Sitting of 7 June 1945

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH)
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table,—Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
  Bucks Water Board Bill [Lords].
  Bill to be read a Second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS (SUSPENSION OF PRIVATE BILLS OR BILLS TO CONFIRM ANY PROVISIONAL ORDER OR CERTIFICATE)
  Ordered:
  "That the Promoters of any Private Bill which has originated in this House, or been brought from the House of Lords in the present Session of Parliament shall have leave to suspend any further proceeding thereon in order to proceed with the same, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament: provided that the promoters of any such Bill shall give notice in the Committee and Private Bill Office, not later than the day before the close of the present Session, of their intention so to suspend further proceedings, or, in the case of any Bill which, having passed this House, is then pending in the House of Lords, notice of their intention to proceed with the same Bill in this House in the next Session; provided also that all fees due upon any such Bill up to that date be paid."
  Ordered:
  "That not later than five o'clock on the third day on which the House sits after the next meeting of Parliament, every such Bill which has originated in this House shall be
  1036
  deposited in the Committee and Private Bill Office, with a declaration annexed thereto, signed by the agent, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill with respect to which proceedings have been so suspended at the last stage of its proceeding in this House in the present Session; and, as soon as conveniently may be in the next Session of Parliament, every such Bill shall be presented by being laid by one of the Clerks in the Committee and Private Bill Office upon the Table of the House."
  Ordered:
  "That every Bill so laid upon the Table shall be deemed to have been read the First time and to have been ordered to be read a Second time; or, if it has been read a Second time previously to its being suspended, it shall be deemed to have been read a Second time, and shall be recorded in the Votes as having been so read, or so read and ordered, as the case may be; and, if such Bill has been reported by any Committee in the present Session, the Committee stage shall be dispensed with and the Bill ordered to lie upon the Table, or to be read the Third time, as the case may be."
  Ordered:
  "That in case any Bill brought from the House of Lords in the present Session, upon which the proceedings have been suspended in this House, shall be brought from the House of Lords in the next Session of Parliament, a declaration signed as aforesaid stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill which was brought from the House of Lords in the present Session, shall be deposited in the Committee and Private Bill Office before the First Reading of such Bill; and such Bill shall be read the First time and be further proceeded with in the same manner as Bills introduced into this House during the present Session, with this modification that if any such Bill has been amended in this House in the present Session, such amendments shall be deemed to have been made in Committee and the Bill, as amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table or, if the Bill has been ordered to be read the Third time in the present Session, to be read the Third time."
  Ordered:
  "That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply to any such Bill in regard to any of the stages through which the same has passed during the present Session, and that no further fees be charged in respect of such stages."
  Ordered:
  "That all Petitions presented in the present Session against any Private Bill or against any Bill to confirm any Provisional Order or Certificate which stood referred to the Committee, on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the same Bill in the next Session of Parliament; and that all notices and grounds of objection to the right of Petitioners to be heard within the time prescribed by the Rules of the Court of Referees relating to such notices shall be held applicable in the next Session of Parliament."
  Ordered:
  "That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on any such Bill unless their petition has been presented within the time limited in the present Session."
  Ordered:
  "That in case the time limited for presenting petitions against any such Bill has not expired at the close of the present Session, Petitioners may be heard before the Committee on such Bill, provided their petition be presented previous to, or not later than, seven days after the next meeting of Parliament."
  Ordered:
  "That all Instructions to Committees on Private Bills in the present Session, which are suspended previously to their being reported by any Committee, be Instructions to the Committee on the same Bills in the next Session."
  Ordered:
  "That any Standing Orders complied with in respect of any Private Bill or Bill to confirm any Provisional Order or Certificate, originating in the House of Lords, upon which the proceedings have been suspended in that House, shall be deemed to have been complied with in respect of such Bill, if the same is brought from the House of Lords in the next Session of Parliament, and any notices published and given, and any deposits made in respect of such Bill for the present Session shall be held to have been published, given, and made, respectively, for the Bill so brought from the House of Lords in the next Session of Parliament."
  Ordered:
  "That all Standing Orders complied with in respect of any Public Bill introduced, or intended to be introduced, during the present Session shall be held applicable to any Bill for the same objects introduced in the next Session, and where the Examiner has already reported upon the compliance with the Standing Orders in respect of any such Bill he shall only report in the next Session whether any further Standing Orders are applicable."
  Ordered:
  "That all Bills to confirm any Provisional Order or Certificate introduced into this House in the present Session, shall be suspended from the close of the present Session, in order to be proceeded with in the next Session of Parliament."
  Ordered:
  "That with regard to any such Bills the entry in the Journal recording the presentation thereof in the present Session shall be read and thereupon the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time and shall be recorded in the Votes as having been so read (if the Bill shall have been read a second time during the present Session); and if such Bill has been reported by a Committee in the present Session, the Committee Stage shall be dispensed with, and the Bill ordered to be considered or to be road the third time, as the case may be."
  To be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  To be communicated to the Lords

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  DIRECTED MINE-WORKERS (TRANSFER TO SERVICES)
  Mr. Cocksasked the Minister of Labour whether boys directed to the mines will be given the opportunity of being transferred to the Services for the period that may remain until their release group number is reached in proportion to the number of miners released from the Services who return to the pits.
  The Minister of Labour (Mr. Butler): No, Sir.
  Mr. Cocks: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of these boys very much desired to go into the Services in the first place, and were very disappointed in being called up for the pit? Surely they can now be given an opportunity of joining the Service in which they desire to serve?
  Mr. Butler: No. I very much sympathise with many of these boys and I realise their position, but I am afraid that I cannot alter my answer, owing to the shortage of labour in the coalmining industry.
  Mr. Cocks: But if that shortage is diminished, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider it?
  Mr. Butler: I am afraid I cannot say any more in answer to the Question.
  Mr. Glanville: Is the Minister aware that, if he brought back the miners to the pits, he could take away the Bevin boys any time, although many of them have done good service?
  Sir Percy Harris: Can the Minister give an undertaking to reconsider the position if the labour position improves, because these boys do feel that they might be kept in the pits and be robbed of the chance of doing some service in the Forces?
  Mr. Butler: I could not be more sympathetic than I was in my answer, but I cannot give a further answer to this Question.

  INDUSTRIAL MAN-POWER

    Export Trade (Skilled Workers)
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the activities of many manufacturers in preparing for export trade are restricted by the difficulty in obtaining craftsmen for their particular industries; and whether he will allow firms to advertise for the men whom they require.
    Mr. Butler: I am aware that many employers are experiencing difficulty in preparing for export trade. So far as skilled and experienced men can be made available without interference with the production for the Japanese war, arrangements made provide for them to be placed on important civilian work, including work for export. It is of course open to employers to advertise for workers who are outside the scope of the Control of Engagement Order, 1945, but unrestricted advertising by competing employers for workers, who are in short supply, would not be in the public interest nor would it resolve the difficulties of the export trades.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is the Minister aware that the immediate repeal of the Essential Work Order would do more than anything else to restore our domestic and foreign trade, and will he undertake to do that?
    Mr. Butler: I am afraid that things are not quite so simple as the hon. Gentleman thinks.
    Mr. George Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that, if this occurs, there will be a lot of miners wanting to work somewhere else and then the hon. Gentleman will be crying out about it?

    Railway Rolling-Stock (Repairs)
    Mr. Evelyn Walkdenasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the railways are not in a position to handle a greatly increased holiday traffic this year owing to the large number of locomotives awaiting repair and for which adequate labour is not available; and whether he will now regard the repair of locomotives and rolling stock as a No. 1 labour priority so as to enable the railways to carry the large numbers of workers to seaside or country holidays this summer.
    Mr. Butler: The supply of labour for the repair of locomotives and rolling stock has for long received a very high preference in the allocation of labour. The fact that it has not kept pace with the demands of the railway companies has been solely due to competing demands for workpeople of the same type in posts of equal or greater urgency.
    Mr. Walkden: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there are hundreds upon hundreds of disabled locomotives lying in the engine sheds, with nobody to repair them, and that there will be millions of people wanting to go on holiday this year and no trains to take them? Can he not see that efficient engineers are provided to repair these engines and put them on the rails right away?
    Mr. Butler: I am quite aware of the urgency of the matter, and this is designated work and has been given first preference. Subject to the shortage of the skilled people necessary, we shall do our best to provide them.
    Mr. Walkden: Can the right hon. Gentleman not switch over skilled engineers from other work to do the job?
    Mr. Butler: Engineers are the one class of people who are not usually redundant.

    Juvenile Workers (Hours)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the new European situation, he will now take further steps to ensure that juveniles do not work excessive hours of labour and that supervision and inspection in respect of this matter are extended.
    Mr. Butler: The present situation in Europe and elsewhere does not admit of an immediate return to peace-time hours in all factories, but the Factory Inspectorate are actively reviewing the position to see that abnormal hours are not continued unnecessarily.
    Mr. Sorensen: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, for some years past now, evidence has been accumulating in certain quarters interested in juvenile labour that many of these juveniles were working excessive hours to the detriment of their health; and cannot he either have the number of inspectors increased, or special inquiries made?
    Mr. Butler: The fact is that factory inspectors are investigating the position, and I should naturally wish to keep the House informed.
    Mrs. Hardie: Does the Minister know that we have had a very big increase in Scotland, and that this matter is very urgent, and will he see that something is done to look after their welfare?

    Miners' Industrial Diseases (Rehabilitation)
    Mr. David Williamsasked the Minister of Labour whether he has prepared, or is preparing, a scheme for the rehabilitation of miners who are certified to be partially disabled by silicosis or pneumoconiosis; whether he is aware of the deep concern caused by this problem to the miners and their families; and whether he will make an early announcement of proposals for providing suitable employment for the large and increasing number of men who are certified unfit for further employment at the collieries, and for whom no alternative employment is available at present.
    Mr. Butler: Miners partially disabled by silicosis or pneumoconiosis are eligible for the training and other facilities now provided by my Department to assist the resettlement of disabled persons and a number have secured satisfactory employment in this way. These cases will also be eligible for the further facilities to be provided under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act which are in active preparation.
    Mr. Williams: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this problem has acquired terrifying proportions, especially in South Wales, and that very little has been done for these men up to now?
    Mr. Butler: My answer indicates that we do realise the position.

    Building Industry
    Sir Geoffrey Manderasked the Minister of Labour how many persons are now employed in the building industry; what steps are being taken to release more of such persons from the Services and other industries; and what action should be taken by employers and individuals desiring engagement in connection with housing in the national interest.
    Mr. Butler: It is estimated that at the end of May there were 537,000 men aged
    1042
    16 to 64 employed in the building and civil engineering industries of whom about 387,000 were in the building industry. With regard to the release of building workers from the Services, I would refer the hon. Member to the statements made in the Debate on Resettlement on16th May. I am proposing shortly to register former workers in the building and civil engineering industries who are now employed elsewhere as civilians with a view to their return to those industries. Individual workers desiring engagement in connection with housing and employers desiring to engage them should apply to their employment exchange.
    Sir G. Mander: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that unless workers are made available for building houses great indignation will be caused among those who are waiting for these houses, particularly among Servicemen?
    Mr. Butler: It is obvious that the provision of additional labour is required and this is one of the reasons why registration is being undertaken, and that, I hope will provide results.
    Sir Joseph Lamb: Will my right hon. Friend give careful consideration to the cases of small master builders who were taken away from rural areas, where there is nothing to do in either building or repairs?
    Mr. Butler: I constantly have those cases brought home to me.
    Mr. Messer: Is the Minister aware that £7,000 worth of building work is to be done on rebuilding the Harringay Sports Arena, while in that neighbourhood there are hundreds of houses waiting to be repaired?
    Mr. Butler: I have not those figures by me, but in view of the statement made by the hon. Member, I will certainly look into them.
    Mr. E. Walkden: And put a stop to it.
    Mr. Colegate: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us are receiving correspondence from men engaged on non-combatant duties in the Services who claim that they are in the building industry; and cannot they now be released?
    Mr. Butler: I should be glad to receive any information from my hon. Friend or anybody else, and I trust that our re-

    1043
    searches which are described in the answer to the Question will, as I said, yield some proper result.
    Mr. Hynd: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the men in the Army who were previously building trade operatives are expected themselves to make an application for release under the B Scheme?
    Mr. Butler: Under the B Scheme they do not make application themselves.
    Mr. Seaborne Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that release under category B will be fairly and equitably distributed all over the country as there appear to be rumours in the B.L.A. that the releases are conditional on the application of certain big firms in the London area?
    Mr. Butler: The scheme is going to be administered as described on 16th May, and rumours that we are going to yield to certain pressures and interests are quite untrue

    Engineers
    Major Procterasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that skilled engineers in factories which are soon to be redundant are being restrained by Man-power Board officials from taking up work in their own trade although vacancies are available in other factories; and if he will give a direction to prevent this practice.
    Mr. Butler: The policy of my Department is to permit the return of workers to their previous employment wherever possible. But, particularly in the case of skilled workers, regard must be had to the comparative importance in the national interest of the work to which they propose to return and that on which they might otherwise be engaged. If my hon. and gallant Friend has any particular case in mind I should be glad to inquire into it if he will give me particulars.
    Major Procter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that factories engaged on very essential work and clamouring for men are prevented from getting men by the idiotic instructions issued by his predecessor and his Department? Is not the Department preventing men from taking vacancies in these factories and thus remedying the great difficulty which exists?

    Laundries
    Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicksasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that, owing to shortage of staffs, laundries in the coastal areas of West Sussex are having to refuse their services to returning residents, hotels and customers catering for holiday crowds; and if he will take steps urgently to relieve this situation.
    Mr. Butler: I am aware of the existing shortage of staff at laundries in Sussex and in other parts of the country. My Department has been for some time, and still is, taking such steps as are practicable to relieve the situation but, as my hon. and gallant Friend will be aware, there is still a serious over-all man-power shortage. A special publicity campaign is about to be launched with a view to securing the return of former employees to a number of important occupations, including those in laundries, in which there is a persistent labour shortage, and I hope that this will assist to remove the difficulties.
    Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: Can my right hon. Friend say whether it has been possible to increase the labour force available to laundries in these areas since the removal of the ban and the consequent return of population?
    Mr. Butler: We have not been able to do all we would desire in the neighbourhood to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, but I will look at the figures and statistics of laundries in the area, and we will do everything possible to help.
    Sir Irving Albery: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the position has already reached a stage in which hotels in London are refusing to accept guests unless they bring their own linen?
    Sir J. Lamb: Can we be assured that laundries will be available to wash dirty linen during the coming Election?

  FILM INDUSTRY (DISPUTE)
  Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Labour the facts about the dispute between the Association of Cine-Technicians and George Humphries and Company; was the notice given in accordance with Section 4 of the Conditions of Employment and National Arbitration Order; and what action is it intended to take.
  Mr. Butler: Arising out of a failure to agree the terms and conditions of employment of their members in the employ of members of the Film Laboratories Employers' Association, the Union ordered a general ban on overtime. Some 20 of the employees of Messrs. Humphries thereupon refused to work overtime. The firm took the view that the workpeople concerned were guilty of a breach of contract and dismissed them. I am advised that this action by the employer does not constitute a breach of Article 4 of the Conditions of Employment and National Arbitration Order, 1940. The third part of the Question does not therefore arise. I should add that the dispute as to the terms and conditions of employment of technicians employed in film laboratories has now been referred to the National Arbitration Tribunal for settlement and is therefore sub judice.
  Mr. Smith: Does that apply to all the people in the dispute?
  Mr. Butler:It applies to the major dispute, but not, from the terms of my answer, to the conditions arising out of Messrs. Humphries' action.
  Mr. Smith: Does the Minister consider that the firm were justified in taking the action they did against the men?
  Mr. Butler: I cannot give an answer to that question.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: May I ask the Minister if anything can be done by the right hon. Gentleman's Department to speed up the hearing, so that this dispute may be settled?
  Mr. Butler:Not only would I be glad to see the hearing speeded up, but I am keeping in touch, during the whole of this case, with a view to trying to reach some settlement.

