and open, so that the House knows what is
  922
  being paid in subsidy. That is the best form of finance. To give hidden subsidies, like interest-free money and things of that kind, only leads to misunderstanding in the community and sometimes causes a great deal of mischief.
  Mr. Kirkwood (Dumbarton Burghs): My hon. Friend says it would cause misunderstanding. Can he tell us how we are to get interest-free money?
  Mr. Woodburn: There has never been interest-free money, and there cannot be unless somebody else is paying the interest. I said that we cannot have money free of cost. Running the money system of this country requires a large number of buildings and very large staffs, and they have to be paid. They are paid now from the amounts which come in as interest. If we do not pay that way we have to raise taxation in order to run the facilities to provide the money free of charge to local authorities. My own view, therefore, is that what we want to achieve is interest or money facilities at cost price. The question arises: Is the cost of money still too dear? There is a great deal of wastage in this country in the running of our banking system. In a small agricultural town one sees five or more banks, cheek by jowl, all doing the same type of business. That cannot be justified on the grounds of efficiency. The present cost of money includes a great deal of overlapping and duplication of activity. I also raised the question with the Chancellor about the present price charged for our money facilities. A great deal of extra money is being paid to the banks in connection with our loans to-day.
  I realise, of course, that costs have increased and that banks are paying the salaries of members of their staffs who have joined the Forces. I realise that commercial loans at five per cent. have been considerably reduced, and that although banks are dealing with a larger amount of money at one per cent. it does not equal the income they would get at five per cent. I am concerned about banks changing the method of presenting their accounts in some ways, which makes it difficult for experts, and even banking papers, to compare their accounts with pre-war accounts. It is true that up to now there has been the Excess Profits Tax, which gives a prima facie case to the suggestion that they have made no extra profits, but if I understand the system

  923
  correctly they would be able to pay off a great many back debts which they might otherwise not do, and place themselves in an excellent position to make far better profits after the war. But I do not want to be too severe in this matter. As regards shipping policy, if it is desirable that shipping should be able to restart after the war—
  Mr. Molson (The High Peak): Is it in Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to discuss the banking system and the shipping industry on this particular Bill?
  Mr. Woodburn: Further to that point of Order. A fundamental point of my speech on this Bill is the rate of interest to be paid. That rate has to be decided by the policy of borrowing, and I submit that I do not see how it can possibly be excluded in that form.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman, on that basis, appears to be in Order.
  Mr. Woodburn: I suggest, without making any charges against the banks or anybody else, that the Chancellor should look into this matter and make it a little clearer to the House that he is satisfied that the cost he is being charged in this connection is as strictly calculated as the costs of an engineering firm which is supplying munitions of war. The Government policy of maintaining cheap money will be one of the vital factors in reconstruction. This Bill is a step towards the national planning of finance, not a revolutionary one, but a very important one. It will prevent a scramble for money which, after the war, may be equally as dangerous as a scramble for goods. I gathered that the Government's policy is to try to keep the amount of spending power in the market commensurate with the amount of goods available, and this, no less than other forms of spending, is a control of that kind. Hon. Members opposite get very heated on the point of controls of any kind. Some want to abolish all controls. It has always been curious to me that, while in theory the Conservative Party are violently opposed to nationalisation or public control, they have brought more nationalisation and control into being than any other party. Indeed, they have created all the nationalisation that exists. Their theory gets out of touch occasionally with their
  924
  practice. We accept this step forward on the ground of its practical desirability and not on the ground of any particular theory, although I welcome it as a proof that the Government intend to steer us safely through the storms ahead and not leave the ship of State to drift helplessly among the rushing waves of selfish interest.
  I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer one question about municipal banks. I think he misunderstood the question that was put to him, because such institutions as the Birmingham and Motherwell municipal banks are not banks in the normal sense of the term. They are really municipal savings banks, where the money of the locality is gathered in and automatically becomes available to the local authorities, who use it as a method of borrowing. If the Chancellor's decision was to be effective, that would immediately wipe these banks completely off the face of the map. He said this might mean a temporary Bill. I hope that is not the case. In practice I am satisfied that it will justify itself and will be permanent. If we wipe those banks off the map we could not reinstate them in five years, because the law forbids a new bank being started.
  I hope that among the exceptions that the right hon. Gentleman will make will be these municipal banks. They have been a great success and have provided a source of cheap money to local authorities from their own savings and, while it may be desirable to have a general pool, it is not much different from borrowing from their own pool funds if they borrow from the local savings of their own people. I do not know what the position would be with normal savings banks, because some of them have entered into contracts with local authorities, but I imagine that the general savings banks' money would go straight to the Treasury and go into the common pool, while a municipal bank is confined to the municipality. We welcome the Bill as a step forward and, in connection with the general policy of full employment and control of money, we hope it will be a prelude to Bills of other kinds to tighten up the financial machine.
  4.54 p.m.
  Mr. Graham White: This is a very important Bill and a very necessary one. It is impossible to conceive any well-ordered scheme for directing the

  925
  capital that is available towards the best purposes according to the priority of their importance unless the question of municipal finance is incorporated in it. Municipal corporations have been in the past some of the most important borrowers. It cannot be said that in future they will be any less important. In fact it is obvious, with the great duties which will be placed upon them in the task of reconstruction, that their need for finance will be greater than it has been at any time in the past. It would be impossible to imagine municipal corporations and local authorities entering into any sort of competition with other bodies in a general scramble at the end of the war, and that is, of course, the prima facie and unanswerable case for a Bill of this kind. One does not need to cast one's memory far back in order to recall times when municipal borrowers had great difficulty in raising their loans. There have been times when they had to stand in a queue, and sometimes it was a long time before needy authorities could get into the market.
  The Bill must be welcomed for that reason, but the fact that it is necessary and important does not make it less necessary to see whether any dangers for local authorities and their finances might arise from the proposals contained in it. I cannot disguise from myself that in certain circumstances, and under the Regulations that may be made under the Bill—the Regulations may be very important—it might be possible to place the whole of the local authorities' finances in a strait jacket by ear-marking advances for specific purposes or withholding all advances till the machinery proposed for other purposes important to the local authority had been set on foot. We have had from the general tone of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, an assurance that, as far as a Ministerial assurance can be binding—and we are accustomed to look on them as binding—there will be nothing of the kind attempted. Not only for this reason, but also because no one can predict what the conditions of the money market and our capital arrangements are going to be very far ahead after the war, I welcome the assurance, though it is not contained in the Bill, that there should be a review of the conditions and circumstances at the end of four or five years. A good deal may happen for good or for evil in a considerably less time than that. But, for
  926
  the purposes of our discussion, the assumption that it will take place after four or five years is a very reasonable one, and, if events took a different course from what we imagine, and difficulties arose, there would probably be no difficulty in approaching the Government and asking for a review of all the conditions, or consideration of the events which had altered conditions.
  On the other hand, one must recognise that the Bill contains many important proposals which make for greater elasticity in corporation and municipal finance. Clauses 4, 5 and 6 distinctly make possible a greater elasticity of treatment with regard to the re-conversion of loans already made, and with regard to the fact, which has not hitherto been the case, that money advanced to the Local Loans Commissioners can be put into the common pool which many municipal authorities maintain. That may well be a great convenience at certain times.
  My hon. Friend, speaking a few moments ago, stressed the importance of the rate of interest. Of course that is a very important matter indeed. There is nothing in the terms of the Bill which will directly affect or determine the rate of interest, except the fact that a disorderly process of borrowing would have a great effect on it. I do not, however, see any possibility of our conducting our finances in such a way that 5, 6 or 7 per cent. would be called for on our loans in future. If we contemplate such circumstances we must recognise that we have no competence to manage our financial affairs at all. That is a bugbear we need not consider. The rate of interest which will be charged to the local authorities will be the lowest terms on which anybody can borrow. I am not quite clear whether the terms will be the same for all authorities borrowing money for the same purpose. We look back with regret to days when municipal authorities were trying to borrow money to carry out proposals to deal with unemployment. Those authorities, whose need to borrow cheaply was the greatest, were those which had unemployment or disabilities over which they had no control, and they were the authorities which had the greatest difficulty in borrowing and had to pay the highest rate. We wish to avoid any disabilities of that kind.
  Having said that, I do not wish to wander from the strict path of the Bill

  927
  and discuss any of the ancillary financial institutions of our country. I think that the Bill is well designed to cover a very important field in our post-war capital arrangements. Without it, a complete scheme cannot be made. I welcome the explanations which have been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on points which have given rise to some anxiety in some quarters, and also his assurance that negotiations and consultations will take place from time to time between the two great partners in the great work of reconstructing and rebuilding Britain. That there should be complete co-operation at all stages, with a view to obtaining the money that is needed at the right time and on the cheapest terms possible, is a matter of great consequence.
  There are matters outstanding in connection with this Bill which we shall need to look at a little more closely in Committee. There is the question of the terms of repayment of loans and the conditions under which they may be made. At the present time, municipalities very often have an option whether repayment shall be made at the full term, or at some intermediary time. That is a matter to which importance is attached, and we should look into it more closely, but not on Second Reading. There are also such questions as whether it is really necessary, in these days, for municipal loans to pay their interest gross, and matters of that kind, which are contrary to the usual practice and cause a wastage of administrative work which might be avoided. I believe that the Bill is an essential part of any well-ordered scheme for the control of our financial and capital arrangements after the war.
  5.5 p.m.
  Mr. Colegate (The Wrekin): I think that everybody in the House must have great sympathy with the object of this Bill. If we are to have a policy of full employment, it is certainly necessary that we should keep the money rates down to the lowest practical point. Not only that, but there certainly must be an orderly approach to the capital market. I think that the Chancellor has, in this Bill, taken a rather unnecessary power by putting so complete a prohibition on the local authorities for borrowing. There can be no question that everybody would desire that local authorities should borrow as cheaply as possible, but Clause 1, which
  928
  is the main part of the Bill, may not necessarily mean that the local authorities can always borrow at the cheapest rate. During the past 20 years the local authorities have been able to borrow more cheaply than the central Government. Many local authorities are getting very cheap money, and many of them manage their financial affairs extremely well. I do not think the hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) meant what he said when he talked about "chaos" in the financial system. There may be chaos in parts of the financial system, but I can assure him from considerable experience that local authorities' finance, on the whole, is extremely well done.
  Let me refer to one or two common practices. There is a common practice for firms which have available money which they wish to place on deposit, to place it on deposit with local authorities on extremely cheap terms—½and ¾ per cent. I, myself, have been instrumental in placing in one instance over £2,000,000 at an average price of ¾ per cent., and that at 12 months' notice. It suited the firm, and it suited the local authority, because it had an ambitious programme which it was anxious to carry out. I asked my right hon. Friend about bills. As many Members must know, many local authorities have access to the bill market. I think I am right in saying that Liverpool Corporation has always advertised tenders for bills, and it has got very cheap money indeed. Somebody may say, "This is all very well, but we are talking about long-term loans and you are talking about short-term loans." That to some extent is true, but you can go on many years renewing a short-term loan, until the proper moment comes to fund it, and that moment should be when you can get the lowest rate of interest.
  I suggest that all that Clause 1 need have said was that local authorities shall not borrow other than from the Public Works Loan Commissioners unless they can do so on more advantageous terms. Local loans at the moment give a yield of 3¾ per cent. There have been few borrowings by local authorities during the last 10 years where they have had to pay as much as 3¾ per cent. Many of them on the average have been much lower than that. On long-term loans the average of central Government borrowings is under 2 per cent. That figure is the average of

  929
  all Government loans, including the enormous amount now outstanding of Treasury bills and bank receipts. If the municipalities are on the same basis, they also can get very low rates of interest. That matter needs to be reconsidered when we come to the Committee stage.
  There are only two objects in the Bill. One is to give the Central Government adequate control of the capital market which it needs for its policy of full employment. The other is to see that the enormous sums of money which the local authorities have to borrow for the gigantic housing programme should be raised at the very lowest rate of interest. That is essential and will make an enormous difference to the whole housing programme. It is a very important point. I think we are going too far here, even if the Measure is revised in five years' time. It has been a very important part of the independence of local authorities that they should have the power of raising money. While I agree that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is right to ask for powers, especially for the next five years, which would enable him to keep the rate of money down, that should not be done in the form proposed in the Bill. I very much fear that if we once take away from local authorities their power of borrowing, the prohibition will tend to remain after the expiry of the five years.
  We do not know how future Governments will be composed and still less what their credit will be. They may be able to borrow very cheaply, but, on the other hand, they may not. There have been periods when local authorities could borrow more cheaply than the Central Government. Therefore, while I welcome the general purpose of the Bill, we should look very closely at Clause 1 again when we come to Committee, to see whether we can modify it so as to attain the object the Chancellor has in introducing the Bill, without so drastically interfering with the powers of self-government of the local authority.
  5.13 p.m.
  Mr. Magnay: I want to say a word of thanks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for bringing in the Bill. When we were considering the White Paper on National Insurance, I said that it denoted a new way of life. It was, to me at any rate, a great watershed, which made the waters of life run another way. The Bill is necessary in my opinion, cer-
  930
  tainly in the interests of local authorities, that they may be able, in the parlous conditions which may obtain after the war, to put their own houses in order.
  What I am concerned about, other than this word of thanks and good wishes to the Chancellor and to the Government for their efforts in that respect in the Bill, is, Who is to be in the queue for the loans? How many are there to be? Who is to choose them? When I came here, 13 years ago, mine was the worst distressed area in England or Wales, except for Merthyr Tydfil, and it was almost impossible for a distressed area to get a decent loan when it wanted it. Being a Wesleyan, I always think that Wesley spoke as a great statesman when he said that we should give not only to those who need us, but to those who need us most. In the future, such places, whatever fancy name they may be given, such as "special areas," will want all the help that they can get. Are lots to be cast to decide who is to come first in the queue? Are the borrowers to be taken in alphabetical order, or in the order of those who can pay back most quickly? I agree with an hon. Member who spoke earlier, that the Bill will be no use at all unless the loans carry the lowest possible rate of interest.
  I do not think it is impossible that loans for housing should be free of interest. We should not be honest and sincere if we failed to do something in that direction in regard to housing. Local authorities such as my own will be interested in the tripartite agreement of the three different authorities who have the loaning of the money. I should like to be assured that the loans will not carry a time-lag, which will make it impossible for the local authorities to carry out the works in the time that they would desire. I would like to know that these matters are being thought of, and that there is some plan. We should discuss this matter very carefully when the Bill is in Committee.
  As I read the signs of the times, and the practices followed during the war, I do not think there is any need for a high rate of interest. We know what happened in the '20s; there had to be deflation. In our madness and on the advice of our financial experts, we pushed the bank rate up to 7 per cent., with the result that the industry of the Tyneside went flop, and we were made a race of

  931
  labourers for many years in the shipyards. My father was a blacksmith, one of a generation of craftsmen who could make anything, and there was a high standard of craftsmanship. But we deliberately made the Tyneside a derelict area. I will raise my voice against any possibility that friends or relatives of mine should go down in that way again simply because we are guided by the advice of financial experts. It all hinges upon this low rate of interest.
  If anybody had told us during the last war that we could run this war on 2 per cent. or less, we should have disbelieved it. We should have said that the suggestion was stark financial lunacy. But it has been done. It can be done again. Let us be honest. When we will the end, let us will the means. Let us see that every effort is made by the Chancellor in this direction. I hope the House will excuse me for having spoken with such heat on this matter, but we have gone through hell on Tyneside during the last to years, and we do not want it to happen again. Let us put our brains together, and let this be a joint effort of all parties to see that the local authorities have the best means of making it financially possible to carry through the great enterprises which will be necessary to make this England the country we would like it to be.
  5.19 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas: The Bill proposes to make a very drastic change in the methods of local authorities' capital finance. It will take away from them almost completely the freedom which they have in the past enjoyed to manage these matters as they have thought best. The independence and the autonomy of local authorities are something which they cherish very deeply. Nevertheless, in the discussions which have taken place with the Chancellor and the Treasury upon the principles of these proposals, the local authorities have agreed to accept them as a temporary measure, not merely for what advantage they can get out of them themselves, but for the general advantage, because the Treasury is likely for some considerable time to come to be a borrower upon its own account, as well as upon the account of the local authorities. Therefore, to prevent unnecessary competition between local authorities and the Treasury ought to be an advantage to the Treasury, as well as the prevention of unnecessary
  932
  competition between the local authorities themselves.
  I do not think one ought to expect this Measure to work miracles. There is a reasonable hope that it will achieve a modest degree of saving, both to the Treasury and to the local authorities, in the rates of interest they may have to pay in the years which are immediately facing us. But there is, after all, a limit to what can be achieved in this way, and in this respect I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn). The rate of interest which has to be paid is in the end limited by other factors than those which he mentioned. There is the question of what the person with capital at his disposal can get by investing or using it in all the possible avenues open to him. There is also the question of the amount of inducement which he requires in order to induce him to save money and invest it for capital purposes, and these factors are all of a fundamental nature which will not be altered at all by this Bill. In passing, neither do I accept his statement that this Bill will solve the problem of building houses or that the cost of land is a negligible factor. I only wish my local authority was able to procure land on the kind of terms he mentioned, instead of having to pay, in many cases, £200 to £300 for land per flat which it has to build. That is by the way.
  This new procedure which is contemplated means that the local authorities have now to jump over three hurdles before they get their finance. They have not only, as in the past, to obtain the sanction of the Ministry of Health or whatever other Department is the loans sanctioning authority in that particular case; they have also to get the assent of the Capital Issues Committee, and finally, the assent of the Public Works Loans Board. With regard to the Public Works Loans Board, I should like, as a member of that Board, and I am sure with the full assent of my colleagues upon it, to acknowledge the compliment which the Chancellor paid to the Board for the work it has done in the past, and which I know it will be only too delighted to carry on to the best of its ability in the future. However, there are these three different bodies which have to be brought into operation in this matter, and I hope that the rules and regulations which are laid down will be as simple as possible, and

  933
  will avoid unnecessary formalities and waste of time. It will not help the ultimate success of this experiment if there is unnecessary red tape, either with regard to the preliminary inquiries or the form of the mortgage or security which is required, and so on.
  As local authorities are to be prevented, with some exceptions of a limited character which the Chancellor adumbrated in his speech, from borrowing elsewhere than from this one single source it will have to be understood that when sanction is given by the appropriate Department then, as a general rule, the other sanctions will follow automatically. In the past a local authority has had the freedom, once it obtained sanction from the loans sanctioning department, to go where it pleased for its borrowing, and if the terms which it was offered in one quarter were not satisfactory it could try another. That is entirely cut out now, and, therefore, it ought to be made possible, if the sanctioning Department considers that the project should proceed at all, for the loan to be obtained without any difficulty.
  With regard to the Capital Issues Committee, may I suggest that it would perhaps be helpful if that body contained some member or members familiar from practical experience with the work of local authorities, and with the way in which they manage their financial transactions? That is a suggestion which is in accordance with the other suggestion which the Chancellor has accepted that there should be a small advisory committee which will follow the practical working of this from day to day, and will make suggestions, in the light of experience, as to matters in which the procedure can be improved. The regulations which have to be made under this Bill are of very great importance, because they will contain, in a large measure, the substance of what the Bill wants to achieve. It is understood that there is to be no restriction upon borrowing by a local authority from internal or surplus funds which are at its disposal. This seems to be achieved by Clause 6, but there is a peculiar provision in it which, in practice, looks as if it were going to limit the applicability of it by limiting the period for which the borrowing may be made. When the time comes perhaps we can look at that in more detail, but there seems to be a measure of inconsistency in the way in which the provision is drafted.
  934
  Another point to which I should like to refer, and which will presumably have to be covered in the regulations, is the period for which the loans shall be made. I hope it will be made clear that a local authority is not prevented from borrowing for a shorter period than that for which the loan sanction is given. I do not mean by that that it should be allowed to finance long-term expenditure by means of short-term loans renewed from time to time, because that clearly is inconsistent with the main purpose of the Measure. What I am referring to is where it is thought, on proper technical and financial grounds, that it will be better policy to amortise the loan in a shorter period than that which the loan sanctioning Department has allowed. There are many instances in which local authorities in the past have quite properly carried out such an arrangement. In the case of electricity undertakings, for instance, many progressive local authority undertakers have borrowed for mains and other purposes for shorter terms than those which were sanctioned, and have found that that policy was a wise one, because the rate of obsolescence has turned out to be greater than was anticipated, and they have not been left with a burden of unproductive capital debt at the time when they found it necessary to scrap the plant and put in new plant.
  It is the same with regard to housing. It is a wise policy to borrow part of the money, at any rate, which is required for the period the Exchequer subsidy lasts, so that the burden on the local authorities' finances will be reduced pari passu with the reduction or disappearance of the subsidy. Those are illustrations of cases in which it is wise financial policy to borrow for a shorter period than has been sanctioned by the loan-sanctioning Department. I hope that no obstacle will be placed in the way of such a policy continuing. I hope also that it will be made clear that no restriction will be imposed on local authorities financing capital expenditure out of revenue if they feel it advisable, as has become the practice, to a certain extent, of a considerable number of local authorities, a practice which I should hope, so far as circumstances permit, will be increasingly adopted, with great advantage to the ratepayers.
  I hope it will be made clear that no obligation will be imposed on local authorities to exhaust the whole of the

  935
  internal funds which they have available for capital purposes before they apply to the Public Works Loans Board for an advance. If such a condition were imposed it would be extremely distasteful to the local authorities, and it would not in the long run be to the advantage of anybody. In the same way it ought to be made clear that there is no intention on the part of the Treasury to impose any greater control, apart from that which naturally flows out of the general principle here, upon the expenditure and the financial policy of individual local authorities than has been exercised in the past. I hope that on these points we shall receive satisfactory assurances.
  It was understood very clearly in the discussions that have taken place with the Chancellor on the principles of this Measure that it was intended to be only a temporary expedient, or experiment, to last for four years. There is no limitation of time whatever in this Bill, nor was there any suggestion that the point would be covered by the Regulations. All the Chancellor said was that consultation would be held with local authorities after the expiration of four or five years. That is not how I understood the undertaking given to them. It might be found, in the light of experience, that this arrangement should be carried on for a longer period. I will not prejudge that, but I think that the local authorities would like to have it made clear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not prejudging it by casting this Bill in permanent form.
  5.35 p.m.
  Mr. Stokes: I would deprecate, if I may, the absence of the Chancellor. I think he is woefully lacking in education on these points. Although he may read the speeches, that is not the same thing as talking to a man face to face, because if a man has any brain at all—and the Chancellor has—the arguments sink in more deeply then than if he reads them afterwards. [An HON. MEMBER: "If they are forceful."] If the Chancellor were here, I should certainly be more forceful than I shall be this afternoon. I wish to call attention particularly to the incidence on the rates of these local loans. I want to put a few figures on record. I am speaking about my own constituency, the borough of Ipswich. This really affects both the incidence of the loans and the rate of in-
  936
  terest. In 1941–42 the cumulative effect of interest and sinking fund on the loans outstanding in the borough amounted to £350,000, against a total expenditure of £1,500,000. I agree that some of the interest was paid out of Government grant, but that does not seriously affect the issue. The fact is that about 25 per cent. of the total expenditure in the borough was concerned with payment of interest and the sinking fund on the loans. I protest against this usury, however petty it may be.
  I wish to deal with a particular loan in a borough which I do not propose to mention, although I propose to send the borough treasurer a copy of my speech. It was a £25,000 loan, at 6¾ per cent. It was a 60-years loan, raised in 1920. In 13 years it had been reduced by something under £600, to £24,442, and in 18 years it had been reduced to £24,070. At that rate, at the end of 60 years, the £25,000 loan will have cost that wretched borough £100,000 in interest.
  Mr. Tinker: I thought that loans at a high rate of interest could be revised at certain periods.
  Mr. Stokes: My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the very point that I wanted to make. It is time that loans of that kind were revised. The only thing we can do is to mention our examples, and to send the people concerned copies of our speeches.
  Earl Winterton: Surely that includes the sinking fund?
  Mr. Stokes: No; I ask the Noble Lord to look at what I have said. It has taken 18 years to reduce the loan by something under £1,000. It is our old friend the Prudential which is concerned. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) dealt with the question of interest rates. I want to refer specifically to the interest rates effected on loans in my constituency. We have at present £4,440,000 outstanding on loans, the average rate on which works out at 3.82 percent. We could get loans—I do not say interest-free loans, because I know the difficulty, but at one per cent.; and there is no reason why we should not, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer really entered the lists against this petty usury. I profoundly disagree with my hon. Friend on this point. There is no reason at all why the Government should not loan money at 1 per cent.