  HOLIDAYS WITH PAY
  Sir Geoffrey Manderasked the Minister of Labour the policy of the Government with regard to making holidays with pay statutory in those cases not covered by industrial agreements.
  Mr. Butler: In view of the very wide extension of holidays with pay and the possibility of further extensions on a voluntary basis, it seems unlikely that it
  1046
  will be necessary to deal with the matter by way of further legislation. The position will, however, be kept under review.
  Sir G. Mander: Did not the Amulree Committee in 1928 recommend that, after a period of private negotiations, Government legislation should be introduced; and is it not very important that all workers should have the benefit of holidays with pay?
  Mr. Butler: The remarkable fact is that the field of holidays with pay is now so wide that I do not think legislation is necessary, but we shall watch the development of these arrangements by voluntary agreement.
  Sir G. Mander: But is the Minister not aware that a large number of people will not be covered by these arrangements?
  Mr. Butler: If that were the case, I would not have given the answer I have given, because I am as keen on holidays with pay as the hon. Member.

  RELEASE AND RESETTLEMENT

    Shop Assistants (Re-employment)
    Mr. Walkdenasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that ex-shop assistants returning to the employ of owners of medium-sized shops which deal in furniture, textiles, footwear and household goods, are being warned that due to present and future shortage of supplies a full working week cannot be assured them; and, in view of the legal guarantee that ex-Servicemen will have their jobs restored will he make it clear that full wages are also to be paid to all shop assistants who return to their pre-war employer or employment.
    Mr. Butler: I am not aware of the issue of a warning to ex-shop assistants in the terms suggested. Apart from the statutory rights of ex-Servicemen and women under the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act, there is no legal obligation on employers to reinstate ex-shop assistants. The question of the regulation of wages and conditions is a matter for negotiation between the parties concerned.
    Mr. Walkden: Does the Minister not realise that certain letters have been passed and have his officers not reported to him that small, or even medium-sized

    1047
    shops are sending information and warnings of the kind indicated in the Question?
    Mr. Butler: Perhaps the hon. Member will send me the information.
    Mr. Walkden: I shall be delighted to do so.

    Directed Civilians
    Professor Gruffyddasked the Minister of Labour whether civilians who have taken up work at the direction of his Ministry will be released concurrently with members of the Armed Forces under the demobilisation scheme; and, if not, what provision has been made for the release of such persons.
    Mr. Butler: The plan for the re-allocation of workers between civilian employments was set out in a White Paper CMD.6568 published last November which forms the civilian counter-part to the plan for release from the Armed Forces. All the necessary measures to implement this plan have been taken.

    Secondary Industries (Materials)
    Sir Wavell Wakefieldasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that employers of labour in the secondary industries who are required to take their former employees back on demobilisation will not be able to give them work owing to lack of materials; and what steps is he taking to meet this position.
    Mr. Butler: The question of the supply of materials to industry is not a matter for me. In cases where lack of materials temporarily prevents an employer from reinstating an ex-Service man, the man's rights can be kept alive, if he so wishes, by periodical renewals. In the meantime my Department will do all in its power to help the man to obtain suitable alternative employment.

  DEMOBILISATION

    Voluntary Ambulance Units
    Mr. McEnteeasked the Minister of Labour what are the conditions for demobilisation of the Friends' Ambulance Unit and similar units now serving in Europe and in the Middle and Far East.
    Mr. Butler: The conditions under which members of the Friends' Ambulance Unit
    1048
    and similar Units will be released from their voluntary service are for the voluntary organisations themselves to decide. The members of the Units are not subject to the Government's scheme for release from H.M. Forces.
    Mr. McEntee: Do we understand from that reply that the right hon. Gentleman will release any of them who apply?
    Mr. Butler: I would have to consider the circumstances.

    Royal Air Force (Recruitment Age limit)
    Miss Rathboneasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that some of the older men in the R.A.F., who have seen long service overseas, are dissatisfied with the decision not to recruit men over 30 years; will he therefore reconsider the decision, or give some explanation as to the position of these men, which may satisfy them that their prospects of release will not be worsened by the proposed age limit for recruitment.
    Mr. Butler: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on the Adjournment on 31st May.
    Miss Rathbone: Has the position not altered slightly since then, and will it be fair to tell these men that, in effect, the limit will not make any difference to their chances of release, and is that still the proper interpretation?
    Mr. Butler: I must say that I perused the statement made by my hon. Friend, and I really cannot enlarge upon it or improve upon it. I should be glad if the hon. Lady will refer to it.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: As the main trouble is that the men do not know the reasons, can anything be done by the Department to inform them and make it clear that it will not make the slightest difference to their release?
    Mr. Butler: The position is as I have stated.

    Numbers
    Mr. McEnteeasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that there is a strong feeling of disappointment amongst men in the Services in regard to the relatively small number to be demobilised this year, and that there is a feeling of confidence at the demobilisation stations that they could handle considerably larger

    1049
    numbers; and will he reconsider the number proposed to be demobilised with a view to its increase.
    Mr. Butler: No, Sir, I am not aware that such feeling exists. As regards the second part of the Question, the rate of release will be governed by operational requirements and transport facilities. The capacity of the dispersal centres is fully adequate to deal with the numbers involved.
    Mr. McEntee: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what on earth he has been doing not to be aware of the very strong feeling that men were mobilised for the purpose of doing a job when the job had been done, and that, as far as these men are concerned, they ought to be released at a more reasonable and a quicker rate than is the case at the present time? Has not every hon. Member received hundreds of letters? I have had a great number.
    Mr. Lipson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great concern caused as a result of his own recent statement that only men in the early 20's groups will be released by the end of the year, whereas the Parliamentary Secretary had said that men up to the middle 20's will be released? Is the position more or less favourable than it was when the hon. Gentleman made that statement?
    Mr. Butler: In answer to the last supplementary question, certainly, in the main, the figures are as stated previously by my hon. Friend and by the Parliamentary Secretary. I naturally thought it wise, so that the men should know where they are, to give particulars of age groups to be released. In reply to the first supplementary question, I am aware that everybody wants to be released as quickly as possible, but I am not aware that troops do not understand that operational requirements and other matters may not permit their release as quickly as they would have desired.
    Mr. McEntee: Will the Minister give the number of groups he hopes to release by the end of the year?
    Mr. Butler: I would rather not make a statement now, but I hope in due course to give the House as full information as possible.

  OCCUPYING FORCES (VOLUNTEERS)
  Major Nieldasked the Minister of Labour if he has, or proposes any scheme for calling for volunteers from among graded men, munition workers and others who have been kept in the United Kingdom to help in the occupying and policing of areas abroad so as to relieve some of those who have served for substantial periods overseas.
  Mr. Butler: It is already open to men and women to volunteer for service in the Armed Forces subject to the current rules relating to reservation and deferment, and to the age-limits laid down by the Services.
  Mr. McEnteeasked the Minister of Labour if suitable trained members of the Home Guard who can be spared from industry and are willing to volunteer for police or guard duties overseas will be accepted for such work and thus relieve some of the men who have long overseas service and desire to return home.
  Mr. Butler: Such men will be accepted as volunteers in so far as they comply with the normal conditions for recruitment and are available for normal duties.

  EDUCATION

    Draft Regulation 23
    Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Education whether Draft Regulation 23 has now been withdrawn; and when the promised redrafting of it will be laid upon the Table.
    The Minister of Education (Mr. Richard Law): Regulation 23 of the Draft Primary and Secondary Schools Regulations has been withdrawn in the form in which it was published and a new Regulation has been substituted. The Regulations have now been established and will be laid before the House to-day.
    Mr. Driberg: In view of the fact that there is a good deal of anxiety about this matter, could the right hon. Gentleman say how the required 40 days will be affected by the Dissolution of Parliament?
    Mr. Law: I think it would be better if the hon. Gentleman waited until he saw the Regulation, and no doubt there will be opportunities for him to put his point of view on this matter.
    Mr. Driberg: Could the right hon. Gentleman say how the position of the people concerned with this Regulation will be affected meanwhile?
    Mr. Law: I am afraid I cannot answer that question off-hand.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it has come as a painful surprise to many who are too young to remember the old controversies to learn that such discriminatory regulations exist in this country?

    Posts of Special Responsibility (Allowances)
    Professor Gruffyddasked the Minister of Education whether he is aware that some of the education authorities find it impossible to administer the grant for posts of special responsibility; that they propose to distribute it among all the secondary teachers in their employment; and whether such a plan has been approved by him.
    Mr. Law: No representations on this matter have reached me from any education authority. Additional allowances for posts of special responsibility have long been an element in the Burnham scales and I am not aware of any reason why authorities should now find difficulty in administering such allowances, with the principles of which they are familiar, under the scales recently approved.
    Professor Gruffydd: Will the Minister kindly answer the second part of my Question?
    Mr. Law: As I said, no such plan has been put up to me and therefore I have not had a chance of considering it.
    Miss Rathbone: Is not the grant for posts of special responsibility a particularly useful means of encouraging students and their parents to undertake the extra cost of training for a degree, and cannot it be so used?
    Mr. Law: I certainly think that allowances for posts of special responsibility represent an extremely good principle.

  PUBLIC HEALTH

    Maternity Cases (Accommodation, Nottinghamshire)
    Mr. Cocksasked the Minister of Health what progress has been made in Nottinghamshire in the last 12 months in
    1052
    the provision for maternity cases; and whether he will give the number of beds now available for women who cannot have their babies at home owing to unsuitable conditions as compared with the position a year ago.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Willink): According to the returns made by the welfare authorities, at 31st December, 1943, there were 301 maternity beds in hospitals and institutions available for residents in Nottinghamshire, and 307 at 31st December, 1944. In addition, a number of schemes for adaptations of existing institutions were approved during the last months of 1944, in respect of which works are now in progress which when completed will provide a further 43 beds. Negotiations are also nearly completed for the transfer to Nottinghamshire County Council of an emergency maternity home providing 25 beds.
    Mr. Cocks: Since the net increase is only six beds in 12 months, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take what steps he can to effect the increase in buildings that he mentioned?
    Mr. Willink: Certainly, Sir, but as my hon. Friend probably knows, the main difficulty is staff and not buildings.
    Sir J. Lamb: Is it not a fact that even where accommodation is found, the shortage of nurses makes it impossible to have them operating?
    Mr. Willink: That was what I indicated.

    Midwifery Training (Analgesics)
    Dr. Edith Summerskillasked the Minister of Health what proportion of local authorities are training their midwives to administer gas-and-air analgesia; and how this compares with the number before the war.
    Mr. Willink: Out of 188 local supervising authorities in England and Wales, 101 had made arrangements before 31st December; 1943, for the instruction of their midwives in the administration of analgesics in childbirth. The corresponding figure in the 1938 returns was 30, but there is reason to think that this was an under-statement.
    Dr. Summerskill: While the Minister's reply is very encouraging, will be consider taking steps to make this obligatory, instead of permissive?
    Mr. Willink: I am quite prepared to look into that. I am sure the hon. Lady will realise that with the present very great shortage of midwives, it is very difficult to spare them for additional training.
    Mr. Gallacher: Might I ask the Minister if the Prime Minister was giving a demonstration to the midwives the other night on the radio?

    Pulmonary Tuberculosis (Allowances)
    Mr. Messerasked the Minister of Health the nature of the recommendations from his advisory committee on tuberculosis as to the exclusion of chronic cases of pulmonary tuberculosis from the scheme of financial allowances under Memorandum 266/T; and what action he proposes to take thereon.
    Mr. Willink: I assume that the hon. Member refers to my Standing Advisory Committee on Tuberculosis which, in September, 1943, urged a modification of the instruction to tuberculosis authorities that the tuberculosis allowances were not payable in cases where treatment cannot do more than alleviate a chronic condition. It has not been possible to accept this recommendation because these allowances have been paid under emergency powers with the object of restoring the capacity for work of persons suffering from tuberculosis. Allowances could not be paid in chronic cases under these powers, but as the hon. Member is aware provision for disability, including that arising from tuberculosis and without the limitation in question, forms part of the proposed National Insurance Scheme.
    Mr. Messer: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the National Association for the Prevention of Tuberculosis, the Tuberculosis Association, and all those bodies actively engaged in this work, believe that his scheme is weakened by its limitations?
    Mr. Willink: That, apart from committing myself to all the associations to which the hon. Member has referred, I know is the opinion of many competent folk, but I have explained that there was no legislation which enabled this to be done. All that could be done under the Emergency Powers was done and we hope to do better under the National Insurance Scheme.
    Mr. McNeil: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman considered the recommendations of the authors of the Medical Research Council Report on miniature radiography; and will he now commit himself to the viewpoint that the allowance should be paid, whether or not the people are fit to go back to work?
    Mr. Willink: I have considered that Report, and it will most certainly be taken into account. Further, I cannot go at the moment.

  HOUSING

    Sites (Acquisition)
    Mr. Viantasked the Minister of Health whether the Bath City Council applied for compulsory powers to acquire, for housing purposes, 10·546 acres of land at Poolemeade, Tiverton; why negotiations to purchase have broken down; what price was offered; what price has been awarded after arbitration; and what is the present rateable value of the land.
    Mr. Willink: Yes Sir. The land comprises buildings used as an institute for the deaf and dumb. I understand that the city council proposed to acquire the whole of the land and to lease the buildings to the owners, and that their offer of £4,000 on this basis was rejected. The Compulsory Purchase Order is still under consideration. The rateable value of the property is £155.
    Mr. Viantasked the Minister of Health at what price the L.C.C. is acquiring the site for a new elementary school in the Abney Park District, Stoke Newington; and if he can state the area and the previous rateable value of that land.
    Mr. Willink: I understand that negotiations for this acquisition are not yet complete and the price is therefore not available. The area is 2·1 acres. The site consists of parts only of existing properties and I regret, therefore, that I am not able to state the previous rateable value.
    Mr. J. Hendersonasked the Minister of Health what report his inspector has given on the application by Manchester City Council for compulsory powers to acquire at Wythenshawe about 97 acres on the Timperley Golf Club and two market gardens; what price has been offered or demanded for the land; what is

    1055
    its present rateable value; and whether he is aware that the plans include 2,400 houses with schools, shops, playgrounds, a health centre and a community centre.
    Mr. Willink: I am considering the report of my inspector on the local inquiry and my decision will be given at an early date. I have no information as to the price offered or demanded for the land or as to its rateable value. I am aware that the plans include the provision of 2,400 houses with schools, shops, open spaces, a health clinic and a community centre.
    Mr. Glenvil Hallasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Worthing Town Council has been in negotiation for the acquisition of 48½ acres of land for housing purposes at the south-west corner of Field Place Estate; at what price the land is to be acquired; and what is the present rateable value of the site in question.
    Mr. Willink: Yes, Sir; negotiations for acquisition are still in progress. The land is agricultural and de-rated.
    Mr. Hall: Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman give us any idea of what price is being asked for this site?
    Mr. Willink: No, Sir.
    Mr. Glenvil Hallasked the Minister of Health what negotiations preceded the decision of the Ulverston Urban District Council to make a compulsory purchase order for the acquisition for housing purposes of Watery Lane Farm, outbuildings and five fields adjoining Watery Lane, the whole containing 16,719 acres or thereabouts; what is the rateable value of these properties; and whether purchase has taken place and at what price.
    Mr. Willink: The owner was willing to sell the land at the District Valuer's valuation. The Council decided to acquire the farm buildings as well and as the owner was unwilling to sell them they have made a Compulsory Purchase Order, which has been submitted to me for confirmation. I have decided to hold a public local inquiry before making my decision. I am not aware of the rateable value of the properties.
    Mr. Gallacher: In view of this series of Questions, would it not be desirable
    1056
    for the Minister and the Government to take over the land and see that it is properly administered by the local authorities?
    Mr. Willink: No, Sir.