  937
  I hope every ratepayer in the country will notice what I am going to say now, but it is very unlikely, I agree, because there will be a directive to suppress it and to have nothing said about it. I want to say to this House and the country what the effect would be on the rates of Ipswich if we could get loans at 1 per cent. The effect would be, at the present time, that we should save £125,781 a year on a total rate levy of 500,000. That is, approximately, 25 per cent., and on a 17s. rate, as at present, 4s. 3d. Thus 25 per cent. is the difference between the rates being levied at present and the rates as they would be with loans at 1 per cent. If we could get the rate of interest down to 1 per cent. we could drop the rates by 4s. 3d. in the pound. If that is not worth doing I do not know what is. I think the present Government are Sadly lacking in their intentions regarding the welfare of the people in this matter. They are still under the thumb of the moneylenders and they have one eye on Bretton Woods. They are still determined not to uproot the financial interests of the City. It is about time we had them out and a decent arrangement made whereby the welfare of the people can be looked after without this—to put it mildly—perfectly filthy usury on the part of people who do nothing for a great deal.
  5.42 p.m.
  Sir John Mellor: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has described the provisions of this Bill as being a notable departure in our financial legislation. I think that, in that case, it is rather extraordinary that this Bill should be brought on for Second Reading in the last two hours of the day. It would have been far more appropriate to have put it on the Paper as the first Order for some other day. It would be quite a good Bill if Clause 1 were deleted. I am entirely in favour of local authorities being given full facilities for borrowing from a central source. I am very much against their being prohibited from borrowing from other sources, should they wish, and are able to do so on terms more favourable than from the central source. I strongly protest against this prohibition that they should not borrow otherwise than through the Public Works Loans Commissioners except with the Treasury's consent.
  When the Chancellor discussed this matter with the local authorities, I think it was quite clear that it was discussed
  938
  with them on the footing that it would be, at any rate so far as compulsion is concerned, a temporary measure. Reference to the memorandum, which was published in HANSARD on 25th July, quite clearly establishes that. Indeed, the Chancellor quoted some of it when he opened his speech. I gathered from him that, in his view, it was not intended that this Bill would be a permanent Measure, as we are asked to enact it now. But I am afraid the Chancellor gave no indication in the later part of his speech that we could be assured that the scheme might not retain its present form for all time. What did he say? He referred to an Amendment which is on the Paper in the names of myself and some of my hon. Friends, and which proposes that the duration of Clause 1 of the Bill should be limited to a period of five years. The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not regard that as desirable. He said this was a novel scheme and for that reason it was not desirable to have a time limit. I should have thought that the very reason that it is a novel scheme is the strongest possible reason for this House imposing a time limit, and that is, in fact, the reason why I seek to impose a time limit of five years.
  The Chancellor has already undertaken to the local authorities to review the matter four years after the Bill has come into operation. I do not think that is sufficient for us. It is quite right that the matter should be discussed with the local authorities, but it should also be discussed in this House, and we have no possible means of securing reconsideration in this House in four or five years' time, unless we impose a definite time-limit now. That is not a burdensome thing to require. When the time comes, supposing the Bill works well, and we are all agreed that no alteration is necessary, all the Government need do is to bring in a one-Clause Bill making the scheme permanent or extending it for a further five years. It is perfectly simple. I do not think we should part with this Bill with this very drastic Clause 1 in it, which makes it illegal for any local authority ever to borrow money except from one source without Treasury consent. We ought not to pass that Clause without a time-limit being imposed upon it.
  There is one further point. The Chancellor claimed that the local authorities would be able to barrow more cheaply.

  939
  I always understood that the position was as explained by the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Colegate) that, in the past, it has very often happened that local authorities have been able to borrow more cheaply in the open market than they have from the Public Works Loan Commissioners. I am glad that other hon. Members have formed the same impression as the result of experience. Surely, all we want to see is that the local authority should be able to borrow in the cheapest market, and I understand that the local authority must have the consent of the Minister of Health before going to anybody. It is quite easy to secure that the local authority shall always borrow to the best possible advantage from the point of view of its ratepayers, even if it was tempted, which I cannot conceive would happen, to do anything else. Suppose it did do anything else, and, having the facilities for borrowing at a fixed rate from the Public Works Loan Commissioners, the local authority chose to borrow at some higher rate in the market. Surely, the district auditor of the Ministry of Health would have something to say about it and I imagine that the councillors responsible would probably find themselves surcharged.
  Mr. George Griffiths: No.
  Sir J. Mellor: I may be wrong, but it is a small point. There is no need for the Public Works Loan Commissioners to be given a monopoly. Consider the interests of the local authorities. Give them the facilities and let them choose. They will then have the chance to borrow in the cheapest market. If Clause 1 is necessary for the period of reconstruction immediately following the war, I am quite prepared to be persuaded upon that point, but I really cannot see that it is necessary to introduce this permanent prohibition. Unless the period is limited in the Bill, as far as we in this House are concerned, it is a permanent prohibition which I can only describe as a piece of blatant bureaucracy.
  5.50 p.m.
  Mr. Gallacher: I want to make a few remarks, but before doing so I would like to say that if any ill-disposed person in this House were to suggest that I am in any way a financial expert, I would consider that as the subject for an action for slander. I am far from being
  940
  in that category, but I have lent money many and many a time, and, as I remarked to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), in our walk of life—[An HON. MEMBER: "You never get it back"]—it was a common thing for those who happened to celebrate on certain occasions, to regard a teetotaller as one who should always have money in his pocket and should always have it at their disposal. I have lent money, but I have never at any time in my life dreamed of a percentage of interest. That never entered the mind of any honest man.
  Mr. Colegate: Is the hon. Member talking of loans that he made to local authorities, or those he made merely personally?
  Mr. Gallacher: They were friendly loans, from one friend to another. Are we to be told that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the enemy or the friend of the local authority? I will put it in another way. If I have furniture which I am afraid of losing, I put it into store for safety. Do they pay me so much interest for putting it into store? I have to pay for putting it into store. If I have money in the house which I am afraid of losing, I put it into store—a bank. How much do I pay? I want to impress Members on this side of the House particularly with the fact that this method of dealing with money is one which is a fraud, and is used for corrupting the people of this country. The people of any town, city or locality would willingly lend their money to the local authorities—
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: Do they lend it to the co-ops?
  Mr. Gallacher: —and to the co-ops too. They would willingly lend money if encouragement were given, and if it was not for the rotten system that encourages every kind of fraud and corruption. I am not one of those who make a lot of talk about the freedom of local authorities to go into the cheapest market. It is not the cheapest market that Members of the party opposite are thinking about when they talk about the freedom of local authorities. It is the freedom for their own fellows to encourage the local authorities to go to their particular friends for loans, at whatever rate of interest they like to charge. If there is to be freedom for local authorities to do their

  941
  job, there will have to be control over loans, and the rate of interest that they have to pay. The Chancellor of the Exchequer should see to it that, if the loans cannot be issued free of interest, they should be at the lowest rate of interest, such as would exist between one friend and another. It is no use the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay) getting into a passion, and complaining of the position in Gateshead, if he supports the robbers on the other side. You cannot support the robbers, and then plead to God. You have to make a choice. You cannot choose Barabbas and then complain of the way in which your friends and relatives have been treated.
  Mr. Magnay: I did not say a word about Barabbas.
  Mr. Gallacher: I say to the hon. Member "Be honest with yourself and finish with the whole business." I want to deal with the question of municipal banks which was raised by an hon. Member. The Chancellor should discuss this with the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has, from time to time, written exceptionally fine articles, dealing with the question of municipal banks, and saying what municipal banks would mean in saving local authorities from much heavy expenditure, and enabling them to get ahead with their work. I believe that there is a municipal bank in Birmingham, and there is one at Kirkintilloch, the home of the Secretary of State. We ought to be encouraging municipal banks so that they can gather in the local money, and pour it into the funds of the local authority, in order that the local authority get ahead with the jobs they have to do.
  I do not understand the financial juggling of the hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) showing that local authorities only pay a few coppers a week for land and 17s. for interest. You cannot separate the cost of land from the interest. The interest is used in respect of the loans for land, materials, and all the rest of it. There are many authorities in this country who have heavy interest to pay because of the high cost of land. When they take building land for building purposes, all the amenities and all the civic centres should go with the houses. A fellow in Dundee wanted some land on which to build nine three-storey buildings and because of the cost of land, he could only get one-third of the land he wanted, and, instead of
  942
  building nine three-storey buildings, he built three nine-storey buildings. [Interruption.] He was as crazy as most of the Members opposite. When last I saw the buildings, in spite of the housing shortage, only up to six floors were occupied.
  Land is one of the most serious problems. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in dealing with the local authorities, should realise that two things are absolutely vital to local authorities, so that they may meet and deal with the crisis of housing and health. They are so essential that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should see to it that land is obtained by the local authorities with the greatest of ease and in the greatest abundance. They should have money at the cheapest possible rate so that they may be free to do the great job of work that lies ahead of them.
  5.59 p.m.
  Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: After the very exhilarating exhortations to which we have just listened from my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) it is a little difficult to enter into the more detailed intricacies of some of his arguments, but I cannot help drawing attention to the tall houses to which he was referring, and thinking that they may have contained some of the tall stories of which he has been telling us. Certainly these seem to go up very high towards the sky. There was, however, one thing with which I was in agreement with my hon. Friend, and that was when he said there must be a measure of control over the local authorities. I think there, however, our ways part, because the measure of control which he attempted to envisage was very different indeed from the measure of control which I should advocate. I should advocate control to ensure that the local authorities, where it was necessary for them to borrow money, did so in the cheapest market, and that is what I fear this Bill may very likely prevent.
  It being Six o'Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

  ADJOURNMENT
  Resolved: "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major A. S. L. Young.]
  Adjourned accordingly at One Minute after Six o'Clock.

  FOOD SUPPLIES (CATERING LICENCES)
  FOOD SUPPLIES (CATERING LICENCES)
  COLONIAL CIVIL SERVICE
  COLONIAL CIVIL SERVICE
  INTERNATIONAL BIBLE STUDENTS ASSOCIATION (PUBLICATIONS)
  INTERNATIONAL BIBLE STUDENTS ASSOCIATION (PUBLICATIONS)
  BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR, FAR EAST
  BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR, FAR EAST
ROAD TRANSPORT
  Taxi-Cabs (London)
  Taxi-Cabs (London)
  Internal By-pass Road, Hereford
  Internal By-pass Road, Hereford
  Forth Road Bridge
  Forth Road Bridge
  Rural Motor Bus Services
  Rural Motor Bus Services
  Arms Garage, Faringdon
  Arms Garage, Faringdon
  Omnibus Fares (Commissioner's Statement)
  Omnibus Fares (Commissioner's Statement)
  NATIONAL INSURANCE
  NATIONAL INSURANCE
  FOG (RESEARCH)
  FOG (RESEARCH)
  EX-SERVICEMEN (REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT)
  EX-SERVICEMEN (REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT)
  AFFORESTATION (GRANTS IN AID)
  AFFORESTATION (GRANTS IN AID)
  PEACE TERMS
  PEACE TERMS
  INDIA (SERVICE HOSPITALS, SOAP)
  INDIA (SERVICE HOSPITALS, SOAP)
RAILWAYS
  Train Services, London and Durham
  Train Services, London and Durham
  Race Train, Cheltenham
  Race Train, Cheltenham
  MARINE TRANSPORT (THEFTS)
  MARINE TRANSPORT (THEFTS)
  MERCHANT SHIPPING (UNITED STATES TRANSFERS)
  MERCHANT SHIPPING (UNITED STATES TRANSFERS)
  LITIGATION (CROWN SERVANTS)
  LITIGATION (CROWN SERVANTS)
  EAST AFRICAN INDUSTRIES (RESEARCH ACTIVITIES)
  EAST AFRICAN INDUSTRIES (RESEARCH ACTIVITIES)
  KENYA AND UGANDA RAILWAY (ELECTRIFICATION)
  KENYA AND UGANDA RAILWAY (ELECTRIFICATION)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Old Age Pensions (Finance)
  Old Age Pensions (Finance)
  Mining Royalties
  Mining Royalties
POST OFFICE
  Eire (British Postal Money Payments)
  Eire (British Postal Money Payments)
  Savings Bank Deposits
  Savings Bank Deposits
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Paper Supplies (Moberley Committee)
  Paper Supplies (Moberley Committee)
  Wrapping Paper
  Wrapping Paper
HOUSING
  Temporary Construction
  Temporary Construction
  Repairs (Cement-Gun Process)
  Repairs (Cement-Gun Process)
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (REBUILDING)
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (REBUILDING)
  FACTORIES (NORTHERN REGION)
  FACTORIES (NORTHERN REGION)
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (RELEASES TO INDUSTRY)
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (RELEASES TO INDUSTRY)
  BRITISH ARMY (JOINT RELEASE COMMITTEE)
  BRITISH ARMY (JOINT RELEASE COMMITTEE)
Preamble
The House met at two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
  THE EARL OF GOWRIE.
  The Right Honourable Alexander Gore Arkwright, Baron Gowrie, V.C., G.C.M.G., C.B., D.S.O., having been created Viscount Ruthven of Canberra, of Dirleton in the County of East Lothian and Earl of Gowrie—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

OVERSEAS TRADE DEPARTMENT.
2.15 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK VISCOUNT ELIBANK rose to call attention to the anomalous and unsatisfactory position created by the existing system of dual control over the Overseas Trade Department by the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office; to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will appoint a committee to examine the question of Government machinery for dealing with our post-war trade and commerce; and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I once more venture to approach your Lordships and the Government upon the question of the form of Government machinery which will concern itself with our post-war foreign policy, and not only that, but with the Government machinery which will give guidance and assistance to our traders, manufacturers, and industrialists, to obtain results commensurate with the individual efforts they will make to increase our post-war trade. A debate initiated by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, just before the Recess, was concerned principally with the form of Government machinery required in order to formulate in the future our foreign
664
policy in contradistinction to our foreign economic policy. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, did indicate, and I agree with him, that those two subjects are largely interdependent, but what I wish to point out here to-day is that whilst one set of Government machinery seems to be necessary to consider and formulate our foreign policy, a different set of Government machinery is required in order to administer and arrange our foreign economic policy, and to give assistance and guidance to our traders, our manufacturers and our industrialists to recover and to expand our export trade.
After reading the former debates on this subject in both Houses very carefully, I have come to the conclusion that the Government are not very clear-minded on the point. What they apparently are trying to do is to create machinery to regulate both issues at one and the same time and to solve both problems by the same set of Government machinery. I am supported in this view by the fact that although the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, in the course of his reply to Lord Perth's Motion on 13th December, acknowledged that there was a Cabinet Committee already sitting to consider this broad, general problem—presumably the problem of foreign policy—he seemed to indicate in other parts of his speech that the same Cabinet Committee had under consideration also the Government machinery for dealing with our foreign economic policy, including the issues arising out of the Foreign Office reforms as affecting our trade and commerce. If my assumption is correct—and I shall be glad to hear what the noble Earl, Lord Munster, who I understand is replying for the Government, will have to say on that point—then, my Lords, this is where I join issue with the Government.
I see no reason to differ from the view of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, that the two subjects in their final shape are interdependent and that after this war it will not be possible to formulate a comprehensive foreign policy without taking very closely into regard our foreign economic policy as well. But I wish to emphasize again that from the point of view of framing Government machinery, they are two different subjects, which require different treatment and therefore different sets of Government machinery to deal with them. If one set of Government

665
machinery is to be used for the two purposes, then I foresee our foreign economic policy being submerged in the realm of the higher departmental spheres without the full light of publicity being brought to bear upon it, and I submit that it is most necessary to have this light of publicity if a really satisfactory foreign economic policy is to be produced.
It is quite obvious that, according to our constitutional usage, our foreign policy must be determined by the Foreign Secretary in agreement with the Cabinet, and in general I welcome and support the recommendations that were made in that connexion by my noble friend Lord Perth in his speech of 13th December. But so far as foreign economic policy is concerned, that is essentially a matter in which the public, as I have just said, must and should have full participation and in framing which the trading and manufacturing communities especially can give, by their individual endeavours, and by their advice and their assistance, very valuable help.
Towards the end of the Great War in 1917–18 there were very considerable anxiety and criticism on the part of the business community regarding the Government machinery established for assisting traders and manufacturers in their efforts to recover and expand our export trade. As a result of that and of differences within the Departments themselves the Government created the Department of Overseas Trade and made that Department a balancing Department responsible both to the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office. Very soon there arose an outcry in those two Departments—namely, in the Board of Trade and in the Foreign Office—and also on the part of the business community, against this form of dual control which had been set up under the new system. It was generally agreed that that form of control was unsatisfactory and the Board of Trade itself put forward a strong plea that the Overseas Trade Department should be absorbed in their Department. On the other hand, the Foreign, Office put forward a similar plea for absorption by that Department. The Government could riot find a solution and therefore they appointed a Committee called the Cave Committee, under the Lord Chancellor of the day, to examine the question of Government machinery for dealing with trade and commerce. The terms of reference to that Committee
666
were rather limited. The principal term was "to have special reference to the absorption of the Overseas Trade Department by the Board of Trade." That Committee was unable to obtain agreement between these two principal Departments and recommended that the dual control system should be continued. It was continued, it has been continued and it is in existence at the present time.
Although twenty-five years have elapsed since then, the same issue is at stake—namely, the unsatisfactory results of the system of dual control. Again there is a demand from Parliament and from the business, manufacturing and industrial communities that a change in the system is absolutely essential if our foreign trade is to receive that assistance and guidance which will be required in face of the extremely active post-war competition in trade that will confront us. I do not for a moment suggest that, though this issue of dual control is still alive, the present Government have done nothing to try to alleviate its difficulties. It is evident that for some time the Government have been actively engaged on trying to find some form of machinery which will better be able to assist our export trade than that which was in existence before the war and I wish to give the Government that credit. It is not my intention to-day to attack the Government. I am indeed speaking from the point of view of trying to urge the Government to take further and even greater steps in order to do what apparently they are trying to accomplish.
The Government have, for instance, realized that economics must largely enter into the question of foreign policy and they have approved a scheme for the reform of the Foreign Office, which in part has relation to trade and commerce and which has been adopted by Parliament. They have also agreed to the creation on an advisory basis of an Economic and Intelligence branch of the Foreign office and the establishment of a Foreign Service including official trade representatives with equal opportunity for promotion in that Service according to merit. They have even arranged that representatives of the Overseas Trade Department shall be upon the two staffs and that the Ministers of Legations shall be responsible to the Foreign Office and not to the Overseas Trade Department which, employs them. This seems to me a somewhat Gilbertian procedure. It may work

667
out in practice or it may not but obviously it is a clumsy offspring of this system of dual control which I am attacking to-day. The point which the Government have apparently left severely alone is the thorny one of the system of dual control exercised over the Overseas Trade Department by the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office. It is, however, fair to say that in a reply to me in a recent debate Lord Listowel did attempt to show how, through a series of intricate Departmental activities, which was extremely difficult to follow, this system of dual control was satisfactory. So intricate were the arrangements described to your Lordships by Lord Listowel that it reminded me of the works of a watch in which if the tiniest piece of the machinery goes wrong the whole watch will stop. This is the complicated kind of official machinery which the Government ask the country and the trading and manufacturing community to accept to-day at a moment when our whole economic life is dependent upon the revival and the expansion of our export trade.
Recently there have been important debates not only in your Lordships' House but in the House of Commons on the subject of our export trade. Many and varied points were discussed during those debates. There were specially strong expressions of opinion in both Houses that the Government machinery to regulate our export trade and to advise and assist our traders, manufacturers and industrialists was far from perfect, that it required considerable adjustments, and that as a first step the system of dual control over the Overseas Trade Department should be abolished. Unfortunately during those debates considerable differences of opinion were expressed as to the steps to be taken to improve the existing machinery. That is the main reason for my Motion to-day. There is a strong feeling in Parliament, among the business community and in the country generally about this system of dual control. In the debate in another place it was recommended by several members that the Board of Trade should be reorganized into a Ministry of Industry and Commerce. It was suggested by practically all the members who took part in the debate that the dual control system of overseas trade by the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office should be abolished and that the
668
Overseas Trade Department should be made wholly responsible to the reorganized Board of Trade. In your Lordships' House one recommendation was that the Overseas Trade Department should be strengthened and made into an entirely independent Department with a Minister in charge. Another recommendation was that an Exports Office should be created. A further suggestion put forward by myself was that the Foreign Office should absorb the Overseas Trade Department and for that purpose form a new executive branch in the Foreign Office which should deal with overseas foreign trade leaving the Board of Trade to handle domestic and Imperial trade, the two Departments co-operating closely.
Obviously all the speakers in both Houses of Parliament were dissatisfied with the system of dual control and wished to see it abolished. There was no confusion of ideas at all on that point. I agree that there was confusion of ideas as to alternative methods, but all wished to see dual control abolished. In neither House did the speaker who replied on behalf of the Government come to grips with the issue of dual control. It was evident that the Government were uncertain how to cope with the issue and were unable to lay down a satisfactory policy. In those circumstances it seems to me that the same situation has arisen as in 1917 and that the appointment of a Committee similar to the Cave Committee of 1919 but with even wider terms of reference, to inquire into the question of Government machinery to deal with trade and commerce, would be the most appropriate step to take. The War Cabinet which appointed the Cave Committee was composed of distinguished and very experienced statesmen who had a great deal of work of many kinds to do. The present War Cabinet also includes distinguished statesmen who have as much or even more work to do, but if the War Cabinet in 1917–18 were prepared to delegate this question to an independent Committee of inquiry, I submit with all respect that the War Cabinet of 1945 might be prepared to do the same. Such a Committee, unlike a Cabinet Committee, would be in a position to take public evidence and to consult the business community, the Departments concerned and all those who have practical knowledge of the subject. It would be able to recommend to the Government

669
machinery which would help to formulate foreign economic policy as well as to give real assistance to our export trade.
It has been suggested by one noble friend of mine that a Departmental Committee might be able to accomplish all that is necessary. I do not think that that would Le possible, however, principally because differences of opinion and outlook between the Departments themselves must necessarily form part of that inquiry and it would be rather invidious to ask Departmental officials to adjudicate on their on their own differences. Moreover, a Departmental Committee would not be able to take public evidence in the same way as a public Committee of inquiry. I believe that Parliament will only be satisfied with a Committee on an independent basis and will only believe that every possible step has been taken by the Government to establish the most perfect form of Government machinery for the purpose if such a Committee is appointed.
The trading and manufacturing and industrial communities are constantly being urged by Government speakers to greater effort and efficiency after the war and I admit that the Government are perfectly entitled to make such a demand. On the other hand, I venture to suggest that the trading and manufacturing and industrial communities are just as much entitled on their part to demand from the Government the best Government machinery to assist them and to guide them in their work. Traders, manufacturers and industrialists are waiting for a lead to-day, but there is no evidence at all—certainly none in the speeches that we have heard in the past in your Lordships' House and in another place—that the Government are anywhere near reaching the formation of that perfect machinery which we shall require after the war if we are to meet the serious trade competition of which I spoke. So I have put down this Motion to-day with the object of once more asking the Government to go forward with an inquiry that will really lead to a form of machinery which the Government can use and which the business community can trust. I beg to move for Papers.
2.39 p.m.
THE EARL OF CARLISLE: My Lords, I shall detain your Lordships for a very brief time. The subject of this Motion has been extensively debated before, and
670
I do not propose to cover any old ground. I should like to say that while I am entirely in sympathy with the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, in his desire for more information, I do not agree that there is any necessity to appoint a Government Committee at this moment because I believe the machinery is already in existence which with very small alterations is perfectly able to function efficiently in the time of peace. I am one of those who rather regret the decision to close down the Ministry of Economic Warfare. I think it might be retained under its present initials, possibly called the Ministry of Economic Welfare. But I do not think it much matters under what Department the work is done so long as it is done, and so long as there is really close collaboration between the various Departments concerned.
I should like this collaboration not only to be oil a Ministerial level but to permeate the whole of the Departments, and I am going to ask my noble friend the Earl of Munster if he can give us some assurance that a Standing Committee may be formed, consisting of representatives of the Foreign Office, the Treasury, the Board of Trade, and the Department of Overseas Trade, with powers to co-opt business men and merchants with experience of overseas markets into its counsels. I believe that is what is wanted, and that that is all we really require. I hope that the noble Earl in his reply will be able to give us some assurance that when a final decision is made as to exactly what this machinery is going to be, your Lordships may be informed, and then, with the knowledge that we shall have obtained, I would like to have a debate on the subject. Any criticism that may be necessary will probably be then forthcoming.
2.42 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Elibank pointed out at the beginning of his remarks, this is not the first occasion upon which your Lordships have discussed the very important question of our post-war foreign trade and commerce. His Majesty's Government are, of course, fully alive to the need for ensuring that everything possible is done to increase our export trade, and also to obtain new and fresh markets overseas for British trade and British enterprise. Therefore, I do