    Requisitioning Powers
    Mr. Prittasked the Minister of Health what is the extent and general nature of the powers which he has delegated to the clerks to all local authorities to requisition suitable property for the accommodation of persons inadequately housed, other than, bombed-out persons; and, approximately, how many premises have been requisitioned in the County of London under these powers in the last three months.
    Mr. Willink: I am sending to the hon. and learned Member a copy of the relevant circular issued to local authorities. Because of the need to provide for families made homeless by flying bombs and rockets all but one of the 2,300 houses requisitioned in the County of London in the last three months have been requisitioned for them, though in other ways 26 houses have been made available for the inadequately housed.
    Mr. Pritt: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell me whether the last date of delegation of any such powers was in August, 1943, shortly before his appointment? In those circumstances, would he like to withdraw or correct the answer he gave a few days ago to the effect that he had delegated these powers, which implied that he had done it himself recently?
    Mr. Willink: I do not follow the implication that it was recent. I am sorry if I took the credit to myself of something that should have stood to the credit of my predecessor, but I am surprised that a learned Member should suggest that delegation would be any stronger or more effective by repetition.
    Mr. Pritt: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman look again at his answer and see that this reference comes immediately after another sentence in the same reply, implying, to any person who reads it reasonably, that it was something he had done to deal with an emergency that had arisen during the last few months? Would he look at it and see if it is not plainly a rotten trick?
    Mr. Willink: I shall certainly be pleased to look at, my reply. The hon. and learned Member no doubt appreciates that I am just about to answer a Question dealing with dates, but I leave it to the House to decide as to whether his description of my reply was justified.
    Mr. Walter Edwards: In view of the fact that an answer by the Minister to a supplementary question last week left the impression that Servicemen who lived in the East End boroughs but had no accommodation there, could be provided with accommodation in other parts of London, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether any circular to that effect has been sent out to local authorities?
    Mr. Willink: Arrangements for mutual liaison and accommodation between boroughs were in existence when I was Special Commissioner in charge of the homeless in London. I think all London Members will appreciate that there is not one London area which has not great difficulties, so that very wide distribution as between the boroughs is not easy to effect.
    Mr. Edwards: Does not that apply to the inadequately housed as well as to the bombed-out?
    Mr. Willink: The power given to the clerks is to requisition for the inadequately housed, and is not limited to those who previously resided in their areas.
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Minister of Health on what date he last informed billeting officers that they may henceforth use their powers to provide housing accommodation for all who need it, including the families of Service and ex-Service men, and not only for war workers.
    Mr. Willink: The power to requisition houses for persons inadequately housed was delegated to clerks of local authorities on 4th August, 1943. The last circular on the subject was issued on 17th April, 1944.
    Mr. Lipson: Is the Minister aware that I am not referring merely to the requisitioning of houses, but to providing room accommodation? Could not billeting officers who have dealt with war workers now be told to deal with Servicemen and ex-Servicemen and their families, and women expecting babies, who have no accommodation after confinement?
    Mr. Willink: It would need careful consideration whether, at this stage, there should be any wide extension of billeting powers, as opposed to other powers to assist in such cases.
    Mr. Lipson: But do not the circumstances justify such an extension?
    Mr. Willink: I am continually considering what measures can be taken to make the best use of our existing accommodation.
    Viscountess Astor: Is it not true that a first-class billeting officer can get these things done? It needs a lot of tact.
    Mr. Pritt: The Noble Lady had better do it.
    Mr. E. Walkden: Can the Minister say whether local authorities, particularly in mining areas, have been told that they must use the requisitioning powers when ex-miners' families are being evicted?
    Mr. Willink: I am quite prepared to consider whether local authorities or, rather, their clerks, to whom these powers are delegated, are fully aware of the way in which the powers should be used, but I have no doubt that the delegation of such responsibility is fully within the minds of the officers in question.

    Emergency Hutments
    Sir I. Alberyasked the Minister of Health if any local authorities outside the London area have applied for an allotment of Uni-seco type hutments; have any of these been allotted; and, if so, how many.
    Mr. Willink: The answer to the first part of the Question is, "No, Sir." The other parts, therefore, do not arise.
    Sir I. Albery: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether local authorities have any facilities for acquiring these Uni-seco hutments?
    Mr. Willink: My hon. Friend is about to ask another Question on this subject. Distribution of these very small and low standard emergency huts was restricted to areas which were affected by flying bombs and rockets.
    Sir I. Albery: In view of the speed, economy and facility with which these huts can be obtained, is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied that the present housing plans of the Government will cope with the emergency without using these huts?
    Mr. Willink: I am quite satisfied that the time has passed when it would be right to make the provision of such hutments as these part of the Government's current housing programme.
    Sir I. Alberyasked the Minister of Health if any estimate has been made of the number of Uni-seco type hutments, which could be supplied and erected throughout the country within the next 12 months, as emergency dwellings.
    Mr. Willink: No further Uni-seco type hutments are available, as the entire production is being devoted to other purposes.

    Modern Fuel-Burning Equipment
    Mr. Keelingasked the Minister of Health whether he proposes, by the licensing of production or by other means, to ensure the installation in privately as well as municipally built houses of modern fuel-burning equipment designed for high efficiency, smoke reduction and the use of smokeless fuels, as recommended in the Housing Manual, 1944.
    Mr. Willink: The licensing of production is not a matter for my Department. So far as I am concerned with privately built houses, I cannot, at present, go beyond the recommendations in the Housing Manual.
    Mr. Keeling: As my right hon. and learned Friend is not responsible for production, but is responsible for health, will he ask the Minister of Works, who is responsible for production, to endeavour to promote health by ensuring the installation of smoke abating grates?
    Mr. Willink: The position with regard to these modern fuel-burning appliances is that they are being developed, and that prototypes are on exhibition at the Building Centre in Conduit Street. Standard specifications are being prepared, and arrangements will be made by the Ministry of Fuel and Power for production. The price is not yet known, but it is hoped that it will be economic, and that any extra expenditure will be compensated for by the lower running costs.
    Mr. Keelingasked the Minister of Health whether approval of housing schemes submited by local authorities will be withheld unless provision is made for the installation of modern fuel-burning equipment, designed for, high efficiency,
    1060
    smoke reduction and the use of smokeless fuels, as recommended in the Housing Manual, 1944.
    Mr. Willink: No, Sir, not at present. Local authorities are, however, expected to adopt British standard specifications where they exist, and their attention is being drawn to the new appliances which are being developed and are becoming available.
    Mr. Keeling: Does that answer mean that my right hon. and learned Friend is powerless to bring pressure to bear upon local authorities to abate smoke, and that he is merely hoping?
    Mr. Willink: I am not only powerless, but I am most reluctant to delay the production of houses by insisting on appliances that do not yet exist.
    Mr. Sorensen: Have all the pre-war arrangements for limiting smoke now been re-established?
    Mr. Willink: That hardly applies on this Question.
    Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister take note of the insistence of his supporters on State control and interference?

    Wales
    Mr. David Williamsasked the Minister of Health the number of houses now needed in Wales; and what steps he is taking to enable Welsh local authorities to commence their building programmes.
    Mr. Willink: While no accurate estimate can be given of the total housing need in Wales, the short-term programmes of Welsh housing authorities cover 20,979 dwellings. Sites for approximately 8,000 have already been acquired. The local authorities are being authorised to invite tenders for the erection of houses as and when sites become available. In addition, 8,000 temporary houses have been allocated to Wales, for which 6,179 house sites have been approved.
    Mr. Williams: In view of the number of houses needed in Wales, would the Minister tell us when local authorities there can commence operation?
    Mr. Willink: As sites become available, I am authorising them to obtain tenders for houses.
    Mr. Williams: Are there any difficulties in obtaining sites in most of these local authorities' areas?
    Mr. Willink: I know of no difficulty in obtaining sites.

  FRANCE (DEFENCE MEASURES, 1939)
  Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Prime Minister what representations were made by Colonel Deneys Reitz and Mr. R. G. Casey to the Prime Minister in December, 1939, about the defence of France; what action was taken; and if a full statement will be made on this aspect of that period.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): War histories will no doubt be published in due course.

  GERMANY

    Allied Control Commission
    Mr. Graham Whiteasked tine Prime Minister if it is the purpose of the Allied Control Commission in Germany to set up a common and correlated policy for the four zones of occupation so that the resources of Germany may be made available to the country as a whole.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member may possibly find an answer to his Question in Paragraph 2 of the statement issued on Tuesday by the Control Council in Berlin. It reads:
    "The Control Council, whose decisions shall be unanimous, will ensure appropriate uniformity of action by the Commanders-in-Chief in their respective zones of occupation and will reach agreed decisions on the chief questions affecting Germany as a whole."
    That is the best answer I can give him at the present time.

    British Military Government
    Petty-Officer Alan Herbertasked the Prime Minister whether, before the Dissolution of Parliament, he will arrange for a high officer from military government in North-West Germany to attend this House and give an account to Members of the fine work done and being done by our Forces in those regions.
    The Prime Minister: While thanking my hon. and gallant Friend for his appreciation of the work being done by the military government in Germany, I regret that it will not be possible to adopt his suggestion.
    Petty-Officer Herbert: Would it be possible to issue a report in the form of a White Paper, as the public are very anxious to know what is being done?
    The Prime Minister: We were for a very long time short of white paper, and now we are very short of time.

  BRITISH COMMONWEALTH AND EMPIRE (WAR EFFORT)
  Sir Percy Hurdasked the Prime Minister if he will issue a White Paper putting on record the extent to which the individual Dominions, India and the Colonies have shared in the war effort in Africa and Europe on land, on the sea and in the air, as well as in supplies to various theatres of war, including Russia.
  The Prime Minister: It is plainly most desirable that wide publicity should be given to the war effort of all parts of the British Commonwealth and Empire over-sea. Such publicity has, in fact, been continuous throughout the war, and few will complain that this island has obtruded itself unduly. I am doubtful, however, whether the particular suggestion put forward by my hon. Friend is practical. So far as the Dominions are concerned, complete information is not available in this country. It would be necessary to seek the required information from other British Commonwealth Governments who would also have to be consulted about the suggestion as a whole.
  Sir P. Hurd: Does not my right hon. Friend think it is highly desirable that there should be a collective record of the magnificent achievements of the various parts of the British Empire in this war?
  The Prime Minister: I certainly do, and I think it should be in the fullest detail and from every point of view, but I cannot undertake to have that put in hand actively until questions pending at the General Election are satisfactorily solved.
  Mr. E. Walkden: Would that include the two Socialist Governments "down under" and their wonderful record?
  Mr. Seaborne Davies: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is one part of the Empire which feels it has had very bad publicity during the war, and that is Wales?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think that is so. I think the whole country was thrilled to hear of the exploits of the Welsh Division as recently as the crossing of the Rhine.

  ARMED FORCES (COMPASSIONATE RELEASES)
  Air Vice-Marshal Bennettasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider modifying the existing regulations whereby serving personnel who are granted compassionate temporary release are made to extend their subsequent service beyond their normal release date by the amount equal to their temporary release.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
  Air Vice-Marshal Bennett: Would the Prime Minister not agree that if it is right in the first case that the man should have been granted leave on compassionate grounds, it would be unjust for him to be subsequently forced to suffer for it?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. If you argued it out on strict equality, the argument would go the other way. Where a man has private troubles, or important business affairs, and is sent back and has special leave, while so many others who have been out longer than he has are longing to get home, I do not see why that specially advanced and specially cherished additional emergency compassionate leave should be deducted from the total time which the man has to serve.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: Surely the right hon. Gentleman must see that this is a vicious circle? Many of these men are allowed to go home and attend to business, and the reasons which send them home on compassionate leave do not end, but continue. Is not the Prime Minister also aware that the numbers released in this way temporarily are so few that they make no difference at all to ordinary releases under Class A?
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that cases of compassionate leave are very carefully investigated?
  Viscountess Astor: Do not some of the men coming home have to meet the most tragic circumstances? I am not talking about business, but real heartbreak and sorrow. Surely they ought not to have to pay in leave for that?
  The Prime Minister: The principle that has been settled is that compassionate leave given in special circumstances ought not to count for the various Service groups.

  TEHERAN AND YALTA DECISIONS (PUBLICATION)
  Mr. Stokesasked the Prime Minister what agreements were arrived at at Teheran or Yalta with regard to relations with other European Powers not so far disclosed to the British public.
  The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the official statements which have already been made on the results of these Conferences.
  Mr. Stokes: Will the Prime Minister repeat the assurance given by the Foreign Secretary that no secret engagements of any kind whatever were entered into either at Yalta or Teheran?
  The Prime Minister: I cannot give a guarantee that the newspaper reporters were there all the time.
  Mr. Price: If it is a fact that there are no undisclosed conditions to the Yalta decisions, why is it that the Russian Government have acted in the matter of the broadening of the Polish Government in a way totally in conflict with the declared decisions of the Yalta Conference?
  The Prime Minister: Certainly there were no secret engagements entered into there at all, except that we kept secret the addition of two members to Russia, Byelo-Russia and the Ukraine. Those were kept secret at the desire of the United States so that the President could get home and make the necessary arrangements on the spot. Otherwise, there were no secret engagements, but the conversations, of course, proceeded in a very intimate manner, and I am not prepared to says that everything discussed at Yalta could be made the subject of a verbatim report.
  Mr. Stokes: With great respect to the Prime Minister, his answer was quite irrelevant. I was not talking about newspapers. Will he repeat the assurance given to the House by the Foreign Secretary that no secret engagements were entered into at either of those conferences?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, I have, but I do not accept the view that it is absolutely necessary that there should never be on any occasion a secret clause in some arrangement, provided that is reported to a wide Cabinet. It may very often be necessary to do so. It would hamper very much the whole proceedings if no understandings could be made which had not to be immediately published. I should not approve of that myself, although I know that a lot of claptrap is talked about it.

  SAND REMOVAL, CORNWALL
  Mr. Stokesasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the local War Agricultural Committee are causing sand to be removed from the seashore at Constantine Bay, near Padstow, Cornwall, at the rate of 300 tons a week and that this removal has been going on for some months; and whether he can give an assurance that this process will not lead to erosion of the coast in the neighbourhood.
  The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I am aware that the Cornwall war agricultural executive committee have caused sand to be removed from the seashore at Constantine Bay. The quantity is considerably less than indicated in the Question and is a continuance of pre-war farming practice.
  Mr. Stokes: Really, the Minister has been improperly informed. Is he aware that the sand is being taken away under a charter issued in the time of Henry III, when the farmers only had horses, and that now the stuff is being carted 40 or 50 miles away in lorries by organised gangs of contractors who are ruining the seashore and imperilling the coastline and have in the next bay absolutely ruined the amenities of the place?
  Mr. Hudson: The hon. Gentleman asked me whether I was aware that the committee were moving sand at the rate of 300 tons a week. I have replied that they are removing sand, but the quantity is very much less than that stated by the hon. Member.
  Mr. Stokes: Is the Minister aware that he has entirely ignored the important part of the Question, which asks for an assurance that this will not result in serious coast erosion?
  Mr. Hudson: That matter is being examined by my Noble Friend the Minister of War Transport.
  Mr. Stokes: What has this got to do with the Minister of War Transport?
  Mr. Speaker: Sir Thomas Moore.
  Mr. Stokes:On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to give notice that, as the Minister has entirely failed to deal with the substance of the Question, I shall raise it at the earliest possible moment, if I get a chance.