671
not, myself, nor do His Majesty's Government, complain in any way that Lord Elibank has seen fit to raise this question once again and to call further attention to the problem. My noble friend behind me, Lord Listowel, who replied for the Government on the 30th November last to the Motion made by Lord Elibank, was, I thought, severely brought to trial by my noble friend, who complained that his speech was extremely difficult to follow due to the fact that he explained—I thought myself with considerable success—the series of inter-departmental activities of the Board of Trade, the Foreign Office and the Overseas Trade Department, quite apart from the other Departments which, of course, are concerned. In fact, Lord Elibank reproached my noble friend for avoiding what he described as "the principal issue." This, he went on to tell your Lordships, was the question of dual control and he suggested that the reason for the maintenance of the existing and present machinery arose from the differences of opinion between the two Departments primarily concerned, that is to say the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office.
Now if my noble friend and your Lordships will be good enough to bear with me, I want to take you, and chiefly the noble Lord, through the stages which led to the setting up of the Department of Overseas Trade in the year 1917, and further to explain to the House its position and place in the Government machinery since that date. My noble friend has attempted to show that because various alternative suggestions have been put forward from time to time, all of which involve some change in the present position, that alone indicates general agreement that the present arrangement is wrong, out of date and defunct. The Department of Overseas Trade was set up in the year 1917, and began to function as a full-blooded Government Department in 1918. It was presided over by a Minister of a status between that of a Cabinet Minister and a Parliamentary Secretary. This Minister was, at the same time, to be an additional Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade and an additional Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Foreign Office. And that set-up is still operating to-day. The new Department was not to concern itself with policy, but was to provide a machine for serving British export trade
672
and for providing the Government with the information upon which its overseas commercial policy could be based. I think the noble Lord will probably agree with me that that is a very important point, and one which we should not lose sight of in the course of our discussion.
Furthermore, it had to deal not only with the Commercial Diplomatic Service which works in foreign countries but also with the Trade Commissioner Service which performs similar duties and functions in the British Dominions, in India and in some of the Colonies. Up to that time, this Commercial Diplomatic Service, which had started as a part of the Foreign Service, serving in Embassies and Legations overseas, was working primarily for the Board of Trade and not for the Foreign Office. Therefore, it stands to reason that if it remained under the Foreign Office the Board of Trade would, automatically, be without responsibility for a Service on which it depended for its basic information about foreign countries. Alternatively, if it were transferred to the Board of Trade, then the Foreign Office would be without control over those persons who serve under their representatives in foreign lands.
My noble friend will see quite clearly, as I am sure your Lordships will as well, that the Government at that time were placed in a dilemma, an awkward dilemma, and it was to avoid that dilemma that the Government of the day saw fit to set up the Department of Overseas Trade. In fact, there was a further point, which perhaps I should have mentioned before, that the Trade Commissioner Service, since it served within the Empire, could, obviously, not come under the control of the Foreign Office, although a very large part of its work was of exactly the same kind, and for precisely similar purposes, as that performed by the Commercial Diplomatic Service. To make the position abundantly clear to the noble Viscount, I should like, even at the risk of wearying the House, to read a few lines from a memorandum which was drawn up by the Board of Trade and by the Foreign Office with regard to the future organization of commercial intelligence.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May we have the date of that?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: It is Cd. 8715, of the year 1917. This is what that document says:
"It is believed that these proposals"—
those I have just outlined—
"afford a satisfactory solution of a problem which, for some years past, has been urged on the attention of His Majesty's Government by the commercial and industrial community. Their criticisms have been especially directed against the duality of the existing system, under which, while the direction of the Commercial Attachés and Consular Services rests with the Foreign Office, the utilization of the fruits of their commercial work lies with the Board of Trade. Under the new system the direction of the commercial work of the Foreign Services and the distribution of the intelligence collected by them will be dealt with by a single Department, and as the same Department will also direct the Trade Commissioner Service within the Empire, unity of policy will be secured in respect of overseas trade as a whole."
I should like, if I may, to try to construe even further the position of dual control to which the noble Viscount objects. In the pre-1917 era, various items of work, all directed to assisting our overseas trade, were managed by different Departments, each one of which had a legitimate interest. The Government came to the conclusion that it would make for efficiency to have these various items of work directed entirely by one organization. This organization had itself to be controlled by the two Departments who were mainly interested, but in the view of the Government it is more efficient to have similar work directed by a single organization, even though that single organization must have an element of dual control.
My noble friend went on to explain to your Lordships that shortly after the setting up of the Department of Overseas Trade there arose an outcry amongst the business community that the system of dual control was unsatisfactory and therefore unworkable, and that the Board of Trade had put forward a suggestion that the Department of Overseas Trade should be absorbed. Moreover, he went on to state that the Foreign Offer resisted the claim and finally that the Government of the day appointed a Committee, under the Chairmanship of the late Lord Cave, to go into the whole position. This Committee, as he pointed out, recommended that the existing arrangements should continue. My noble friend went on to add that the main reason which led the Committee to that con-
674
clusion was that they were unable to obtain any agreement whatever between the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office as to which of those two Departments should take over the smaller body; what I may even perhaps describe as the illegitimate child.
At this stage I might perhaps quote to your Lordships some rather longer remarks which appear in the Report of Lord Cave's Committee. I do so because they put the matter in such clear, simple and concise terms, and will explain it far better than I could possibly explain it to your Lordships. This is what that Committee wrote:
"There are strong reasons, apart from the view of business men to whom we have referred, which tell against the proposal to abolish the Department of Overseas Trade or to allow it to be merged into the Board of Trade…. If the Department of Overseas Trade is to 'drop its Foreign Office functions' and become wholly a Department of the Board of Trade, the effect will be to revive evils which so recently as 1917 led to the formation of that Department. The link between the Board of Trade, on the one hand, and the Foreign Office and the Consular and Diplomatic Service on the other hand, which was then set up by agreement between the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the President of the Board of Trade and received the sanction of Parliament, would be at an end. The Board of Trade would lose touch with the British representatives abroad and would be compelled to act in all instances through the Foreign Office. Delay would be caused and the old complaints would recur. Obviously there must be a point of contact, and of close contact, between the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office. We endeavoured to obtain an agreement between the permanent officials of these two Departments whereby this contact should be secured without the interposition of the subsidiary Department of Overseas Trade, but without success ….
"Apart from the above considerations, there is much to be said for retaining …. a Department which has no duties other than that of fostering British trade overseas. The Department has covered a field previously unoccupied …. The only practical conclusion which emerges from these considerations is that the Department of Overseas Trade should continue as at present constituted and should receive the full support of both the parent Departments, and so we recommend. It will, of course, be for the Board of Trade to formulate the commercial policy of the country, and it will be the duty of the Department of Overseas Trade to carry it out so far as it relates to overseas trade."
That is the view which was expressed, as I have said, by Lord Cave's Committee.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, if the noble Earl will forgive me for interrupting, I should like to point out that there

675
was a Minority Report of that Committee. The Minority Report was written by Mr. Dudley Docker, the only business man on the Committee. I think it would be only fair if the noble Earl would state quite shortly what Mr. Dudley Docker said with regard to all this, because it would show that he disagreed with the contentions set forth by the majority of the Committee.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am sorry I have not got the Report with me, but no doubt the noble Viscount in his reply could say what Mr. Dudley Docker said. But my noble friend will surely see that while the Committee were aware that, at the date they reported, Departmental jealousies were prevalent, it was not that reason solely which drove the Committee to conclude that the system of dual control should continue. As they said, there was much to be said for maintaining a Department which had no other duties than that of fostering British trade overseas. To me, speaking as a layman, it seems that the Committee were probably right in their appreciation.
Whatever those jealousies may have been in 1919, let me pass over the intermediate twenty-five years and come down to the system which is in operation today. There are, so far as I am aware, no jealousies whatever existing between the three Departments; and if the main reason for setting up the Department of Overseas Trade in 1917 had been interdepartmental jealousies, then surely my noble friend might have had a case to-day to argue that the disappearance of the Department of Overseas Trade was the natural consequence of the disappearance of the jealousies, but he has not done so. As the Government pointed out in their White Paper of 1917, and as Lord Cave pointed out in 1919, there were far more cogent reasons why the Department should remain in existence than merely inter-departmental jealousies, and in the Government's opinion those reasons are just as strong to-day. Therefore we are definitely inclined to the view that the Department should be maintained substantially in its present form.
The noble Viscount went on to tell the House that a scheme for the reorganization of the Foreign Service, which provided among other things for improvement in the status of commercial diplomatic officers, had recently been approved by
676
Parliament. It is quite true to say that the commercial diplomatic officers are now interchangeable with other members of the Foreign Service, and they can of course on their own merits reach the highest position in their own particular service. But my noble friend was entirely wrong in saying that the officers serving in commercial diplomatic positions will be responsible to the Foreign Office and not to the Department of Overseas Trade. They have, it is quite true—and obviously it is quite true—an allegiance to the Ambassador or to the Minister, as the case may be, but they will continue to be supervised by the Department of Overseas Trade, as they have been in the past. Thus, my noble friend will see that he has imagined a further piece of mechanism and put it into the watch to make it go, which in point of fact is not there and should not be there at all.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I say there is no imagination on my part? It is the result of a reply given by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, in the debate which I initiated in November, in which he stated that these officials of the Overseas Trade Department would be upon the staffs of the Ministers and Ambassadors, and would be eligible for promotion in the Diplomatic Service, and yet they were to be appointed and employed by the Department of Overseas Trade. That was my statement to-day. It was not my imagination, it was in the reply given to Lord Perth.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I would not for one moment say it was the noble Viscount's imagination; all I would say is that if the noble Lord did say to-day that these officials would be responsible to the Foreign Office, as he did, he was wrong. It is not so. As to what was said in reply to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, in the discussion in November, I was not here then and I have not had an opportunity of seeing the Hansard report of the debate.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Before the noble Earl made that statement he should have studied the facts.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I was referring to the reply to the debate initiated by the noble Viscount, but I will study the report of the debate in November, and see whether my noble friend made the statement which has been referred to.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: In the meantime withdraw your aspersions on my imagination.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: No, not at all. Perhaps I may be allowed to go on without these interruptions; it really is very difficult to speak in these conditions. I should point out that the Department has moved from the position of twenty-five years ago. At that time the conception was that the Department of Overseas Trade should have no concern with policy but should act as a collector and distributor of information. We have now learnt fiat such collection and distribution cannot be done without intimate and close knowledge and association with policy. I think it must follow that those who collect this information are in a position to advise the Minister upon the formulation of policy, and the Government accordingly expect that the senior officials of the Department will be clearly associated with the formulation of overseas trade policy in the Board of Trade, and that they should therefore maintain close and ever continuous contact for that purpose.
The House will notice, and so will my noble friend, that I have just referred to the formulation of overseas trade policy in the Board of Trade and not in the Foreign Office. As Lord Elibank so well pointed out, overseas trade policy and foreign policy are two separate things and, as far as I can see, it would not be to the liking of the commercial community that when they wish to deal with a matter of home trade or one concerning our trade within the Empire, they should have to approach the President of the Board of Trade, whilst, when they wish to deal with a matter affecting interest in a foreign trade, they would go cap in hand to the Foreign Secretary. It seems to me abundantly clear that there must be one Department responsible for trade policy as a whole and the Department of the Government which is charged with this duty is the Board of Trade. The President of the Board of Trade is in just the same position as any other Minister. He acts in consultation and in agreement with those of his colleagues who are most intimately concerned.
Let me turn to the last part of the Motion of my noble friend, as to whether the Government will appoint a Committee
678
to examine the question of Government machinery for dealing with our post-war trade and commerce. Naturally, His Majesty's Government have devoted a good deal of time and thought to the examination of this very highly important question, and they have considered with the utmost care all the alternative methods that have been put forward from time to time. It seems to me redundant to say, but nevertheless I say it, that every man and woman in this country depends to an enormous extent, and know they depend, upon our future trade, and no Government, of whatever Party, could disregard the building up of our export trade which must follow the complete destruction of world trade occasioned by the present war. No final decision has yet been taken, and we shall have an opportunity of considering the views expressed by my noble friend and others in the course of the debate. I venture, however, to think that the formation of a Committee of inquiry at this stage would not be a useful step.
The international conditions under which our export trade will have to work and flourish after the war are certainly becoming clearer as one development follows another and gives a greater insight into the things to come; but, my Lords, whilst trade is in the state of flux that it is in to-day, it is, I submit, not possible for His Majesty's Government to invite an outside body to pronounce upon what machinery will work best in circumstances of which we are not yet fully aware. It must be the responsibility of Government in the first instance, and His Majesty's Government are prepared to shoulder that responsibility, but naturally we are assisted by the suggestions which we have heard from the noble Viscount and from the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, this afternoon. In fact there will be ample opportunity in the future, as was pointed out by the noble Earl, for Lord Elibank to say whether he considers the Government's policy is correct or incorrect when the day should arrive.
I would only say this in conclusion. The noble Viscount, the Government and your Lordships' House have, I think, only one object in view: to see that the machinery for considering external trade and economic policy works smoothly and well, and that that machinery should be designed to expand, enlarge and enhance the export trade of this land upon which

679
the livelihood of the noble Viscount and everybody else must ultimately depend. I hope that after the remarks I have made this afternoon my noble friend will see fit to withdraw his Motion for reasons which I have stated. I was grateful for the words which fell from Lord Carlisle. There is, of course, constant consultation with business men, and I will certainly convey to my right honourable friend the views which the noble Earl expressed to your Lordships in the course of the discussion.
3.13 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I congratulate the Government upon attempting to make their Front Bench economically minded. We have had three debates in this House on this subject and each debate has been answered by a different member of the Government, and so each one of those three has had to learn his case. No doubt in the next debate that is initiated on the same subject we shill have another member of the Government replying, in order that they may all gradually obtain knowledge of this very important subject. I was rather concerned with Lord Munster's suggestion that I have been drawing upon my imagination. I also felt that in the circumstances of the case, in which he admitted he had not read the former debate and did not know what was said in it, he at least might have withdrawn that suggestion until he had had the opportunity of looking at it.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I never said that I had not read the debate. I have read it.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Well, Hansard will decide about that to-morrow. With regard to the Report of which he read a large extract to your Lordships—namely, the Report of Lord Cave's Committee of 1917–18–I should just like to point out that there was a Minority Report of that Committee which was signed by the only business man on the Committee, Mr. Dudley Docker, who unfortunately has passed away now but who was one of our biggest industrialists and one of the best business men in the whole country. I should like to read out, in defence of my own position and the fact that the business community is not as happy with the new arrangements as the Departments
680
seem to be, this short letter in which he prefaced his recommendations:
"I regret that I do not feel able to subscribe to the Report of the Majority Committee. While I am in agreement with a number of their recommendations, I am of opinion that they have left unhealed the malady for which we were asked to suggest a cure. I consider that the system of dual control of the Department of Overseas Trade is at the root of the trouble. Any such system of dual control must be eradicated. From my own personal knowledge, and after hearing the strong evidence put before us by the representatives of the Consular Service and the commercial world, I have come to the conclusion the only remedy I can recommend is the adoption of the principle that the Foreign Office must be responsible for establishing the lines upon which our foreign commercial policy should be framed."
Now this is important:
"A similar conclusion was arrived at by the majority of the Committee presided over recently by Lord Faringdon—another business committee upon which I had the honour to serve."
It is therefore quite obvious that whereas the lay members of this Committee came to one conclusion, the business member of the Committee came to quite another conclusion.
But listening to the noble Earl, I did see a slight sign of yielding in his remarks. He did not rule a Committee of the nature for which I have ventured to ask to-day out of court altogether. He said that this was not the time, in any case, for such a Committee; that the Cabinet Committee which was at work should be allowed to continue and exercise its functions for the present and until it was better known what the conditions were going to be overseas after the war. That is the argument which appeals to me more than any other. I agree that the conditions under which we shall conduct trade after the war are very nebulous and uncertain to-day, and therefore I am prepared to accept the Government's ruling that at the present time there shall be no Committee of inquiry as suggested by me. I still stick to the belief, however, that ultimately a Committee of inquiry will be necessary and that this form of dual control under which we are suffering to-day, and will suffer again in the future if it is allowed to continue, will have to be adjusted and amended some day. I beg to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