  AGRICULTURE

    County War Committee Staffs (Political Activities)
    General Sir George Jeffreysasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that instructions have been issued to the staffs of county war agricultural executive committees to the effect that they must not appear on any political platform or take part in any overt political activity or propaganda whilst in the employment of the committee; and whether, in view of the fact that the majority of such staffs only hold temporary appointments and that many of them are normally accustomed to take an active part in the political life of their districts, he will arrange for an immediate relaxation of this restriction.
    Mr. Hudson: The answer to the first part of the question is "Yes," and the second part "No." Although the staffs of the county war agricultural executive committees are not technically civil servants, they are appointed by my agents for the purpose of carrying out the Government's policy in regard to war-time food production, and their salaries are provided direct from public funds. They must, therefore, be subject to the same rules as civil servants in regard to their political activities; these rules apply to both permanent and temporary civil servants.
    Sir G. Jeffreys: Will my right hon. Friend make sure that legally he has power to enforce these instructions, in view of the fact that these are neither permanent nor temporary civil servants, and no undertaking was required of them that they would comply with such conditions when they first took on their job?
    Mr. Hudson: I will look into that question. I assume we would not have issued instructions without justification.

    Goats
    Commander Locker-Lampsonasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will issue a leaflet regarding the goat, as he has done about other animals, so that all concerned may realise that the goat does not get or give tuberculosis; and can he encourage the starting of goat clubs on the lines of pig clubs.
    Mr. Hudson: The question of revising and expanding the Ministry's leaflets is under review and my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion will be borne in mind. As to the second part of the Question, I am advised that the main limitation to the expansion of goat keeping in this country is the shortage of first-class breeding stock.
    Mr. Isaacs: Who got the Prime Minister's goat before Monday night?

    RAILWAYS (VALUATION)
    Sir J. Lambasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the loss suffered by rating authorities in consequence of the inconsistency in the Railways (Valuation for Rating) Act, 1930, which was disclosed in the case of Worthing Corporation versus Southern Railway; and whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation to put the matter right before the period of operation of the fourth railway valuation roll.
    Mr. Willink: Yes, Sir. The Government agree generally with the view of the position expressed by my hon. Friend. I am obviously not in a position to promise legislation in the present Session, but I hope that it will be possible to amend the Act of 1930 before the date of operation of the fourth roll.

    INDIA

      Women Mineworkers
      Dr. Edith Summerskillasked the Secretary of State for India how many expectant mothers working in the mines in India have been prematurely confined in the mines and in their homes or hospital, respectively; and how many of these mothers and babies have died.
      The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): There is no record of any child being born underground. I am asking the Government of India how far they can supply the other information desired by the hon. Member. The hon. Member will be glad to know that in April last the Indian Legislature amended the existing law to make it illegal for women to work underground in the mines for 10 weeks before and six months after confinement while the hours of work are severely limited for a further three months. The rates of benefit during these periods of absence have been increased.
      Dr. Summerskill: How long does the Government propose to sanction this cold-blooded cruelty to expectant mothers?
      Mr. Amery: It is not a question of sanctioning. The Government of India are dealing with an extremely difficult situation affecting the whole war situation and life in India. Machinery is in process of being ordered, or installed, which I hope will ease the situation and bring the desired change nearer.
      Mr. McNeil: Is the right hon. Gentleman asking the House to believe that the amount of coal moved by a woman within ten weeks of confinement is so considerable?
      Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir.
      Mr. Glanville: When do the Government propose to adopt a civilised attitude and withdraw all women from all mines?
      Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is it within the competency of the Secretary of State, to issue directions to the Indian Government in these matters?
      Mr. Edmund Harvey: As the right hon. Gentleman has already assured the House that it is his hope that this will be brought to an end very soon, will he give an assurance that every effort is being made to get it stopped as soon as possible?
      Mr. Amery: The Government of India are as anxious as Members of this House to terminate the employment of women in this way.
      Mr. Pritt: What wages are paid to these women in the period during which they are prohibited from going down the pit?
      Mr. Amery: They have been considerably increased. The payment now amounts to six rupees a week, for ten weeks before and six weeks after delivery.

    Viceroy's Visit (Conversations)
    Sir John Wardlaw-Milneasked the Secretary of State for India whether he will now make a statement regarding his conversations with the Viceroy during his recent visit to this country.
    Mr. Amery: I expect to be in a position to make a statement before the House rises, probably on the Wednesday of next week.
    Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: As a result of that statement, will there be a Debate in the House?
    Mr. Amery: I understand it will be a matter for discussion through the usual channels.
    Earl Winterton: Surely if the right hon. Gentleman is going to make a statement upon a matter on which both sides of the House are interested, we should be told that, without question, there will be an opportunity to discuss it? Is he aware that there is a growing distaste of the habit of Ministers making statements without the House having an opportunity of discussing them?
    Mr. Amery: That is a matter for the Leader of the House.
    Mr. Sorensen: As the statement will be made next Wednesday and there are only two days and part of a day left, is there any likelihood of a Debate taking place?
    Mr. Amery: It is a matter for the hon. Members' Friends to consider and raise through the usual channels.
    Mr. Sorensen: Surely, the right hon. Gentleman wants to initiate a Debate himself?
    Viscountess Astor: Is it not of vital importance at this moment that we should discuss this openly in the House? Every question that is asked, which is against the British Government, concerning powers which they do not possess is multiplied and magnified all over the world.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Attlee: Has the Prime Minister any statement to make with regard to the Family Allowances Bill, and will he also state the Business for next week?
The Prime Minister: I will take the Business first. The Business for next week will be as follows:
Monday, 11th June—Supply (7th Allotted Day)—Committee. The Ministry of Education Estimate will be considered. At 8.15 p.m. the Committee stage of all outstanding Supply Votes will be put from the Chair. Report stage of the Supplementary Vote of Credit. Second Reading of the Postponement of Polling Day Bill, and of the Treason Bill [Lords]. Afterwards we hope, by general agreement, to take the concluding stages of the Family Allowances Bill.
As the House knows, discussions have been taking place to see if agreement could be reached on the outstanding points on the Family Allowances Bill. I am glad to say that I understand that in view of the general desire in all quarters that the Bill should be passed before the Dissolution, Members would be willing to pass the Bill in the form in which the Government are now proposing to submit it to the House. New Clauses, will appear on the Order Paper to-morrow and it is proposed to take the remaining stages of the Bill on Monday. It will be appreciated that this can be done only if the Bill, with the new Clauses, is assented to without further Amendment.
The Business for the remainder of the week will be:
Tuesday, 12th June—Supply (8th Allotted Day)—Report. A Debate will take place on the health of the nation. At 8.15p.m. the Report stage of all outstanding Supply Votes will be put from the Chair. Committee and remaining stages of the Postponement of Polling Day Bill and of the Treason Bill [Lords].
Wednesday, 13th June—Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
Thursday, 14th June—Committee and Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
On Friday, 15th June, we shall consider any outstanding Business and afterwards Parliament will be prorogued. During the

1071
week we shall take the Motion to approve the Electoral Registration (No. 2) Regulations and any outstanding Business.
Mr. Attlee: We propose to raise on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill on Wednesday the subject of trade aspects.
Sir G. Mander: Do I understand from what the Prime Minister said that family allowances, under the new proposals, are not to be paid to men in the Services?
The Prime Minister: Agreement has been reached about that. [Interruption.] If there is no agreement, there will be no Bill.
Mr. A. Bevan: That is the democracy that the right hon. Gentleman is giving to the House of Commons.
The Prime Minister: Democracy implies elections at certain intervals, and elections take a certain amount of time. I do not see how democracy would be served by throwing the whole country into confusion by putting off the date of the election. The hon. Gentleman's views on democracy, I hope, will be greatly improved in the next few weeks.
Mr. Turton: What are the Government's intentions with regard to the Purchase Tax (Suspension of Registration Limit) Order which, if passed, will cause great inconvenience to many small businesses?
The Prime Minister: The Chancellor of the Exchequer informs me that he thinks the criticism of this Order was based very largely on a misconception of what its practical effect would be. I do not think, however, in view of the present state of public business, that it would be possible to find time to deal adequately with the matter before the coming Dissolution.
Mr. Tinker: Has the Prime Minister considered the promise given to me by the Leader of the House some time ago that we would be allowed to discuss war gratuities? There is a Motion on the Order Paper about war gratuities, and I was expecting to have some opportunity of discussing the subject.
The Prime Minister: There is no time for more than I have mentioned. I am not aware at the moment whether the Consolidated Fund Bill would enable it to be raised; I have not had an oppor-
1072
tunity of discussing it with the authorities; but we can add no new topics.
Mr. Bevan: Arising out of the original statement of the right hon. Gentleman—
The Prime Minister: More about democracy?
Mr. Bevan: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will restrain himself for a moment. I suggest that if he does not restrain himself here, the electorate will restrain him in a few weeks' time. Is it not a fact that the Government are now telling the House that the only condition for the Family Allowances Bill being passed before the Election is that ex-Servicemen, unemployed men and widows shall not have the family allowance?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Member had better see the Amendments on the Paper.
Earl Winterton: Would my right hon. Friend at least give sympathetic consideration to any request which might reach him supported by both sides of the House, that there should be given some opportunity to discuss India on the statement which is to be made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State?
The Prime Minister: We have now reverted to the point where we have an official Opposition and they state officially the subjects for which they wish priority on those various general occasions like the Consolidated Fund Bill. We have just heard from the Leader of the Opposition that they wish to discuss trade aspects. It would be entirely in accordance with custom that we should defer to his desire.
Mr. Attlee: With regard to the statement of the Secretary of State on Wednesday, I would point out that there is nothing down on the Consolidated Fund Bill for Thursday. I do not know whether it would be in Order to discuss the Secretary of State's statement on that day.
The Prime Minister: It can be a matter for discussion through the usual channels, whether Wednesday or Thursday is the more convenient for the statement of the Secretary of State for India.
Mr. Thorne: Can my right hon. Friend say what time the Dissolution on Friday will be so that I can be present and shake hands with some of my old friends?
The Prime Minister: We are the servants of the House, and the House is master of the length of Business on this occasion. I am sure that a great many hon. Members would like to remain behind to take part in the agreeable ceremony my right hon. Friend has mentioned.
Mr. Thorne: May I thank the Prime Minister for the honour that has been conferred upon me?
Mr. Buchanan: With regard to to-day's Business and the discussion on housing, I want to ask if some representative from the Scottish Office will be present and make a statement about housing in Scotland?
The Prime Minister: A Ministerial representative of Scotland will be present, but whether he will require to make a special intervention in the Debate must depend on its course.
Mr. Buchanan: May I press the right hon. Gentleman further because he is aware that there is no Scottish Member from the Department on the Front Bench interested in housing? He knows how serious the situation in Scotland is with regard to housing and that we cannot afford to neglect it. May I press him to see that we have some Minister responsible and that some reply will be given to-day by a Scottish Minister?
The Prime Minister: The Scottish Votes are down in the compartment of Business which is to be discussed to-day. We have not only one, but two Scottish Ministers here, and if matters are raised which are not sufficiently dealt with in the speeches of the other Ministers, I have no doubt that they will come forward and say what is proper. We must not, however, have all the speeches from the Government Front Bench.
Mr. Sorensen: In view of the statement on India which is to be made on Wednesday, why did not the Government consider it was necessary that time should be given to discuss it before the House rises?
The Prime Minister: I have tried to explain that time is limited, and that the disposition of the time, in the first instance, is always by custom regulated by the wishes of the official Opposition, which we are now delighted to see before us.
Mr. Stokes: For the convenience of those Members who are interested, can the Prime Minister give us any information with regard to the promised demonstration of tanks, and the time and place of it?
The Prime Minister: It has been arranged, but I have not carried the date in my head. I thought it ought to be arranged before the Election so that the hon. Gentleman could ease his mind on the subject. If it were done after the Election it would be possible to show them moving and firing, and that would be a much more extensive and interesting show; but I thought that, as the hon. Gentleman was so anxious to see it, it should be hurried on. I think it is early next week.
Commander King-Hall: Have the Government taken note of the Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. I. Thomas) and myself, relative to the need of interchanging information between ourselves and our Russian Allies, and whether the Government are going to do anything about it?
[That in the opinion of this House it is desirable that a large-scale exchange of students between Russian and British universities should take place at an early opportunity in order that the Anglo-Soviet Alliance shall be fortified by general contact between the young peoples of the two countries, and this House urges His Majesty's Government to initiate appropriate negotiations forthwith.]
The Prime Minister: The Motion is about the exchange of students between the two countries. I certainly think that it is very desirable in view of our 20 years' agreement with Soviet Russia. The sooner we get as many English people as possible learning to speak Russian, and vice versa, the better. When I mentioned this matter in Moscow in October last, Premier Stalin responded to it with great enthusiasm, and I understand that he has given orders that it is to be facilitated. We welcome that in the highest possible degree. I do not think there is any need to initiate any further negotiations as the matter is fully before both Governments.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS
That they have come to the following Resolutions, namely:
That the promoters of every Private or Provisional Order Confirmation Bill and petitioners for Estate Bills which shall have been introduced into or presented to this House in the present Session of Parliament, and which shall have passed this House and been sent to the House of Commons, or which shall be pending in this House, shall have leave to introduce or present the same in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Private Bill Office not later than Noon on the last sitting day of the present Session; and provided that all fees due by them thereon, up to that period, be paid;
That an alphabetical list of all such Bills, with a statement of the stages at which they shall have arrived, shall be prepared in the Private Bill Office, and printed;
That every such Bill which originated in this House shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than Three o'clock on or before the third day on which the House shall sit after the next meeting of Parliament for business other than judicial business, with a declaration annexed thereto, signed in the case of- a Private Bill by the agent, and in the case of a Provisional Order Confirmation Bill by an officer of the department by which the Orders to be confirmed by such Bill are made, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session.
That in case any such Bill brought from the House of Commons in the present Session, upon which the proceedings shall have been suspended in this House shall be brought from the House of Commons in the next Session of Parliament, the agent for such Bill, or an officer of the department, as the case may be, shall deposit in the Private Bill Office after the Bill shall have passed the House of Commons and prior to the First Reading thereof in this House, a declaration stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
That such Bills shall thereupon be deemed to have been passed through every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session; and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages;
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply to any Private or Provisinal Order Confirmation Bill which shall have originated in this House or been brought up from the House of Commons in the present Session, in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed;
That every certificate from the Examiners of Standing Orders for Private Bills given in respect of any Private or Provisional Order Confirmation Bill originating in the House of Commons, upon which the proceedings shall have been suspended in that House in the present Session, shall be deemed to have been given in respect of such Bill, if the
1076
same shall be brought from the House of Commons in the next Session of Parliament, and any notices published and served, and any deposits made in respect of such Bill, in respect of the present Session shall be held to have been published, served and made respectively for the Bill so brought from the House of Commons in. the next Session of Parliament;
That all petitions presented in this Session relating to any Private Bill shall, if necessary, be referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session.
That no petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on any Bill unless their petition shall have been presented within the time limited in the present Session, unless that time shall not have expired before it closes, in which case, in order to be heard, their petition shall be presented not later than the fourth day on which the House shall sit for business other than judicial business in the next Session.
That they have agreed to—
Government of Burma (Temporary Provisions) Bill,
Income Tax Bill, without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled: "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Port Glasgow Gas and Burgh."—[Port Glasgow Gas and Burgh Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].

PORT GLASGOW GAS AND BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords]
Ordered (under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936), to be considered To-morrow.

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE
Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Reports from the Select Committee, brought up and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [Nos. 100–103.]
Minutes of Proceedings of the Select Committee to be printed. [No. 104.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY [6th ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Colonel Sir CHARLES MCANDREW in the Chair]
  CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1945

  HOUSING
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a further sum, not exceeding £70, be granted to His Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the following services connected with Housing for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, namely:

  £

  Class VII, Vote 4, Ministry of Works

  10

  Class VII, Vote 5, Miscellaneous Works Services

  10

  Class X, Vote 16, Ministry of Works (War Services)

  10

  Class V, Vote 1, Ministry of Health

  10

  Class V, Vote 4, Ministry of Labour and National Service

  10

  Class V, Vote 16, Department of Health for Scotland

  10

  Class X, Vote 18, Department of Health for Scotland (War Services)

  10

  £70"

  3.32 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Greenwood: We are now approaching, in the dying days of a long Parliament, one of the most vital human issues, the housing of the people. What is really the true position about housing in this country? At the beginning of this war we were left with some millions of houses which had been built 75, 100 and even more years ago. They were built in the days of free enterprise, which I understand that my hon. and right hon. Friends opposite still feel is the goal of their economic effort. They were built at a time of an industrial revolution, the brunt of which this country took, in days when there was no sanitary science and the new Liberal
  1108
  manufacturing interests, so hated by the Tories of that day, believed in the gospel of each for himself and the devil take the hindmost. Those houses are old houses. They are described in the White Paper as obsolescent, but they are more than obsolescent, they are rotten, according to modern standards, and that really is the core, the heart, of Britain's housing problem. It is not merely a case of patching up what is left, it is not merely trying to catch up the leeway. The fundamental housing problem is the rehousing of the vast majority of our industrial population.
  During the war there has been very little building. The White Paper refers to the houses which were erected in the interwar years. They were not sufficient, and in the six years following we have got behind with any reasonable national house building programme. We have had in addition six years of cumulative obsolescence, six years in which old, unsanitary houses have become older and older and more and more decrepit. Further, unfortunately, there has been a substantial amount of enemy action, which put out of existence a very large number of houses or damaged them beyond repair or brought them to such a state that very little could be done to them. Then, during the war, young people have insisted upon getting married—they do so more in war time, I think, than in peace time—and so, on top of all the cumulative arrears and of our deficiencies in the past, comes this problem of providing houses for the newly-married couples or the couples who will be married when the soldier or the A.T.S. is discharged from the Forces. It is very likely that they will feel more indignant, perhaps, than those large numbers of people who have during lifetime learned to put up with bad housing conditions.
  This is the most gigantic problem on the home front. This is not a problem like that of the restoring of our foreign trade, where we are to some extent in the hands of our friends overseas. This is a problem on our own doorstep which we can solve if we so choose by our own efforts. Failure, therefore, to solve the housing problem cannot be placed at the door of unwilling Allies overseas. Failure here means our failure to deal with what is a fundamental problem.
  The present position is most unsatisfactory. The labour situation is a very

  1109
  grave one. When this war broke out more than 1,000,000 people were employed in the building industry in Great Britain. About a third of them were permanently employed on repair and maintenance and not on the building of new houses. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Works can check me if I am wrong, but I think that is broadly the fact. Today we have a building industry which is about one-third of what it was at the outbreak of war; the shortage is a very grave one. As regards materials, both manufacture and distribution are unorganised. With regard to finance, into which I cannot enter in any detail, the building industry has in the past, broadly speaking and apart from what local authorities have done, been financed by the bankruptcies of large numbers of small men. Ambitious, they go to a bank or an insurance company, get money to build their houses, build very bad houses—it is the only way they can make their money, if they do make it—and before they have made their money the loan is often foreclosed and they come to grief. From the point of view of financial organisation no industry has been more shabbily and more unprofitably conducted than the building industry.
  What is really the nature of the problem which confronts us now? The fundamental problem, one which the late National Government was unable to solve, is how the limited and precious land of this country can be best used in the national interest. The control of the use of land is fundamental. It is no good building houses unless you know where to build them. It is no good pretending you can have a housing policy unless there is a policy for dealing with the land that is available to us. During the war, and it was inevitable in the circumstances, some of the finest agricultural land was used for bomber aerodromes. I do not complain about that, but as a national policy in peace time I should regard it as disastrous. It is not the case that Members of Parliament have not had guidance in this matter. There was the Barlow Report. It is true that it was published in the early days of the war, when people were not much interested in these problems. Then we had the Scott Report, and two Reports from the Uthwatt Committee, the final Report being published in December, 1942.
  1110
  We have never had a discussion of this fundamental problem in this House. In the last Housing Debate, in March I think, I raised with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, the present Foreign Secretary, the desirability and the urgency of a discussion on this very important problem, but we have not had one. Now we have entered into the realm of controversy. That is not displeasing to me; I have borne my burden of non-controversialism for quite a long time. The truth is that the late Coalition Government could not in any circumstances come to an agreement about the use of land, because that is the most precious thing that the Conservative Party thinks about. I am not blaming the Conservative Party, but only stating what is an obvious fact. Therefore, in the dying days of this Parliament, the country is now placed in an impossible position, because it must know, and intelligent people do know, that you cannot build houses on a proper national plan unless you have made up your mind about what land you want to use for what purpose. Agriculture is vitally concerned. I should hate to see towns sprawling out into the rural areas, eating up good agricultural land. That would be wrong. I should hate to see houses or other buildings put in wrong places.
  This subject has not been thought out, and we may as well face it, because any hon. and right hon. Friends opposite must face it, and I have no doubt it will recoil on the heads of all of us when we take to the hustings in a very short time. The fact that no decision has been taken on the Uthwatt and the earlier Reports means that a solution, a real beginning of a solution, of the housing problem has been postponed for at least a decade. That we have to face. The Government have concealed their inability to deal with this problem under a smoke screen of superficial activity. In the Debate on the White Paper two or three months ago I described it as chicken feed for a hungry nation. I am bound to say that now I do not think it is chicken feed for even an urban district council.
  Let us look at how this problem is being handled. There is my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. There is the Secretary of State for Scotland. There is the Board of Trade, which is now a housing authority. There is the Ministry of Aircraft Production, which has shown great interest in the building of aluminium

  1111
  houses. There is the Ministry of Supply, which is interested in the raw material needed for houses. There is the Ministry of Production, which seems to be dying on its feet, but as long as it is there has some responsibility for the supplies needed for house building. And there is the Minister of Agriculture, who is very much interested in the housing of the people of the countryside.
  Then there is the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Works who has emitted a lot of noise—sounding brass and tinkling cymbals and all that—but does not seem to have produced any houses up to now. Up to the recent change in the Government the Minister of Reconstruction was the Pooh Bah of the circus of Ministers, all of whom were dealing with one aspect or another of the housing of the people. He seems to have faded out now. There is no Ministry of Reconstruction, and I do not regret its going. We had this very large and complicated circus which produced very little. I quoted from the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, who has many qualities and wide knowledge, but knowledge of the housing question is not part of his equipment. He told a good story; I do not want to quote it again, although I have here a copy of Hansard of 22nd March, in which there appears a most glowing account of the young couples who were to be housed in the most remarkable conditions and so on. Three months have passed and I would doubt very much whether half a dozen young couples are occupying these houses.
  The right hon. Gentleman called it a military evolution. The Prime Minister loves to speak in language of that kind. I have a suspicion that he would like every evolution to 'be a military one. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Works appointed General Pile, a very distinguished soldier who has made a very great contribution towards winning the war. It was on my tongue in March to say, "You cannot build houses with Piles of Sandys," but I did not do it because we were not then, so controversial as that. We have not got any results out of this Pile driving. I submit that we are now facing a very grave national crisis. It is said that Nero was fiddling whilst Rome burned. I think the right hon. Gentleman and his circus of colleagues are fiddling
  1112
  whilst this country is rotting. I think it is a most unfortunate and desperate situation. The right hon. Gentleman and others with him have been driven to the expedient of temporary houses. I have said before, that we must provide shelter for our people. It may be very modest, but we must provide shelter for them. But the more the Government have to resort to temporary houses, the greater is the Government's failure. Many of us are very anxious about these temporary houses. We fear they may not be so temporary as has been envisaged in legislation. In any event, I cannot think of a greater waste of our national assets than pumping, I think the Government said £150,000,000, into houses which are not going to live for more than 10 years. The more temporary houses you have to put up to give shelter to the people who are coming back from the Forces, the greater is the Government's failure in facing this major problem.
  What must be done? I assert there must be a policy for the control of the use and utilisation of land for purposes appropriate to the character and the position of the land. I think there can be no escape from that. Unless that is done everything else fails and we embark on another campaign of complete folly, disorganisation and probably the creation of an increasing amount of economic inefficiency and a good deal of housing congestion. I cannot assume anything—this Parliament has not got many days to live—but if one assumes that there is to be control of the use of land, it is possible to tackle the housing problem on a big scale—as the Prime Minister would say, as a military evolution—with the same organisation of resources as we have applied to the prosecution of the war.
  We have to organise the mass production of materials and of the manufactured units for houses by collaboration between the Government and local authorities. That must be done, I think. Prefabrication can be carried out with traditional building on a much bigger scale than it could be done 20 years ago, and it would be absurd and fantastic if some of these more or less standardised parts were allowed to be produced in driblets with minor differences in detail when mass production would turn them out not only in larger numbers but at a much lower price. It is quite clear, though this may be distasteful to some hon. Members, that we

  1113
  have to keep a close hand on the prices of building material and of the manufactured products, for unless we do, fewer houses will be built.
  In the next place I would say that, assuming this policy of large-scale production, assuming there is to be some control of prices and so on, then the Government in collaboration with the local authorities should embark on a big scheme of bulk purchase. Bulk purchase on a big scale might easily reduce the prices of building materials by 25 per cent.—in some cases, I believe, even more. After bulk purchase there must be organised distribution, and those kitchen units and household fittings or whatever they may be ought to go first where the need is greatest. That seems to me to be a reasonable, very modest and moderate programme. I do not believe it will be accepted by the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to-day, but I put it forward as a scheme in which I believe.
  The labour situation is very difficult. I would like to see early demobilisation of building trade workers, who are eating their hearts out in munition factories and doing nothing. We have to use the building labour which is available far better than we have done during the last year or two. It is undeniable that to-day on maintenance staffs in munition factories there are men who are doing building and dodging the Distribution of Industries Bill, when their services could be far more profitably utilised in the national interest outside. With the shortage of building trade labour, unless we pool our labour resources for building purposes so that they can be taken to the areas where they are needed most we shall waste a good deal of opportunity for building houses. I would like to see a time and progress programme so that every man should pull his weight, whether he be a building trade employer, or a clerk in the works or a foreman, or an ordinary operative. That, I think, would reduce the financial burden. I realise I cannot enter into this in any kind of detail but it seems clear that if we adumbrate any large and generous house building policy over a term of years local authorities will be put in a position of great embarrassment and, indeed, of potential bankruptcy unless somehow or another we can come to their aid.
  There are two things I would say in passing. The first is that it would be
  1114
  sound economic policy for the Government to buy land and let it at nominal rents to local authorities, having regard to the purposes for which the land would be used. In the blitzed areas, I think, there should be a war charge. It is going to be a crippling disability for the places like Deal, Ramsgate and Coventry if they are made to bear a burden which arises out of enemy action. Do we mean to settle the housing problem? I put it to hon. Members opposite; do they mean to settle the housing problem? Do the public of this country believe that the Government are in earnest about it? My feeling is that they do not believe that the Government are in earnest. The country has no confidence in the Government's efforts. I regard the housing problem as fundamental to the spiritual life of our people. I remember many years ago as a young and active propagandist—I am going back 40 years—hearing at street corners the criticism that my party wished to destroy the sanctity of the home. What nonsense; what rubbish. It is even worse than the Prime Minister's broadcast on Monday night, which really was a piece of misrepresentation.
  The Party to which I am very proud to belong—whatever service I have given to the public, has been done with the support I have had from my colleagues—believes in the sanctity of family life. We believe that houses are the temples of the spirit of our people. The ordinary people of this country have, with enormous courage, fortitude and sacrifice, beaten down the deadliest enemy which, democracy ever faced in its history, and they did that notwithstanding the intolerable and inhuman conditions under which so many of them have lived all their lives. Despite those conditions—I have seen it in the East End of London and by the riverside during the blitz period—how magnificent they were. They were men and women who had but the smallest grip on life, people who never had a real chance in life, and who always lived on the raw. They could not help it. I have seen their magnificent spirit and I, as a Yorkshireman, felt proud, living in London during that time. Bred as I was in a contempt for the Cockney—allYorkshiremen are—I take my hat off to the Cockney spirit.
  One thinks of those people, having suffered and having been denied the

  1115
  elements of a decent human existence, still standing against the dreaded enemy in the greatest hour of trial this country has ever faced. They are surely worthy of something better than they have had in the past. A proud and worthy people such as we have proved ourselves to be are entitled to honourable and dignified conditions of life. Until we get those things, the magnificent possibilities, the real potential, of our people, which has been displayed during the war, will lie dormant. I believe that we have the finest man and woman power in Europe and in the world, but it needs to be treated with dignity and with honour. Our greatest national asset is not in our material resources but resides in the spirit of the common man. That spirit is, in my view, worthy of an honourable habitation.
  What is to be done? Unless something is done and our people are convinced that this House is determined to solve this problem, the war will be well on the way to being lost, for it would be terrible if social disorders, social bitterness, social disappointment and new hatreds were allowed to grow because the ex-soldier and his wife have nowhere decent to live.
  4.3 p.m.
  The Minister of Works (Mr. Sandys): We have listened with attention to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. I did not feel that his speech added very much to the constructive proposals which have been made at different times in this House on the subject of housing. Some of us on this side of the House did not have the benefit of an invitation to the recent Conference at Blackpool; however, the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to repeat some of the jokes which he made on that occasion. I felt that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman would have sounded very well on the air, but I understand that, for the time being, we are not likely to have that privilege of hearing him. He raised a number of general issues, with some of which I will deal. Others will be dealt with by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health, when winding up the Debate.
  A big change has taken place in the housing situation since we last debated the subject, on 23rd March. Now that
  1116
  the war in Europe is over, things which we have hitherto only been able to talk about and prepare for can now actually be done. As has often been explained from this Box, so long as the German war continued, the man-power needed to start up permanent house building could not be spared. All that, happily, is now changing. Men and women from the Forces and from munitions will now be returning to the building industry in increasing numbers. The moment for which we have long been waiting has come. Permanent house building can now be restarted. The necessary instructions have been issued to local authorities. The flag has now been dropped and the housing race is on.
  Mr. Craven-Ellis: My right hon. Friend has said that local authorities have been advised that they can go on; but what about private enterprise which, in the past, has been responsible for most of the houses?
  Mr. Sandys: If the hon. Member will give me a chance I will try to deal with that point. House-building activity has been virtually closed down for the best part of six years. Our task is to start it up again with all possible speed. This is a vast production problem, which raises in an acute form many of the same difficulties which were encountered in the early stages of munitions production. Whether we make guns or houses, whether the work is carried out in the factory or on the building site, the phases of production which have to be gone through are very much the same. The first stage is taken up with planning and preparation. During this period there is no production at all. In the second stage, the production gets started on a small scale, usually in a very jerky fashion and almost invariably behind the scheduled time-table. During this second stage the process of expansion takes place and the labour force is gradually built up. Every sort of growing pain is experienced. The different parts of the programme very often get out of step and delays and hold-ups are not uncommon. However, these various teething troubles are eventually overcome. The final stage is reached, and production gets into a full and even flow.
  Most of the preparatory stage of our temporary housing programme was com-