ROAD VEHICLES.
3.20 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government when they will be ready to state what alterations to the present regulations governing the weights and dimensions of heavy road vehicles and omnibuses are to be made in the future in the interests of the travelling public and the export trade so that manufacturers can begin to plan their post-war programmes; what is their policy for the encouragement of the export trade in light motor vehicles and whether the incidence of the pre-war taxes on road vehicles, petrol and oil as it affected the manufacture of British motor-cars suitable for export is being borne in mind; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion which I have the honour to ask your Lordships' permission to move really deals with another aspect of the same subject as that which we have already been discussing and I was very grateful for something which fell from the noble Earl, Lord Munster, just now when he said that every man and woman in this country depends on the export trade—every man and woman in the country. I have not heard it put so high as that but coming from a Minister of his eminence of course I accept it. The Motion divides itself into two parts, the first dealing with the ordinary light motor cars and the second with the heavy road vehicles, the commercial vehicles and motor buses. I want to tell your Lordships if I may at the beginning that I have no personal business interest of any kind in any branch of the motor industry, and if I am not quite accurate in all my technical details that is the reason.
Parliament cannot bind its successors but I think in this case it can work to help the export trade in motor vehicles of all kinds. There could be some all-Party understanding as to future taxation and as to the regulations regarding dimensions and so on. I would like to suggest that there should be an all-Party agreement or something of that kind which will give the motor manufacturing industries an indication of what they may expect in two or three years time so that they can get on with their designs, build prototypes and make other preparations. Apart horn helping export trade I should
682
have thought that it would have been in the interests of the country to encourage the production in this country of motor cars which can compete with the American models that were so popular before the war. The man who could not afford a Rolls-Royce or a Bentley used to buy one of the big American or Canadian types of cars as we did not produce a British car of a similar performance at a comparable price. If we can encourage the production of a British car at the same price and with a comparable performance, not only shall we be able to sell it more easily but British motorists of the class I have just referred to would buy it and that fact would relieve the dollar exchange.
If I may, I will take the second part of my Motion first. On December 19 last the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place announced a new basis of taxation by licence duty for horse power. This taxation is now to be calculated on the cubic capacity of the engine instead of, as it used to be, on the cross-section of the cylinders. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that this had the support of the motor manufacturers. It has not the support of the motor manufacturers. I say that with great respect to Sir John Anderson and the Government he adorns. It may have the support of some motor manufacturers who are content so long as they can build little cars to suit the little man in the British protected market, but it does not suit the manufacturers who have to compete in foreign markets and wish to build a type of car to which I have referred. Furthermore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer insists that the same revenue must be produced. This means that he is taking from this industry, the motor car industry, £90,000,000 a year or thereabouts, and that is in effect a tax on the tools of an industry.
I suppose that we hope in the future to develop an export trade in commercial aeroplanes. I believe we are capable of building the best aeroplanes in the world and we have undoubtedly the best motor engineers in the world. It is true that our design of aero engines is the best of any belligerent Air Force in this war. That is agreed, generally. Therefore, we can obviously build not only the best commercial aeroplanes but the best commercial motor cars and private cars. Supposing that some short-sighted Chancellor

683
of the Exchequer proceeded to tax the industry of manufacturing commercial aircraft on that sort of basis—the basis of a horse-power tax—what chance would it have of developing or of competing in the overseas markets?
I would make this suggestion if I might and I would be very grateful indeed if my noble friend who I understand is replying would pass it on to the right quarter. It has not been done in either House to my knowledge before but I think it very valuable. If we really want to encourage the export of motor cars in the future the Treasury should make a study of the taxation of cars in the markets we hope to supply—for instance, taxation in the British Dominions, in the Middle East and elsewhere—and adjust our taxation to it. That is the simplest way not only to ensure the production of larger motor cars in this country for the general use of the community but also cars suitable for sale in those foreign markets. In this matter there are four important Departments concerned—those of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the President of the Board of Trade, the Minister of War Transport and the Minister of Production—and possibly some others. So far as I can gather they all work in their usual watertight compartments. I should be very surprised to hear that the Treasury have really considered the representations of the Board of Trade on this subject. As to the Minister of War Transport, I do not really know where he enters in this matter but I will come to the Minister of War Transport presently when I refer to the way in which his Department is hindering and hampering the industry of making heavy road vehicles for export.
I must also repeat this point. Motor taxes were originally levied for the purpose of building new roads. That was the undertaking, but the fund was shamelessly raided by a needy Chancellor of the Exchequer for general revenue purposes. Now again we have a Chancellor of the Exchequer insisting on the same enormous revenue of £90,000,000 from one particular industry. The fact of the matter is that the Treasury apparently still regard the motorist as a wealthy idler, a luxury traveller who can be milked and made to pay through the nose. They overlook the fact that if you put these heavy taxes on you encourage the
684
building of little cars which are practically useless for export trade. I quote here from Sir William Rootes. He wrote recently in the Daily Express, which I know my noble friend reads. We both read the Daily Express but I read the Daily Herald first and the Express last.
A NOBLE LORD: Shame.
LORD STRABOLGI: What is shameful about that? This is what Sir William Rootes wrote:
"The time has come to regard the motor industry not as the producer of a luxury, but as an indispensable part of our vital transport system and as one of the biggest employers of labour in the country. The motor-car industry has earned the right to be regarded as something more than a convenient till into which needy Chancellors can dip their fingers."
That is put much more eloquently than I can put it and that is why I quote it. We ought really to encourage our motorcar manufacturers and help them to build a suitable car for overseas markets both in the Dominions and the Middle East, which will be very lucrative markets in the future for motor vehicles of all kinds, but unless we do something on the lines I have suggested I am informed we shall not have very much opportunity of getting in. Of course in the first two years after the war it will be easy to sell our cars and trucks because the world is crying out for cars and trucks. For two or three years you will be able to sell anything on wheels. But after that it is thought the competition will become keen again and unless we are able to produce at a suitable price the right kind of vehicle we shall be left behind. I would like to quote here an authority, a very well known merchant in London, Mr. A. L. Maizel, who has made a close study of the Middle East. He informs me that the purchasing potential there is very much higher than it was before the war. But they must have the right sort of goods, and that applies particularly to motor vehicles.
This change in the mechanical formula which we have already decided upon and which was announced last month by the Chancellor of the Exchequer still leaves the motor engineer a tax engineer. In the future he will have to devote his great talents to producing not the most efficient and best engine but one which will attract the smallest tax. Thus he will be producing smaller and smaller cars for the home market with the slogan, "Tax only £x." That as I say might suit one or two manu-

685
factures with a protected home market, but it will not be good for the export trade. The pre-war peak of exports was reached with a figure of £8,300,000 for cars and £3,900,000 for commercial vehicles. Yet in 1938 our Dominions and Colonies were taking 13.6 per cent. more motor cars and 196.8 per cent. more heavy Vehicles from the United States than from us. This heavy horse-power tax is, of course, the crux of the whole thing. The ordinary man of modest means hates paying out a lump sum. If the tax was on petrol, tyres or mileage it would be much more acceptable.
I would refer the noble Earl—I gave him notice that I was going to mention this—to some very weighty articles which appeared in the Financial News of January 3 and in some other recent issues, in which the whole matter was put very clearly and plainly, and also to the leading article in the Manchester Guardian of December 20, which I think was remarkable. I will not quote the whole of it, though I think it is well worth the noble Earl's attention, but I should like to read one sentence:
"That an industry nurtured in protectionism should prefer the safe and comfortable profits of a doubly-protected home market to the high adventure of a large-scale export drive is natural enough; but that Government should pander to such craven defeatism at the expense of the nation's dire need for increased exports is hardly credible."
I am sorry the noble Earl, Lord Munster, has had to leave the Chamber because I think that is interesting in view of his remarks in the eloquent speech he made just now.
Before leaving the question of light cars I should like to say that I think the Government might look into the question of the prices of raw materials. The price of steel in this country, as the noble Earl is aware, is 50 per cent. above the world price. The unfortunate British manufacturer has to pay 50 per cent. more than his competitor abroad. That is because of the workings of protection and rings and cartels—but that is another subject on which I do not want to enlarge this afternoon. Another very important raw material which is coming into greater use is aluminium. Aluminium is bound to play an increasing part in the construction of all types of road vehicles. There is a shortage of steel and a free supply of aluminium; but the controlled price of aluminium here is £110 per ton while in the United
686
States it is only £80 per ton. That may not matter while the war is in progress but we shall not have an easy passage if that sort of figure is allowed to continue after the war.
Now I turn to heavy road vehicles and omnibuses. There was a short debate dealing with this particular matter on the Christmas adjournment in another place and I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport is to receive a deputation. That, however, has nothing to do with us, and I hope the noble Earl will not ride off by saying that his colleague in another place will deal with the matter. I think your Lordships have a right to an answer. In addition to the arguments I have already used, there is a further argument in the case of heavy road vehicles, omnibuses and commercial vehicles generally arising from out-of-date regulations about dimensions. The present rule is that no road vehicle shall have a greater width than 7 ft. 6 ins. whereas in almost all overseas markets, with the possible exception of Scandinavia, the permitted width is 8 ft. If we wish to sell heavy motor vehicles abroad, they must be 8 ft. wide. If we keep our width to 7 ft. 6 ins. our manufacturers must make two different types of chassis, which means two different sets of jigs and tools and two different factory lay-outs, and that is uneconomic. Therefore in the interests of export trade I suggest that the manufacturers of road vehicles are right when they ask that a width of 8 ft. should be permitted here.
They are met with the argument that our roads are too narrow, but that can only apply to certain by-roads and lanes. Are we really going to hamper the progress of a great industry because some of our roads are out of date? You could get over the difficulty by forbidding these wider vehicles to run through narrow, winding lanes. They are for the most part used on main routes where the argument does not apply. In any case during the war we have had thousands of vehicles with a width of 8 ft. driven all over the country by Army drivers and I do not think there is any evidence that there has been an increase of road accidents from that cause. Another argument in favour of a width of 8 ft. has relation to omnibuses. It is very difficult in a passenger vehicle restricted to a width of 7 ft. 6 ins. to make a wide enough passage

687
for the conductor to pass down the vehicle between the passengers. The passengers are crowded and an extra six inches would make a very great difference to their comfort as well as to the convenience of the conductors.
This matter has been urged for months and months but only recently has a decision been given, although I do not think we should complain of that because we know that the Minister of War Transport is very busy. Some concession has been given in the matter of weight and height and a concession with regard to length and width is I think overdue. May I inform your Lordships, if you are not familiar with the regulations, that if a public service vehicle has more than two axles it can be 30 ft. long but if it has only two axles and is double-decked it can only be 26 ft. long? No satisfactory reason has been given for this difference. If it is suggested that traffic congestion may have something to do with it, I would say that a 30 ft. vehicle causes no more congestion with two axles than with three axles and a double-decked vehicle causes no more congestion than a single-decked vehicle. I do not think that even my noble friend the Earl of Listowel, with all his ingenuity, can explain that away. It is a matter of efficient design and the extra length of 4 ft. which is asked for is very necessary for the additional comfort of passengers and essential for the export trade. The same arguments apply here as in the case of the width of 8 ft.
Going back to taxation, there is one further point I would like to make. I appreciate the difficulties of trying to bind future Chancellors of the Exchequer, but I do not see any reason why there should not be a general agreement between Parties as to what is to take effect in the next two or three years. In any case the new taxation system, I am advised, should be so adjusted in its graduation as to remove the discrimination against the exportable motor car. This is an adjustment which Sir John Anderson can well make now. The removal of the discrimination could be achieved by having one flat rate of tax on all cars licensed after January 1 next up to and including 2,000 c.c. capacity. This would not alleviate the total burden, but it would, at least, remove the discrimination against
688
the engine which the exportable motor car must have. That engine is approximately the equivalent of 15 h.p., that being, I gather, the size which is generally most popular for the export trade and with our overseas customers.
The conclusion I have come to from studying this subject is that in taxation policy, and in the administration of the Ministry of War Transport with regard to the regulations I have quoted, the Government Departments concerned have not readjusted their views to the conditions which will prevail after the war. I would like them to read the report of the speech made by the Earl of Munster this afternoon about the vital necessity of export trade. They are still living, I am afraid, in the golden years of the early part of this century, and they have not appreciated the changed conditions in which this country will find itself after the war. An announcement of future policy, for which I am pleading, will not divert a single man or a pound of material from the war effort, but will make a great difference to our future export trade. It will enable manufacturers to plan ahead. They need two or three years to get out their new models, to make preparations, to circularize customers and generally to get ready for what I hope will be a great and successful drive on behalf of a type of goods in which this country is pre-eminent. I beg to move for Papers.
3.43 P.m.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, in what I have to say this afternoon, I wish to confine myself to the Motion so far as it concerns passenger transport vehicles. I do not wish unnecessarily to expand the tradition of disclaimer in your Lordships' House with regard to private interests, but I should make it clear that I am a member of the London Passenger Transport Board, which, I apprehend, cannot properly be described as having a personal interest but rather as holding a public trust. Apart from that I have no interest in any concern manufacturing or likely to manufacture heavy vehicles, or likely to be engaged in the road haulage business.
I wish particularly to direct your Lordships' attention to the situation facing those operators concerned with passenger vehicles. I must confess that on reading the report of the debate which took place in another place on December 21, I can-