  1117
  pleted several months before the end of the European war. We have now got well into the second stage, that is to say the early production phase. Up to date, about 1,000 houses have been completed. Erection has started on about 2,500. Sets of components for about 5,000 houses have been delivered from the factories. Foundation slabs and drains on sites for 12,000 houses are in course of construction. Sets of house components of the Uni-Seco type are now coming off production in a steady flow at the rate of between 800 and 1,000 month. The production of the Tarran and Arcon types has now started and should build up to a rate of about 3,000 a month by the Autumn. The first few American houses have already arrived and we are assured that the greater part of the total consignment of 30,000 will be despatched to us before the end of the year. We have had many production difficulties to overcome and we are by no means at the end of our troubles. Nevertheless, I think it is reasonable to expect that, with the exception of the aluminium house which will not be in large-scale production until next Spring, our temporary housing programme will be in full swing by this Autumn.
  From what I hear, the families who have gone into the first temporary houses are well pleased with their new homes. The country will welcome any houses, temporary or permanent, but it is permanent houses which we most urgently need. We long ago announced our plans for building 300,000 permanent houses within two years from the end of the German war. More than sufficient permanent housing sites for the whole of this two years' programme have already been acquired. As far as was possible everything was got ready in preparation for the day when the building trade and building material workers would begin to return from the Forces and from munitions. This time has now come and local authorities have been asked to go ahead with all speed and place their contracts for permanent house building.
  Wherever the nature of the job permits, it is desirable that the contracts should be given to local builders, using the local labour which is already in their employment. Every effort will therefore be made to arrange that the form, size of contract and the conditions attaching to it
  1118
  are such as will enable small, medium and large builders, each in their own sphere, to make an effective contribution.
  Mr. Silverman: Will they be Government contracts?
  Mr. Sandys: I was talking about permanent housing contracts in particular, contracts placed by local authorities, I dealt on a previous occasion with Government contracts for the temporary houses, if that is what the hon. Member has in mind.
  Mr. Silverman: No; what I had in mind was that the Minister appears to be contemplating dictating or laying down a form of contract, and I was interested to know whether that meant a form of contract to be granted by the Government or the local authority, or whether they were proposing to prescribe a form for private contractors, too. We should all be interested in that.
  Mr. Sandys: I was talking in particular about contracts placed by local authorities for their own housing programme. It should be possible during the next six months or so to put in hand the bulk of the first year's programme of 100,000 permanent houses. A high proportion of these will be council houses built by local authorities. In addition, the first year's programme will include the replacement of a substantial number of houses which have been totally destroyed during the war. I believe that people who have lost their houses and have been insuring against war damage are entitled to have some priority in the programme.
  Mr. Buchanan: Do the figures for new houses include Scotland?
  Mr. Sandys: Yes. I am dealing with Great Britain, as a whole.
  Mr. McNeil: Would the Minister be so good as—
  Mr. Sandys: I really cannot. [An HON. MEMBER: "We want to hear the Minister."] It is impossible to explain the position if one is interrupted at every point. In answer to the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis) I can tell him that private enterprise house builders will also be given an opportunity to play their part. These house building firms were responsible for providing a

  1119
  large proportion of the output of houses in this country before the war. The Government is, therefore, anxious that they should begin to make their contribution once again as quickly as possible. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, when he winds up the Debate, will explain the arrangements by which we hope to get private enterprise housebuilders back on to the job again.
  Mr. Silverman: At the end of the Debate, when no one can question him about it.
  Mr. Sandys: There will be plenty of opportunities.
  As has been said on previous occasions, it is the Government's policy to supplement traditional house building with a programme of permanent prefabricated houses. The object is to secure a substantial reduction in site man-hours of building labour, and also to spread the housing effort over a wide range of building materials and manufacturing capacity. Development work is being pressed forward on a dozen or so of the most promising of these non-traditional systems. This work is being undertaken by the firms themselves, with the advice and assistance of the technical staff of the Ministry of Works, In the case of one type sufficient progress has been made to enable a pilot order for some 3,000 houses to be placed, with the object of getting production under way. Small scale deliveries will start next month. These will be offered to local authorities to form part of their housing programme.
  Mr. McEntee: Of what are they made, steel or what?
  Mr. Sandys: This particular type is made of steel, with asbestos cladding. It also uses certain other materials. If the hon. Member is interested I. will give him particulars. Satisfactory progress is also being made with the design of a permanent two-storey pressed steel house, employing the plant and system of construction which were originally evolved for the temporary pressed steel bungalow. It is hoped that this type can be brought into production by the middle of next year. If so, this will be only a few months behind the date when the production of the pressed steel bungalow could have started, had we proceeded with that
  1120
  project. The various types of prefabricated permanent houses will be produced on a limited, range of standard plans which are being worked out in collaboration with the technical officers of local authorities. This has entailed a great deal of detailed discussion, but I am hopeful the plans will be finally agreed during the course of this month. In order to ensure that these standard designs are satisfactory from the architectural point of view, I am submitting them to the Royal Fine Arts Commission. In addition, I have invited a panel composed primarily of representatives of women's organisations, under the chairmanship of Lady Reading, to comment on the internal lay-out from the stand point of domestic convenience.
  Mr. McNeil: Why not have a working woman as chairman?
  Viscountess Astor: Lady Reading is a working woman.
  Mr. Sandys: In the design of these prefabricated permanent houses particular attention is being paid to heating arrangements. Our efforts have been directed towards ensuring economy in fuel consumption, and also towards improving the insulating properties of the walls. From what I have said I think the Committee will see that we are taking all practical steps to ensure that these prefabricated permanent houses shall be technically sound in construction, pleasing in appearance and as easy and economical to run as possible.
  A variety of criticisms are at present being made about the output and state of efficiency of the building industry. No industry is perfect, but many of the allegations which I have heard or read are clearly based on ignorance of the plain facts. My hon. Friend the Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks), the former Parliamentary Secretary, nods his head. I am glad to see him on the bench. I would like to take this opportunity of acknowledging the continuous help and loyal support which he has given for over four years to successive Ministers of Works. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] In any case, I do not conceive it to be the business of the Government to teach the industry its job. The Government can, however, help indirectly in a number of ways. Scientific research is an outstanding example. During recent

  1121
  months the scientific and technical activities of the Ministry of Works have been considerably extended. In addition, I have set up an outside Scientific Advisory Committee which advises upon the programme of building research to be undertaken by the Ministry and by other scientific bodies on our behalf.
  The Ministry of Works can also be of assistance to the industry by bringing to their notice the potentialities of new developments in equipment. Mechanised plant is, of course, extensively used by large civil engineering contractors. In my opinion, however, there is scope for a much greater use of power hand tools and other special equipment for house building. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom), with his experience of American practice, and also my hon. Friend the Member for East Fulham (Mr. Astor), have drawn attention to this point on several occasions. They will be glad to know that I have arranged an exhibition and a series of demonstrations to show the use and advantages of mechanical equipment of this kind for house building. This exhibition will open in a few weeks' time in London and will then tour the principal provincial centres. Most of the equipment shown will be of a type suitable for, use by small or medium builders.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) said that the labour situation is a very serious one. It is, indeed. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the late Minister of Labour, who knows more about this subject than anybody else in the country, has not honoured us with his presence this afternoon.
  Mr. Hicks: I believe he is away speaking in the country.
  Mr. Sandys: As I explained in our last Debate, the rate of house building is almost entirely governed by the supply of labour. The Government's housing programme is largely based on our estimate of the rate of release of labour from the Forces and from munitions. The estimates on which we are now working are those prepared by the right hon. Gentleman, the late Minister of Labour. They are the best calculations we can make. If these estimates can be improved upon, then it will be possible to build more houses. If, on the other hand, the rate
  1122
  of releases does not for any reason come up to our expectations, then the rate of house building will be correspondingly retarded. Every practicable step is being taken to expand the labour force of the building industry as quickly as possible.
  Apart from the ordinary releases from the Forces under Class A, over 70 per cent. of the special out-of-turn releases under Class B have been allotted to the building trades. These will include a limited number of specialists and key men who are needed in the building material factories. It must, however, be realised that the process of demobilisation takes a certain time, and that the men, when demobilised, will most of them wish to take at least some part of the period of paid leave to which they are entitled. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield—that the quickest way to secure an immediate increase in the labour force of the building industry is by the rapid release of men from munitions. The Minister of Labour explained to-day in reply to a question that the Government have decided to call for the names of all building trade operatives now engaged on war production. Measures have been taken to carry out this registration at once. Except in very special cases, all men with previous building trade experience, who express their willingness to return to the building industry, will be released from the munitions factories immediately.
  Mr. Orr-Ewinģ: Will the scheme cover the release from munitions of men for work in factories producing housing components as well as the release of men with experience of building work?
  Mr. Sandys: The immediate scheme of which I am speaking is confined to the actual building trades, but certain other machinery is being set in motion in order to get out of munitions men who are urgently needed in the building materials industries, including those factories which are producing components.
  Mr. Lipson: Will the men concerned be given directions as to whom they shall work for or will they be able to choose their work?
  Mr. Sandys: I do not wish to be drawn into a discussion of the details of the scheme. The effect will be to enable very considerable numbers of men to leave the

  1123
  munitions factories and to take up work on house building.
  Mr. McNeil: Will the Minister explain to us whether these men, under this apparently most admirable scheme, will be released under the same conditions as Class B men from the Forces, and will have to return to munitions if they leave the building industry? In other words will they be directed to the industry?
  Mr. Sandys: I have already explained that those who are willing to return to the building industry will be released. That is the purpose and condition of their release. I would prefer the hon. Member to await the publication of the details of this scheme. If further questions then arise either the Minister of Labour or I will be prepared to deal with them.
  Our plan is to double the strength of the building industry from well under 400,000 to-day up to 800,000 within one year after the end of the German war. This is a formidable target. In some months the intake may be as much as 50,000 and it will be no easy matter to get these large numbers of operatives smoothly absorbed into the industry, and to ensure that they get quickly placed among the tens of thousands of building trade employers throughout this island. We are, however, taking all possible steps in the planning of the national building programme and in the distribution of contracts to minimise the danger of temporary or local dislocations. During the last Debate on housing the hon. Gentleman the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin), and other hon. Members, urged us to make use of prisoners of war to speed up the rate of house building. Since then we have worked out a scheme for the employment of considerable numbers of German prisoners on site preparation and civil engineering work. These arrangements have been made in full consultation with both the employers and the trade unions, who have given us every co-operation.
  The labour required for house building embraces, of course, not only building trade operatives but also as my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) has pointed out, large numbers of factory workers who are needed to produce building materials, fittings, and housing components. Broadly
  1124
  speaking, there already exists sufficient manufacturing capacity in this country to produce almost all the materials to meet the overall needs of our building programme. However, owing to the drastic reduction in the volume of building work during the war many factories have either been partially or wholly closed. In the brick industry, for example, half of the total capacity has been shut down. Arrangements were, however, made from 1942 onwards to keep these works on a care-and-maintenance basis. Many of them will be opening again in the next few months. Likewise, for example, as labour becomes available, the cement industry and the foundries producing builders' castings will be brought back into full production. However, there are a few building materials for which the existing plant and factory capacity are insufficient to meet our anticipated needs. In some cases this is due to the fact that the development of a new technique or new methods of construction have resulted in the more extensive use of certain materials. In such cases we shall give the industry every facility and encouragement to expand its capacity to meet these increased demands. Our building programme is also to some extent dependent upon the importation of certain raw materials from abroad. The most important of these are timber and plywood. These are needed for many other purposes, apart from building, and we are endeavouring to obtain large supplies from America, Canada and Scandinavia.
  Sir William Davison: Why not get some of Germany's timber?
  Mr. Sandys: I have explained, in answer to questions in the last few weeks, that we shall do what we can to obtain building materials, among which timber will rank high, from Germany. There are serious practical difficulties of organisation and transportation, and I would not like at the moment to hold out high hopes of any great supply of timber from that source. There is at present a world shortage of timber and plywood. It will therefore be necessary for some time to come to exercise the very strictest economy in their use.
  In order to simplify and cheapen production and to lessen the volume of stocks which have to be held, every effort has been made to reduce the multiplicity of

  1125
  sizes and types of building materials and fittings. Much valuable work has been carried out by the British Standards Institution. This body, which is advised by representatives of the various interests, has agreed specifications for a selected range of materials and components. These cover most of the normal building requirements. During the two years' emergency period these standard products will be used in Government building work and the Health Ministers will ask local authorities to adopt this same practice in their plans for new house construction.
  Mr. Silverman: Will private builders be asked to do this too?
  Mr. Sandys: Yes, in work which carries subsidy. Care will be taken to ensure that the range of standardised products is not excessively restricted, and that there are sufficient alternatives to provide variety and flexibility of design. In reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield, I would say that in most cases manufacturers will be able and willing to undertake the production of these standardised components and materials without any assistance from the Government, but in cases where it is necessary the Government are prepared to enter into production agreements, and, if need be, to make bulk purchases. But in the great majority of cases I think this will not be necessary. For some of the building work directly undertaken by the Government, in particular the temporary housing programme, it has been found necessary to set up a special organisation for the storage and distribution of materials and components. However, the Government do not in general propose to disturb the normal trade channels for the distribution of building materials to consumers through the well-established system of builders' merchants.
  The Government intend, however, to maintain a close check upon distribution costs, as well as on the prices of building materials themselves. This matter was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) in an Adjournment Debate the other day, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) took up the same point to-day. One of the principal causes of the early failure of the housing programme after the last war was the fact that the Government allowed the building industry to be swamped with orders many
  1126
  times greater than it was able to carry out. As a result, prices and building costs soared to prohibitive heights. Building materials account for about three-fifths of the cost of a house. It is therefore of the highest importance to ensure that the prices of material are maintained at a reasonable level. In no circumstances can we allow the nation's needs to be exploited. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] If, after an examination of production costs, there is evidence of profiteering I give the House the assurance that the Government will not hesitate to step in and fix a ceiling price for the material in question.
  Mr. Silverman: Why wait until you have evidence of profiteering? Why not deal with it now?
  Mr. Sandys: You do not arrest a thief until you see him thieving.
  Mr. Silverman: But you have a Larceny Act.
  Mr. Sandys: I entirely disagree with the attitude of some hon. Members opposite, who always assume that British industry is out to exploit the public. As I said, if there is any evidence of exploitation or profiteering, we shall not hesitate to use the powers we possess to fix a ceiling price.
  Mr. Silverman: It will be too late.
  Mr. Sandys: In practice, the actual exercise of compulsory powers will not usually be necessary. The fact that the powers are known to exist, and that it is known that the Government will not be afraid to use them, will, in most cases, provide sufficient encouragement to well doing. Ceiling prices for almost all the principal building materials have already been fixed by agreement with the various sections of the industry. I propose to review these agreements, and if necessary to revise them. I have recently had consultations with representatives of the building material manufacturers and the builders' merchants, who have both assured me of their fullest co-operation. I am, therefore, hopeful that over most of the field it will be possible to maintain fair prices by voluntary arrangements, which in practice work far better than any system of compulsion.
  After the last war a large part of the available building capacity was dissipated on unessential work and on luxury pro-