689
not persuade myself that, notwithstanding all the pressure of current events, the Ministry of War Transport has handled this matter in the best possible way. I think it was unfortunate that my good friend Mr. Noel-Baker, the Parliamentary Secretary, should have been so definitive in his answer on December 21, especially having regard to the fact that—later, I agree—he has been, I think, compelled by the force of reason in the claim to consent to receive a deputation from the applicants concerned.
I think it would assist in an appreciation of this question if I briefly indicate what has taken place. The associations of practically all the undertakings representing those concerned in the provision of public service passenger vehicles sent in a memorandum to the Ministry of War Transport on November 5, 1943. What they sought was, briefly, that the maximum permissible over-all length for all public service vehicles, whether single-decked or double-decked, with two or more axles, should be 30 ft. As my noble friend Lord Strabolgi has indicated, the present situation is that, as regards single-decked vehicles with two axles, the limit of length 27 ft. 6 ins., and as regards double-decked vehicles with two axles it is 26 ft. But for vehicles with single or double decks having more than two axles the permitted length is 30 ft. The representations also asked that the present permissible over-all width for public service vehicles should be increased from 7 ft. 6 in. to 8 ft., that the permissible over-all height for public vehicles should be 15 ft., and that the permissible laden weight should be 14 tons.
Now it was said in another place, in, I think, rather tenuous justification of the Minister's decision, that two of the claims had been conceded. If one measures the concession by enumeration it is quite correct; two were conceded—but they are of little importance. For instance, the request for an increase of weight was based upon the assumption of, and indeed is quite closely related to, an increase in the dimensions, and to concede an increase of weight without an increase of dimensions is to concede nothing because weight is consequential upon size. As regards the second concession, that of an increase in the maximum permissible over-all height, that, of course, was done to remedy an anomaly. The principal
690
governing factor in the provinces at all events, as regards the height of vehicles, is the height of bridges, and that concession merely rectifies an anomaly which everybody concerned, including, if I may say so, the Ministry itself, has recognized to be such. So, in point of fact, no material concession has been made at all.
That application, as I said, was made, on November 5, 1943. On February 18, 1944, a reply was received from the Ministry, asking for further and better particulars, and on April 19, 1944, a second memorandum was sent giving the further information requested. Reminders were sent to the Ministry and on August 12, last year, the Minister stated—no doubt with abundantly good intentions—that he appreciated the need for an early decision, but that other interests had to be consulted. Finally, on November 20, 1944, the applicants, if I may use that word, were told that no concession could be made with regard to either length or width, and that that decision had been come to as a result of consultation with other interests and authorities. Nothing could be better than that the Minister should consult other interests and authorities, but no intimation has been given to the applicants of the objections of those interests and authorities to these claims. As regards road authorities, there is this point to be made, that most of the municipal passenger transport undertakings are county boroughs, and county boroughs are road authorities. It is to be assumed, therefore, that the county boroughs as road authorities would not have any objection, on the ground of their roads at all events, to an application which in another capacity they were making or with which they were associating themselves.
My submission is that in matters of this kind, in which there is not involved any question of high political or indeed Party policy, the better technique would have been for the Ministry to get all the interests concerned together—those who ask for these concessions and those who are opposed to them—and let the one come to understand the other, and endeavour to see whether the objections reasonably and properly held could not be overcome, or whether indeed they are insuperable. Unhappily, however, that course has not been adopted, and the passenger transport undertakings

691
themselves have had no opportunity—they will have, I gather, on the 30th of this month—of even discussing the matter across the table with the Minister, with the Parliamentary Secretary, or with the advisers of the Ministry. I want to suggest that that is not the best way of solving problems of this kind.
On the question of width, as my noble friend Lord Strabolgi has said, it is the fact that there is a large number of vehicles 8 ft. wide running on the streets of this country at the present time, and they are not military vehicles only. Quite a number of passenger transport undertakings purchased vehicles in the early months of the war which were 8 ft. wide and which had been manufactured for export. The Government took the view that there was not the shipping space for them, and that in any case they ought not to be exported, and the passenger transport undertakings in this country were permitted to buy them and did buy them. It is a good thing that they did, having regard to the shortage of such vehicles which later occurred, for reasons partly related to the damage done by the enemy. But, as my noble friend Lord Strabolgi has said, there is no evidence—or if there is any, it has not been produced—that those vehicles, though being 6 ins. wider than the normal permissible width, have led to any increase in accidents or to any diminution of safety on the roads. If there be such evidence, that is surely the kind of information which ought to be made available not only to the applicants for this concession but to the general public as well. I really think that there has been an unhappy practice of obscurantism by the Ministry in dealing with this matter. The reasons may be perfectly satisfactory to the Ministry but, if I may say so, they are not the only persons who need to be satisfied.
That brings me to the question of the extended length for vehicles, whether they have more than two axles or not, or whether they be single- or double-decked vehicles. The Parliamentary Secretary in another place put forward what seemed to me to be a very curious reason for the fact that there are large numbers of vehicles running on the streets of this country which are 30 ft. in length. For instance, there are those having more than two axles, and there are trolley-buses. Quite a large number of the trolley-buses
692
owned by the London Passenger Transport Board are 30 ft. in length, and it has never yet been submitted that because of that factor trolley-buses in London are more dangerous than if they were limited to 27 ft. 6 ins. or 26 ft. In the country a large number of 30 ft. vehicles are in operation.
The Parliamentary Secretary seemed to imply that this concession of 30 ft. for a three-axle vehicle was given for some esoteric reason connected with military operations. I do not know to which war or to which set of military operations he referred, but clearly on grounds of chronology it cannot have been this war, because the London Passenger Transport Board have been running trolley-buses 30 ft. in length for a long time before military preparations were even in contemplation in connexion with this war. I hope that the attitude of mind of the Ministry in regard to this question is not one which remains unchanged from the attitude regarding road transport and the use of roads prevalent at the time of the last war. It seems to me that it is not unreasonable to expect that the Ministerial mind should move a little, even though it is perhaps expecting too much to hope that it might move as fast as science and progress.
The Parliamentary Secretary—I think a little tenuously, but I cannot complain of the energy of his language—suggested that these applications were being put forward mainly on the ground of increasing the number of passengers to be carried. He said—I quote from column 2048 of the Official Report:
"On what ground is the request made? It is not made for the comfort of the passenger, not at all. It is not made to meet the needs of the conductors. The trade unions are all unanimously and vehemently against it. It is made to increase the pay-load."
Let us take that point. Is there any real objection, if it can be properly done, to the pay-load of a bus being increased? Is there any reason why accommodation, in terms of numbers of passengers, should not be increased if it can be properly done with due regard to safety and to comfort? Surely that would be one of the factors which might operate, if you had a fixed pool of traffic, to reduce the number of vehicles which it was necessary to keep on the roads. If you have an expanding pool of traffic, then to make your vehicles more commodious is to enable you to deal

693
with that traffic more satisfactorily and avoid waiting and queueing, and I cannot see any ground for contemptuous derision for the suggestion—it might not have been put forward, but if it were put forward—that these concessions would enable more passengers to be carried. But in point of fact the main reason for the extension of length is not, I understand, that it would increase the number of passengers that could be carried. It is only fair to state that it would in fact increase it, but that is not the main reason why the submissions were put forward. The principal reason is that it would result in a greater degree of comfort for the passengers, and especially for the conductors. That is on the point of length.
But on the point of width, let me say that you cannot by increasing the width of a vehicle by 6 ins. increase its carrying capacity. The only thing you can do—and this, I am assured, is what it is desired to do—is to give more ample accommodation and more comfortable seats and, what is not less important, to allow of a wider gangway between the seats. This would make it possible for the conductor to carry out his or her duties with more comfort, more speed and more efficiency, and would also have the not unimportant merit of being at times less fraying to the nerves of the passengers themselves owing to the narrowness of the gangway in our buses as they are now built. The Parliamentary Secretary in another place invited us to consider, as I thought with some amount of terror, the goblins that "will get you if you don't watch out," and referred to the spectacle of Piccadilly Circus if vehicles were 6 ins. wider, saving that this would be a serious matter. He went on to say—and this is true—that there were many roads in the country where vehicles 8 ft. wide would cause some trouble. Well, we are not without experience of the fact that there are many roads in this country where vehicles 7 ft. 6 ins. wide cause trouble, and on a 14 ft. road two such vehicles cannot pass.
I thought my noble friend Lord Strabolgi made a sound point, when he asked: Are we continuously going to restrict applications of progress in the construction of motor vehicles to the limitations imposed by our roads, or are we going to seek to make our roads fit our road vehicles, and in so doing make our roads capable of carrying the traffic which
694
they ought to carry? But it would be to mislead your Lordships to suggest that if this concession were granted the operators would be able to put on any route they liked, notwithstanding what might be the condition of the roads, vehicles of the greater length and the greater width. All passenger transport vehicles before they can run have to be licensed, the routes approved, and the type of vehicle approved by the Regional Traffic Commissioners; and, quite clearly, the Regional Traffic Commissioners would continue to do as they have done in the past, and as they do now: they would decline to grant a licence for the running of a vehicle on a particular route unless the vehicle was suited to the roads which it would have to traverse. And therefore it does not follow at all that the conditions of congestion and of danger which were hinted at by the Parliamentary Secretary would in fact arise. It would not mean the automatic grant of the maximum size for all vehicles, but it would enable those who are providing a service to run the larger vehicles on many of the existing routes, and, it may well be, on new routes without any increase in congestion. In fact, in terms of numbers of vehicles on the roads, it might result in a diminution of congestion, and certainly in no increase of danger, either to the travelling public or the pedestrian public.
I come now to the position of the export trade. It is the case that most of the public-service vehicles exported have to be 8 ft. wide, and it means that you cannot have standardization in a factory; you have to have a separate number of overheads, or a weight of overheads which cannot be spread over the full production because they arise from the fact that you have to make a special vehicle of special dimensions for export. I do not want to exaggerate the importance of exports, and I cannot say that I wholly subscribe to the rather ample statement made by the noble Earl, Lord Munster, but none of us would wish to deny the importance of exports in the economic set-up of this country and of the world after the war. And I should have thought that this was one of the ways in which we could assist the producer of vehicles of this kind to a fairer chance of competition in the export market.
But, looking at it again from the point of view of the operators, all public pas-