  1127
  jects. We mean to see to it that this does not happen again this time. That is the main purpose of our licensing system. In order that our scarce resources of labour and materials may be concentrated as far as possible on housing, on bomb damage repair, and on other urgent work, I am, as has already been announced, extending the £10 licensing limit in a modified form to the whole of Great Britain, as from 1st August. Before doing so, I thoroughly reviewed the experience gained in London and the Home Counties, where the £10 limit has been in force. I also had discussions with representatives of local authorities and with the various sections of the building industry. Without impairing the effectiveness of the licensing system, I have found it possible to introduce a number of important relaxations, which will remove many of the more irksome features of the present system and will lighten the task of the licensing staff of the local authorities. Below £100 the local authorities will themselves decide what work should be licensed. Whilst in the case of work costing more than £100 the Ministry of Works will act largely on the recommendation of the local authorities. In this way the responsibility for deciding how the local resources of building labour can best be used will be left largely in the hands of the local authorities, who are, I think, in the best position to judge the needs of their districts, which will vary considerably in different areas.
  Sir Frank Sanderson: How long does my right hon. Friend think the £10 limit is likely to remain?
  Sir W. Davison: Are applications for work costing £100 or under to be addressed to the local authority?
  Mr. Sandys: The local authority issues the licence itself for work costing less than £100. For work costing more than £100 the Ministry of Works issues the licence, on receipt of a certificate of essentiality, as it is called, which is in fact a recommendation from the local authority. The local authority would forward the certificate to the Ministry of Works with the application. I cannot foretell how long it will be necessary to maintain this limit. The present scheme is for six months, from 1st August until the end of January. But I propose to keep it under continuous review. It will
  1128
  certainly be necessary to review the position thoroughly at the end of that period. But I would not hold out the hope that it could be abandoned at the end of that period. It is a scarcity measure, and so long as the scarcity of labour and materials continues, some effective system of licensing will be necessary.
  I have outlined what we are now doing to tackle the housing shortage, and I have explained the methods and machinery which we are employing. We intend to take any and every step to secure the maximum number of houses as quickly as possible at fair prices. It is not, of course, the business of the Government actually to build houses. It is only the present very exceptional circumstances which have made it necessary for us to accept direct responsibility for the production of prefabricated houses. Housing is the business of the local authorities and of private-enterprise housebuilders. We shall do everything in our power to help recreate conditions under which these two great housebuilding agencies, each in its own sphere, can once again assume its full responsibilities. So long as there is an abnormal shortage of labour and materials, the Government has the duty of seeing that our available resources are concentrated upon those things which the country most urgently needs. For these essential purposes, we shall retain such controls as are necessary. We shall retain them so long as a state of scarcity persists, but not a day longer than is absolutely necessary.
  Members of the Socialist Party, inside and outside this House, have repeatedly complained that the Government's housing programme is utterly inadequate. I think that we, on this side of the House, are entitled to ask them how many more houses they think they could build and what measures they would take which we are not already taking. The present Government stands by the programme formulated and announced by the late Coalition Administration. This consists of a long-term and a short-term programme. Our long-term programme is to build 3,000,000 to 4,000,000 houses in 10 to 12 years. Our short-term programme is to provide a minimum of 500,000 houses, built or building, within two years from the end of the German war. Of these, at least 300,000 are to be permanent. Of the remainder, at least 145,000 will be temporary bungalows.

  1129
  Our proposals were plainly set out in the White Paper on Housing issued last March. This White Paper was, of course, fully considered and approved by the late Coalition Cabinet. I ask leaders of the party opposite who were Members of the Coalition War Cabinet—I see there are none here to-day—to make their position clear. I think we are entitled to ask some Member of the party opposite, speaking officially for that party, to make their position clear during the course of this Debate.
  Mr. Buchanan: Wait till they become the Government.
  Mr. Sandys: Those Members of the party opposite who were in the Government know as well as I do that it is going to be no easy task to achieve the target which we and they together set ourselves. With their knowledge of the facts, they would, I am sure, also agree with me that for the Government at this stage to promise more than is contained in the White Paper would be both dishonest and irresponsible, and what applies to the Government applies of course equally to the right hon. Gentlemen opposite. If they intend to repudiate the White Paper and to dangle before the electorate the prospect of a bigger and more ambitious programme, then I think this House has a right to be told what discoveries the right hon. Gentlemen have made during the last fortnight which entitles them to take a rosier view of the possibilities of house building. We, on this side of the House, necessarily have to be rather more cautious about making promises. As the Government of the day, we have the responsibility for making good our promises, and we expect that we shall continue to have that responsibility for quite a while longer. We have announced what we expect to be able to do. If it is possible to do more, we shall do it. We are acutely conscious of the seriousness of the housing shortage and of the distress, unhappiness and frustration which follow in its train. We are constantly mindful of the countless families whose comfort and happiness depend on the success of our efforts. We shall do all in our power not to let them down.
  Mr. Hicks: May I say that I appreciate very much the review which my right hon. Friend has given? I thought, for a moment, I was still across the bridge.
  1130
  Whilst agreeing that housing is a priority—and everyone here must recognise it and any Government that fails to deal with it would be sure to get short shrift from the country—there is another side of building which my right hon. Friend has not touched to-day. Some hon. Members may feel that all building effort may be diverted to housing. The right hon. Gentleman may know that there were at least 300,000 men employed on maintenance before the war. We have now six years of maintenance of work to pull up, and there will be a big contribution to make in maintenance. While I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I am sure that he could reveal that a very large proportion of the building trade effort that is coming from munitions and the Services will still be required for other branches of building than housing.
  Mr. Sandys rose—
  Mr. Buchanan: On a point of Order. I must ask where the Debate is going, because I wondered if the last speaker was putting a point or making a speech. I ask you, Sir Douglas, what is in Order at the moment. Is this another speech?
  The Temporary Chairman (Sir Douglas Thomson): It is customary to allow a Minister to answer a question, but I did not think the question by the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) was going to be so long. Perhaps the Minister will reply to that question.
  Mr. Sandys: The question was a long one, but I will try to be brief in my answer. I agree with everything my hon. Friend has said. Naturally, I went into this matter in some detail in our last Debate, and that is why I did not recapitulate what I have said before. One of the tasks which are occupying a large part of our limited resources of building labour at the moment is, of course, still the bomb damage repairs in London. Over 140,000 building trade operatives are still engaged on that work, and, whilst it will be necessary and right to release a certain proportion—I cannot say now how many—to return to the provinces and start up house building, a very considerable proportion of that force will have to be retained on that work for quite a considerable time to come.
  Mr. Silverman: On a point of Order. The Minister indicated that the Government rely, to a considerable extent, upon encouraging private enterprise building. He indicated also that that would be done by means of a subsidy. So far, the Committee has heard nothing about that at all, and the Minister indicated that we would hear about it for the first time when his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health replied to the Debate. This is a Supply Day, and we are concerned in not granting finance until grievances have been heard. If part of the answer to the grievances which we have urged is to be referred or delayed until the end of the Debate, that would be out of Order. The Government's reply to the grievances ought to be made now, so that we can deal with it and intimate whether we are satisfied or not and ask questions about it. It ought not to be left to the end of the Debate, when nothing more can be done about it.
  The Temporary Chairman: I did not hear the Minister say that, but, if the Government are prepared to make a reply by another Minister, that would depend on whether he was able to catch the eye of the Chairman.
  Mr. Silverman: No, Sir Douglas. I am afraid I have not made myself clear, and it is my own fault. On a Supply Day, it is for the Opposition to raise grievances, and, until those grievances have been satisfied and dealt with by the Government, the Committee does not grant what the Government require on this Order. The grievances were raised by my right hon. Friend, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite purported to answer them, but he indicated that a substantial part of what he relied upon as his answer to the grievances would be withheld from the Committee until the Minister speaks at the end of the Debate.
  The Temporary Chairman: That is not really a point of Order.
  Mr. Sandys: Perhaps I could just say this. I indicated clearly to the Committee that the Government intended to take steps to bring private enterprise back into house building as quickly as possible. The hon. Member's point of Order seems to suggest that everything the Government has to say must be said in one speech. If so, there would be no necessity for two speeches.
  Mr. Silverman: The right hon. Gentleman has missed the point.
  Mr. A. Bevan: May I ask whether it is proposed that the Minister, at the end of the Debate, will indicate how public money is to be used for this purpose under existing Statutes, administrative orders or what authority?
  The Temporary Chairman: That is not a point of Order.
  4.57 p.m.
  Mr. Dingle Foot: After more than five years' almost complete silence on the Treasury Bench, it is a strange and not altogether disagreeable experience to be able to address the Committee for the Party which occupies these Benches. I remember, before the war, taking part in a good many Debates on housing, but I think none of us, bad as the situation then was in many parts of the country, ever imagined that we should be facing a situation quite as appalling as it is to-day. I should like to take up, on behalf of the Party to which I belong, the challenge which has been made from the Front Bench to-day. I cannot, of course, speak for hon. Members above the Gangway, but I do want to comment on the subject of the White Paper. The White Paper produced by the Coalition Government, in the circumstances to which we have been accustomed in the last five years, was the lowest common denominator among the parties making up that Government. I agree that it would be entirely wrong, after the break-up of the Government, for a member of it to dissociate himself from the views there expressed, but that certainly does not prevent any party from trying to improve on the proposals contained in the White Paper.
  It is hardly necessary for anyone to give actual examples of the housing situation at the present time. It is something with which we are all familiar, particularly when we represent industrial constituencies, and I suppose there is no hon. Member of this House who has not received many pathetic appeals from people living in conditions of great overcrowding or who are unable to obtain a dwelling house at all. I want to say a few words, if I may, about the dimensions of this problem. In the South of England the problem is due to enemy action. In Scotland it is due to causes which go much further back. In England, before the war

  1133
  began, it was probably true to say—and it was stated by successive Ministers of Health—that the problems of slum clearance and overcrowding had been practically solved. [Interruption.] I said that that was the statement made at that time, but certainly nobody ever claimed that the problem had been solved in Scotland. I remember a speech in the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the present Lord Advocate, when he took the comparative figures of overcrowding and showed that, in the matter of overcrowding, the very worst district in England was better than the best district in Scotland. As long ago as November, 1938, it was estimated by the then Secretary of State for Scotland that we needed 250,000 additional houses in Scotland to meet the need of slum clearance and the more serious overcrowding which still existed. I emphasise the words "the more serious overcrowding," which shows that that was by no means the whole need.
  The figure that was given at that time made no allowance for the normal increase of the population, so that even then the programme that was put forward by the Government of the day was wholly inadequate. At that time they proposed to build 102,000 houses over a period of four years, so that, if there had been no war, by the time that 1942 had been reached we in Scotland would have still been a long way off meeting even the most urgent and clamant needs of the population. That was the situation which existed before the war, and it needs no imagination, even for those who are not personally familiar with housing conditions in Scotland, to see how very much worse it must be to-day.
  I would make one reference to my own constituency of Dundee, because I think it illustrates the position which exists throughout the whole of Scotland at the moment. We estimate our total needs for all purposes, for slum clearance, the relief of overcrowding, and the ordinary needs of the population, at 22,000 houses. The average rate of construction before the war, with the labour force we had then, was 350 corporation houses a year and 140 odd private enterprise houses. We are promised 1,550 temporary houses. I give those figures because they show the enormous disparity between what can be done with the present and potential labour forces and the undertakings we have so
  1134
  far received, and, on the other hand, the needs of the population.
  I am not going to try to follow my right hon. Friend the Minister on details of price, and construction. There have been very long Debates in this House on the various types of house. I am certainly not going to suggest that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works would fail to tackle this problem with all the energy and all the administrative ability that could possibly be expected, but he doss, as it seems to me, work under certain very definite limitations. If we are to make considerably more progress than has been envisaged so far, there will have to be certain major decisions of policy. We shall not solve this question simply by improving the output of prefabricated parts or in any of the ways with which the right hon. Gentleman has been dealing. He himself pointed out quite correctly that the whole programme is governed by the question of labour. The figures that were given to the House earlier on were that we only have at the present moment a building labour force of 337,000. The right hon. Gentleman went on to tell us of all the steps that have been taken to comb out workers from munitions, and at the end of it all he gave precisely the same figures as had been given before that is to say, 800,000 by the end of the first year after the defeat of Germany. Here we are up against the major difficulty, and there is only one source from which the right hon. Gentleman can hope to obtain additional labour and that is from the Forces. Under the Demobilisation Scheme a certain number of building trade operatives will be released under Class A, and a certain number under Class B. It was my right hon. Friend himself who gave the latter figure as 60,000, but there still will be, even when that is done, a considerable number of building trade operatives who will remain in the Forces.
  I want very seriously to suggest that this Government, or whichever Government may later sit upon the benches opposite, should consider the enlargement of Class B. I am very well aware of the great psychological difficulties which are involved. The Demobilisation Scheme is designed to be fair and just as between man and man and to avoid the deep resentment which was occasioned by occupational releases at the end of

  1135
  the last war. That is a very real consideration, which, I think, is in the minds of all hon. Members. But do not let us pretend that this dilemma does not exist. On the one hand, we can all appreciate the feelings of the soldier who might see somebody who had served for a much shorter term than himself released out of turn. On the other hand, we have to consider the urgent needs of the population, and not only of the population, at home, but of the returning soldier as well. I believe that if the issue could be put fairly and squarely to the men in the Forces, namely, that certain men must be released out of turn in order that the others, when they were released, might have homes and jobs to go to, their consent would be forthcoming.
  The second way in which I suggest we could appreciably ease the situation is by the importation of prefabricated houses from abroad. I had hoped that we were going to hear something from the Minister on that subject to-day. As he knows, I have myself always been interested in the possibility of obtaining timber houses from Sweden. As long ago as May and June of 1943, I had long negotiations with a delegation that came to this country representing the Swedish Government. As a result of those negotiations Sweden made a very substantial reduction in her trade, both with Germany and, indeed, with the whole of Axis Europe. One form of Swedish exports to the enemy which was very considerably reduced as the result of the agreement we then made was prefabricated timber huts and houses. Ever since that time I personally have been most anxious that that Swedish capacity which was denied to the enemy through the operations of my late Department and through the co-operative attitude of the Swedish Government, should be made available, at any rate in part, in order to assist the housing of people in this country.
  There have been a good many difficulties on which it is not necessary for me to enlarge, but it appears to me that we may hope to receive a substantial contribution from this source. In the Debate on 23rd March the Minister said that he had sent a technical mission to Stockholm and that various alternative house plans had been agreed with the Swedish manufacturers and a small preliminary order
  1136
  was being placed in order to get production started. I do not propose to quote figures to the Committee but my right hon. Friend is well aware that the Swedish capacity is considerably in excess of any small preliminary order. That assistance would come in the form of probably the best timber houses in the world, because the Swedish people had had a greater experience than anybody else in this form of construction.
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: Could my hon. Friend indicate the sort of numbers of houses he has in mind that might come from Sweden in that way?
  Mr. Foot: No, I have a reason, which I think the Committee would appreciate, why I would prefer not to give the exact figure.
  Mr. Bowles: Why? My hon. Friend said that Germany was receiving 30,000 a year and I was wondering whether it was not possible, seeing that the Government in some way had in the last few years prevented Sweden from getting on with the export of houses, that they might be able to export to this country 60,000 houses by now.
  Major Markham: The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) said that the total production of Swedish timber houses is 30,000 a year, and would not that be only a very small drop in the bucket?
  Mr. Foot: The total production of Swedish industry is rather more than 30,000 a year, but the reason why I was rather diffident about going into exact figures is, that there may be other countries which have claims on Swedish capacity as well as ourselves. Therefore, it seemed to me undesirable to try to make any estimate of the exact amount we might be able to obtain from Sweden. All I am saying is that there is a very considerable capacity there and it is a source from which we should draw. I want to add, before leaving the question of Swedish, and possibly Finnish houses, because some time ago the right hon. Gentleman told us that he was also sending a mission to Finland, that I hope that, if we do avail ourselves of this form of construction, we shall make use of Swedish technical advice. Before the war, in my constituency and in other parts of Scotland, experiments were being made