695
senger service undertakings face a shortage of vehicles. The standard of repairs has gone down because of the labour shortage; for nearly five years it has not been possible to construct new vehicles to replace old ones. Obsolescence has accumulated until "obsolete" is probably a more appropriate word than "obsolescent"; with the result that immediately there are materials and labour it will be incumbent upon these undertakings to place large orders for the renewal of their fleets. If they place orders on the basis of the size and dimensions at present permitted it means that probably for ten years those dimensions will remain unaltered, notwithstanding that, as we all hope, the road system of this country within the ten years will be very substantially improved—as it ought to be. But, as I said, if they place those orders, and the vehicles are made within the dimensions permitted at the present time there can be no substantial change for a period of many years, which I put at ten.
Now that is not to imply that the passenger transport undertakings would wish to place all their renewal orders on the basis of the new permitted lengths and widths. If the regulations were modified they would have to judge the number which the Regional Commissioners would regard as being appropriate for the roads, both town and rural, which exist to-day, and I do urge the noble Earl who is to reply to represent to the Ministry of War Transport—and this is repeating what I said at the start, perhaps—that the best way of dealing with these matters is not to keep the parties at arm's length but to get them all together in a room and to listen to the pros and cons. Let the applicants hear the objections. It has been said that the trade unions are against this. Well, that may be so. The trade unions were vehemently against speeding-up which became necessary under war conditions, but the transport undertakings, and especially the Transport Board, did not accept that. They said, "Let us talk about it." The result was that they devised a formula and ways and means by which the operatives shared in the benefits of speeding-up. Thus we got speeding-up, to the great benefit of the people of London under war conditions, although no one, I think, would perhaps too strongly urge it in peace-
696
time. The Ministry of War Transport should go beyond this mere receiving of a deputation and should get the parties together and talk the matter over.
I hope that the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary in another place on 21st December does not mean that the door is finally banged, barred and bolted. If there are substantial reasons why the request for a 4 ft. addition to the length and a 6 in. addition to the width cannot at this stage be granted, there is room for consideration as to whether it would not be possible to extend the length by 2 ft. I think the important one is from 26 ft. to 28 ft. I hope that the noble Earl who is to reply for the Government can give not only the operators of public service vehicles but also the manufacturers of similar vehicles for the export trade some hope that this matter has not been finally concluded.
4.13 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I think your Lordships have listened with considerable interest to the well-informed, moderately phrased and, if I may say so, constructively critical speeches which have been delivered in a pleasantly unpartisan spirit by my two noble friends opposite, and I should like to assure them both that the positive suggestions they have made and the criticisms they have levelled at the policy will be conveyed both to the Chancellor o f the Exchequer and to the Minister of War Transport.
The question that my noble friend Lord Strabolgi has raised this afternoon is one of considerable importance, affecting as it does the motor industry and the road users of this country, and His Majesty's Government do share the noble Lord's genuine anxiety to start now immediate planning for the post-war expansion of our motor export trade. My noble friend maintains, in the first part of his Motion—and if he will permit me I will answer his points in the order in which he presents them in his Motion, and not in the order in which he presented them in his speech, because the former is the more convenient form—that if the regulations governing the construction and use of motor vehicles were altered to allow longer and wider vehicles than those now permitted, the change would serve the

697
interests of transport here at home, and also increase our export trade. I think that was the view shared by both noble Lords who have addressed the House.
When this Motion was placed by my noble friend opposite on the Order Paper, the Minister of War Transport had already, on November 20, conveyed to the manufacturers and operators of public-service vehicles his carefully considered decision not to permit an increase in the length and width of passenger vehicles. He has accepted other requests relating to alterations in the maximum height and weight of these vehicles, and although these are no doubt useful and welcome decisions, I appreciate that they are regarded by both noble Lords opposite as something in the nature of minor concessions, and that the Minister, in turning down the major request for longer and wider buses, has not met those of their desires which the industry consider to be of paramount importance.
Now in considering whether the use of longer and wider passenger vehicles could be permitted, my noble friend's first duty, looking at the matter from his Ministerial position, was to judge the effects this change would have on traffic conditions generally and on road safety throughout the country. In the memorandum in which the manufacturers and operators of these vehicles set out their case, they submit—and I shall quote from it quite briefly—
"that the only reasonable basis for legislation controlling the dimensions of vehicles is the extent to which limits are necessary in order that the safety and convenience of other road users should not be jeopardized, and in order that the road surfaces and structures over which the vehicles will operate should not be adversely affected."
Those are the grounds of policy that are suggested by the manufacturers themselves, and it is in fact on those very grounds that my noble friend has come, with the utmost reluctance, to the conclusion that the objections to the proposals far outweigh the advantages that have been claimed for them. The Minister of War Transport did not make up his mind until he had carried out the obligation imposed on him by Statute to consult all those whom he thought likely to be interested or affected. He received, during his preliminary consultations, representative and technical opinions from the police, conveyed through the Home Office and the Scottish Home Department, from
698
the County Councils' Association, from the trade unions and from a number of other bodies. The main weight of this large and representative body of opinion was that in present conditions the proposed changes would be undesirable.
The case which was made out for allowing vehicles of a length of 30 ft. instead of the present maximum of 26 ft. for four-wheeled double deckers, and 27 ft. 6 ins. for four-wheeled single deckers, rests mainly on the desire to carry more passengers at a time. I agree that, from all points of view, the more passengers who can be safely and comfortably carried at rush periods the better, and I can understand the wish of operators to increase the seating capacity of their vehicles, but in my noble friend's view—the view of the Minister of War Transport—there are arguments of greater weight on the other side. A longer vehicle obviously means more congestion on the roads, both in overtaking on the straight and particularly at corners, which would more than balance the relief given by the extra seats. There is also the factor of road safety to be considered, particularly on occasions when vehicles are taking a sharp corner on relatively narrow roads.
It has been suggested—I think by my noble friend Lord Latham, and it was certainly suggested by Lord Strabolgi—that it is illogical to have any lower limit than the 30 ft. already allowed for six-wheelers, but in point of fact the four-wheeled double-decker limited to 26 ft. is the standard vehicle for heavily trafficked urban services operating on the most crowded roads and where road improvements would be most costly. I must point out (and this I think is a fact that ought to be thoroughly considered) that if in practice the use of 30 ft. six-wheelers had become extensive it might well have been necessary to limit them to certain routes as is the case in London. I should add that the trades unions, speaking in the interests of the crews, the men who operate them and who are responsible for their safety and efficiency, expressed very strong objections to the proposed change and I hope this objection will carry special weight with my noble friend opposite.
The case made out for an increase in maximum width from 7 ft. 6 ins. to 8 ft. rests on rather different grounds. Obviously the extra 6 ins. in width would give the passengers greater comfort and,

699
for the conductor, easier working conditions. Clearly also when we are considering the export of these vehicles it would be of great advantage if vehicles in use here were similar in this important respect to those in use abroad, or in demand abroad, so that uniform components, production lay-out and processes could be employed by our manufacturers for the home and overseas markets. That point was very rightly stressed by my noble friend Lord Latham and with it the Government entirely agree. That was naturally the view which the President of the Board of Trade represented to the Minister of War Transport and it was a view to which the Minister of War Transport gave full weight before arriving at his decision. Here again, however, he was forced to the conclusion that road conditions in this country would not allow the general use of public passenger vehicles 8 ft. wide. Our roads have been built to dimensions based on streams of traffic not exceeding the present permitted width, and the proposed increase to 8 ft. would cause congestion in crowded areas and on very many of our roads danger to other road users. It is impracticable to contemplate either now or in the measurable future the general use all over the country of heavy vehicles with a width of 8 ft.
The particular proposal which the Minister of War Transport had to consider last year was put forward as applying to public passenger vehicles. But my noble friend felt little doubt that the question was in reality much wider and that it could not be considered entirely apart from the heavier goods vehicles. This view was confirmed immediately after the announcement of these decisions by a letter from "Britavema," the British Transport Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, who informed him that their members produce 99 per cent. of all the heavy goods and passenger transport vehicles operated in the United Kingdom. Their letter insists that the same width of chassis is required both for goods and passenger vehicles. The noble Lord's Motion itself refers specifically to heavy road vehicles as well as omnibuses. Further the Minister of War Transport has received this month, in response to his invitation of last February for submission of proposals affecting the post-war design of vehicles generally, a memorandum from
700
the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, Limited, and the Road Transport Organization Joint Conference, which recommends that all vehicles now allowed a width of 7 ft. 6 ins. should be allowed a width of 8 ft.
I have said already that in coming to his decision on public passenger vehicles my noble friend the Minister of War Transport took account of the export position. Very much more stress has been laid on that point since his decision was announced by those who wish to see the proposals adopted and who no doubt feel that in the eyes of the Government they must constitute the strongest elements in their case. But the manufacturers themselves say that to achieve their object the width must be the same for both goods and passenger vehicles and equally so for both the home and overseas markets. The insuperable objection lies—I do not want to repeat it but it is the essence of the case—in the fact that our highway system will not allow a general standard width of 8 ft. I should like to add that this matter has already been debated in another place—Lord Latham to-day referred to it at some length—and that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of War Transport has arranged to receive a deputation on the subject on the 3oth January. I was very glad to hear that my noble friend opposite favoured this procedure.
LORD LATHAM: May I interpose? I did not necessarily favour the receiving of the deputation, but I suggested a conference between all authorities.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: But I do not think my noble friend expressed any doubt about the desirability of the deputation. He merely wanted an additional method of solving the problem. I can assure him, so far as this deputation is concerned, that an opportunity will be given it to have access to detailed information on the grounds of the Government's decision. There is no desire on the part of the Government for a veil of secrecy and they will welcome the fullest inquiry into the reasons on which they have acted. I must, however, emphasize the Parliamentary Secretary's warning that while he will, on behalf of the Minister of War Transport, be glad to hear anything new or relevant that the

701
deputation may have to say, he cannot encourage any hope that his decision will be changed.
I now come to the second point made by my noble friend Lord Strabolgi, when he suggested the possible use of taxation to stimulate the production of models suitable for export. I think he complained that the motor tax was too heavy, but after all motor taxation is a form of revenue and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to regard it as one of the means of balancing the Budget. Viewed as a suitable object on which to impose a tax, I think would be agreed that a motorcar is less of a necessity than other articles which are taxed, such as cigarettes or beer, and can therefore to that degree be regarded as a luxury. I understand that my noble friend opposite is not satisfied that the recent change in the assessment of motor tax by reference to the cubic capacity of the engine instead of to horse power, because this only helps to improve design for the small car, which he does not consider to be the ideal type for overseas markets, and also because the net annual revenue raised by this duty will remain, in spite of the new basis of assessment, as large as it was before. But may I ask him this question? Is he quite certain that, even if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to do exactly as he wishes and lighten the tax burden on the heavier cars, there would be then sufficient demand from road users at home for the larger models to bring about the mass production on which a competitive price in the foreign market would obviously depend?
Taxation, surely, is only one among a number of factors that influence design. No less important is the British road system itself—its good surfaces, easy gradients short distances between large centres of population and even the size of the average garage. A view widely held, and of which I would like to remind the noble Lord, is that the conditions of motoring in this country quite apart from the incidence of taxation make England essentially a land for the small car. This view has been expressed by so authoritative a journal as the Motor and I should like to quote from a number of this journal that appeared last week:
"In the larger models, for which the demand in this country was steadily shrinking for some years prior to the war, it may never
702
be possible for Britain to compete with America on equal terms, for there are factors, more important than taxation, which practically compel our people to use small cars. One of these is that most inbuilt motor houses will not accommodate anything larger than the popular ten, with the alternative of using public garaging at a cost proportionate to the dimensions of the vehicle. There are other reasons, such as ease of handling and manœuvrability on our narrow roads, which inspire a preference for the small car amongst a substantial majority of owners. Those who argue otherwise seem to be governed by personal desires for ample seating room and high power, but it is inconceivable that any system of taxation will produce such cars at lower cost."
I am afraid that what I have said so far may have been rather disappointing, but I hope it will be some consolation to my noble friend opposite to know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has the export problem very much in mind and that he has indicated his readiness to review the spacing of the steps in the taxation of private road vehicles. The Government are at the moment considering in consultation with the representative bodies of the motoring industry and motorists—the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, the Standing Joint Committee of the R.A.C., A.A. and R.S.A.C. and The Motor Agents' Association—the question of the graduation most favourable to the production of cars for export and to economies in the number of models produced.
I should like in conclusion to direct the noble Lord's attention to what really seems the crux of the problem of putting our motor engineering industry on the export map. It is not primarily a matter either of taxation or design. The long-term prospects of the British motor vehicle in overseas markets depend upon the skill and organization of the industry itself. There is ample reason for confidence in the industry's skill, which has been demonstrated afresh during the war. If that skill is matched by equal effort and ability in organization for export trade there need be no doubts as to the result. But to meet the keen competition in world markets there is every reason for the industry to consider the benefits of a greater standardization of components and accessories, of concentration on fewer models and of further steps to improve its overseas sales and servicing organization.
4.33 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am sure I can speak for my noble friend be-

703
side me and all you Lordships in thanking the noble Earl for the very full and careful reply he has given to the case. I was very pleased to hear that there is to be reconsideration of the spacing of the steps in motor taxation and I think that at any rate will be something as a beginning. I was glad to hear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is really considering the future of our export trade. With regard to the noble Earl's question to me whether I think we can get mass production of higher-powered cars here—I agree that is important, because export trade must be based on production at home—I can only say that the number of American and Canadian motor cars of high power bought here before the war would seem to show that there is a demand for such cars in spite of what the noble Earl said about small garages. Any one who has to make long journeys would prefer a high-powered car for comfort and safety, though the small car to which I have had to turn under war conditions is excellent and a masterpiece of design.
There is only one other point on which I should like to comment. My noble friend seems to think it somewhat surprising that manufacturers of heavy road vehicles should want the same concession with regard to width of commercial lorries as of motor omnibuses. I think it is the practice to make the same chassis for omnibuses as for the larger commercial vehicles. That is a great economy and a gain to efficiency, and obviously they would ask for the same concession, though I admit that the argument about the comfort of the public would not apply. I was sorry to hear my noble friend still basing himself on our inadequate roads. Six inches does
704
not make all that difference. There need only be hedge trimming and ditching and a reduction of verges. I am very much obliged to my noble friend and I hope that the matter will be more satisfactorily dealt with as a result of the conferences to which reference has been made. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  DUMMY MINES FOR TRAINING.
  DUMMY MINES FOR TRAINING.