  1137
  with timber houses, but in some cases there were defects in construction which tended to give that class of house rather a bad name. I believe it to be true that those defects could have been easily avoided, and I know that Swedish producers themselves would be very willing to make available to local authorities in this country, to housing associations or to whoever might be interested, the necessary technical advice in setting up this prefabricated house.
  My third point is that I hope we shall hear something more than what was said by the right hon. Gentleman regarding the point which was raised on 15th May by my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak Division (Mr. Molson). The Minister told us that he was keeping a close check on distribution costs. That was something that we knew already from the White Paper, but that is not quite the same point which was raised by my hon. Friend in the debate on 15th May, because he was referring not merely to controlled costs, but to the problem of the control which is exercised over selling prices by combines and by rings in the building industry. It really is not enough to say that you are going to have fixed prices, and personally I regret that the election is being so hurried that we shall not be able to see the Restrictive Practices Bill, which was in the Government's legislative programme for this Session, put on the Statute Book.
  It seems to me that if you are going to tackle this question of high costs in the building industry, it is not enough to fix prices alone; you must have the powers to make inquiry into the reason why prices are at their present level and into the existence of rings and combines, and those powers the Minister does not at present possess. I hope that before this Debate ends we may hear something of the intentions of the present administration, if it survives, upon that matter.
  The last point, which I do not intend to elaborate at all, is very similar to that which was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). I would like to say on behalf of my own Party that we entirely agree with him that, although at the moment the difficulties may consist of shortage of materials and labour, ultimately you cannot make a real impression upon the
  1138
  housing problem until you tackle the question of land. It was a great disappointment to me, and to all those who think as I do, that no action was taken, and no decisions were taken, upon what we regarded as the most important part of the Uthwatt Report; that is to say, that part which recommended the immediate acquisition of the development rights outside built-up areas, and a levy every five years on all increase in site values. Until you take measures of that kind, it will not be possible to find a permanent solution of your housing problem. We believe that as long as any Government permits the excessive compensation, which is involved in the present system of the piece-meal acquisition of land, so long will you have a great retarding factor holding up the housing of the people.
  5.17 p.m.
  Mr. A. Bevan: I want to raise a point which I do not think will take me long to expound but which I think is one of really great substance. I understand that the Minister said that when the Minister of Health came to reply to the Debate, he would give details of how public money is to be used for the purpose of assisting the private-enterprise building of houses. I want to know from the Government under what Parliamentary authority it is proposed to make those payments. At the moment I know of no such Parliamentary authority. There was an indication in the Press a short time ago—I think it was a speech made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Minister of Health, in which he said he intended to bring forward immediately a Parliamentary Bill, the purpose of which would be, among others, to assist private enterprise to go on building houses. I think I am right in saying that. We have not had the Bill. Parliamentary opportunity has not been provided because of the decision of the Prime Minister not to provide time for a Bill of that kind at all, so we are not having a Bill, but it would appear from the statement of his colleague that the Minister proposes to make the payments without Parliamentary authority.
  This is a most unusual procedure. Of course it would be in Order, I suppose, to make these payments and then rely upon the Estimates in the next Parliament justifying the payment proposed to be

  1139
  made. That, of course, is such a truncating of Parliamentary procedure as to amount to a grievous abuse of our financial proceedings. The normal form, the proper form, and the one which gives the most effective Parliamentary control, is for the Minister to bring his Bill before Parliament with a Financial-Resolution which indicates to whom the payments are to be made and how much money Parliament is asked to find, but if in the meantime the Conservatives are going to pump out money to their friends—
  Viscountess Astor: Oh.
  Mr. Bevan: Certainly. That is exactly what it would mean. If they propose to make payments out of public funds, I want to warn the Minister that if he does not come back with a Parliamentary majority of his own party, he will be charged with the moneys he will be paying in the meantime without Parliamentary authority. There is a justification—and that is the reason why our financial system is sufficiently resilient—there is plenty of machinery for the Government to make emergency payments if they wish and then come to Parliament in the Estimates and ask for retrospective justification and authority.
  Viscountess Astor: When the hon. Gentleman said that the Conservatives were going to pump out money for their followers, is it likely that the Conservatives—
  Mr. Silverman: They have been doing it for 50 years.
  Viscountess Astor: —could go to the country and say, "Give us your votes and we will pump out money to our friends"?
  Mr. Bevan: The Noble Lady ought not to intervene in discussions of this sort. Really her subtleties are beyond me. The position at the moment is that we are having a discussion, in Supply, on housing. The Government are furnished with certain Parliamentary powers to make payments of a limited and defined kind. They, however, have it in mind to make payments for which no Parliamentary sanction has been provided, and those are not payments made arising out of an emergency, the extent and character of which they cannot at the moment foresee, but they propose to make payments in substitution of a Bill that they themselves have
  1140
  provided no time for Parliament to consider. I am suggesting to hon. Members that this is an outrageous interference with the financial control of the House of Commons over matters of this sort.
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: All that is hypothetical.
  Mr. Bevan: There is nothing hypothetical about it at all.
  Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman does not yet know what the Minister is going to say.
  Mr. Bevan: The Minister has already said that, when the Minister of Health comes to make his reply, he will give more details of how it is proposed for public subventions to be given to private enterprise. That is exactly what he is going to say. I know that the Minister of Health did propose—
  Mr. Stewart Mr. Stewart He did not say that.
  Mr. Bevan: I know that the Minister of Health did, in fact, propose to do so, I believe he did.
  Mr. Sandys: May I intervene? I do not believe the hon. Member was in the Committee when I made my speech; therefore I think it would be better if he confined himself to facts.
  Mr. Bevan: In that case, if hon. Members are only to make speeches in reply to speeches they have heard, his father-in-law would have made very few speeches, because he hardly ever listens but comes in and replies. It is not necessary for hon. Members to hear statements to know what the statements were, and the right hon. Gentleman knows very well that he did make the statement.
  Mr. Sandys indicated dissent.
  Mr. Bevan: The right hon. Gentleman has had so little Parliamentary experience that he really ought not to intervene at all in this matter, because he is one of the least competent persons I have seen entrusted with high office. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] Certainly, and all the House knows it very well. The right hon. Gentleman owes his position at the present time not to any Parliamentary—[Interruption.] I am not going to be bullied in this matter. I insist on the Committee facing up to the situation. I have already quoted from a speech made

  1141
  by the Minister of Health, which he agrees he made, in which he said it was his intention to bring forward a Bill before the end of this Parliament, one of the purposes of which would be the subvention of private enterprise in house building. We had this evening from his colleague a statement which indicated that towards the end of the Debate the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be making reference to an intention of that sort. I am now asking that, when he comes to make his speech, he will reply to two points: in the first instance, whether he proposes immediately to authorise payments of that sort; and, secondly, if so, under what authority he proposes to make them, because, so far, there is no authority, as far as I know, which enables him to make payments of that kind.
  The Minister of Health (Mr. Willink): I am in the same position as the hon. Member in that I was not present when my right hon. Friend made his statement. However, I am confident that he would not, and he assures me that he did not, make any statement that it was proposed to make payments of this kind without Parliamentary sanction.
  Mr. Silverman: That is not what was said.
  Mr. Willink: What I was referring to was what I was confident my right hon. Friend would not say, and what he assures me he did not say—
  Mr. Silverman: Nobody says he said that.
  Mr. Willink: —that was, that there was an intention to make payments either to the owners or builders of private enterprise houses without Parliamentary sanction. What I shall be able to say at the end of this Debate depends very largely on the Rules of Order, but no such statement has been made, and I have expressed no such intention.
  Mr. Silverman: I wonder if my right hon. and learned Friend would allow me, since I was here and I did hear the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I am going to say what I think I heard, and if the right hon. Gentleman thinks I have got it wrong he will no doubt correct me and I will accept his correction. What I heard him say was that, at the end of
  1142
  the Debate, his right hon. and learned Friend would deal with the encouragement that was to be offered to private enterprise to build houses and then, later on in his speech, he talked about the conditions of the contract. When I asked him, by intervention, whether those conditions would be binding also on private enterprise builders, he replied, "Yes, that will be one of the conditions of the subsidy."
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: If I may say so, if it is a "free-for-all"—
  Mr. Silverman: No, I would like to know if that is correct.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Member has had plenty of opportunity for interruption, and he has spent the whole afternoon in interrupting in one way or another.
  Mr. Silverman: What is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman doing now but interrupting?
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Member is undoubtedly incorrect in what he said. I have sat here all the afternoon. That is not what the Minister said within the recollection of the Committee.
  Mr. Silverman: That was it exactly, word for word.
  Mr. Bevan: The answer, of course, to my right hon. Friend is this, that there does exist at the present time a very genuine misunderstanding as to what is the situation. We know very well he cannot deny it, because actual figures of subvention have been mentioned. There fore, I want to be quite sure, because we shall have to discuss this, those of us who are returned here in the next Parliament, and I want to make quite certain—
  Mr. Molson: On a point of Order, Sir Douglas, I submit to you that it is in accordance with the Rules of Order in Committee that there should be a Debate, and that questions which partake of the nature of long speeches discussing what is alleged to have been said earlier in the afternoon—after the Minister has said that he did not make that statement—are quite out of Order.
  The Temporary Chairman: I think there is a misapprehension. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) was not rising to a point of Order; he has been called and he is making a speech.
  Mr. Bevan: In the first instance. I did not raise a point of Order. I had already discussed this matter with my hon. Friends before I started my speech. It was perfectly clear that a very grave irregularity was about to be committed, and it is the responsibility of those of us on this side of the Committee, in the functions we discharge, to see to it that the financial procedure of the House of Commons is properly preserved. At any rate, it would be really monstrous. [Interruption.] I wish the Noble Lady would keep quiet.
  Viscountess Aston: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison) was asking me a question, and I was answering him. The hon. Member cannot expect complete silence when he is repeating himself a hundred times over.
  Mr. Bevan: No Member gives way for an interruption more than I do, but it becomes difficult to speak when the Noble Lady is babbling all the while.
  The Temporary Chairman: The Noble Lady's intervention, if anything, was a reflection on the Chair. I think we had better get on.
  Mr. Bevan: There never was such a racket. The position is this: there are certain powers, now exercised by public authorities, under which private house building is subsidised. We want to make quite sure that it is not the intention of the Government to add to the amount of money already being provided for houses built in that way. If money is so provided we give a warning that the House of Commons has not sanctioned it, and that the Government will be exposing themselves to a serious surcharge when we come back here in the new Parliament.
  5.32 p.m.
  Sir Alexander Erskine Hill: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) in that part of his speech which dealt with personalities, and which I do not think was well received in the Committee and will not be well received in the country. I want to refer to the speech made by the
  1144
  right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). The line he seemed to take was that his party ceased to have responsibility for the housing plans that we are now pursuing, from the moment the Opposition left the Government a fortnight ago. The right hon. Gentleman made rather a poor joke when he said that houses could not foe built on piles of sand; I want to say that neither can houses be built with green wood. The wood must be allowed to mature. The right hon. Gentleman as every bit as responsible for the housing policy of the Government he supported as any Member on this side.
  The real problem in connection with housing is the labour problem. If you can provide labour in sufficient quantities, the problem can be faced in the only way which will lead to a satisfactory solution. In the last Debate, which took place about two and a half months ago, this point was made by myself and a number of other Members. The person in the last Government who was most responsible for dealing with the most important factor in housing was the Minister of Labour. I mentioned then that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Wandsworth (Mr. Bevin) was not in his place during that Debate until complaints had been made from all quarters about his absence. I thought that he would have now taken the opportunity, when he no longer had the cares of office, to give some account of what plans he had made while in that Government, and what his plans might be in the future.
  Mr. McNeil: Has the hon. and learned Member noted that the present Minister of Labour is not in his place either?
  Sir A. Erskine-Hill: My right hon. Friend has just told me that that is because he is outside seeing one of the hon. Member's own party, by arrangement. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the present Minister of Labour will show himself to be worthy of his position, on which so much depends.
  Mr. McNeil: And our housing difficulties will be solved?
  Sir A. Erskine-Hill: They will always remain until the labour problem can be solved, and it is only by a realisation of that that this Committee can look forward to the future with any hopes at all. I

  1145
  ought to say how grateful I am that the Government have adopted the suggestion made by myself and other Members during the last housing Debate. We then urged that German prisoners of war should be used to build drains, and do the rough work on housing sites. I am glad to learn that that suggestion has been adopted, because we must tackle this job by every means in our power. If the Russians can use, to their advantage, prisoners of war, then we ought to do the same here.
  I want to talk for a moment or two about the great criticism there has been about the housing situation in London, and the quality of the repairs which have been carried out. The emergency period was one of great difficulty for the Government. The criticisms which have been made from many quarters about the quality of the work which has been done are something which the Government ought to consider. In the "Evening News" of 1st June this letter appeared, which gives an example of what is the general feeling:
  "After seeing the mess made of many houses a. considerable number of people, myself included, have vowed that we will put up with any inconvenience in the way of broken walls and ceilings until such time as experienced workmen are available."
  The Government ought to realise, as I feel sure they will, that the quality of the work is something which should be looked at, and do what they can to get experienced labour for repairs. The same applies to Scotland, and elsewhere. The letter went on to state:
  "My own view is that the sooner repair work is handed back to private builders the better, and I say this as a Socialist."
  That letter was written by a Socialist, who lives at Wood Green, in Essex. The Committee ought to impress upon the Government that every available means, whether by private enterprise or anything else, should be adopted to meet this problem. I count on the Government to try at the earliest possible opportunity—and it will not be long in coming—to widen the scope of the efforts made to deal with this problem, and utilise private enterprise to the full. A great point was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield about delay. I think I speak for a great many people on this side of the House when I say that if the Town and Country Planning Act is not going to be sufficient to give the
  1146
  powers that are necessary to see that land is made available for its proper purposes then further steps should be taken. I think we ought to note how important is this question. During the housing Debate on 3rd June, 1924, the then Socialist Minister of Health, Mr. Wheatley, referring to the rent of working-class houses, said this:
  "If we could get the land free we should reduce rents by 1½d. a week."—[Official Report, 3rd June, 1924; Vol. 174, c. 1106.]
  I want to know whether it will be possible for us to be given figures to show up-to-date prices on that basis? I think this argument about land is a purely political argument which will have the effect, if it is successful, of misleading the people. I want to have an honest reply on this point, so that the people themselves may be able to judge.
  Mr. Stokes: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman explain to the Committee why landlords hold on so tightly?
  Sir A. Erskine-Hill: I do not think that question deserves an answer. It is not a question of the lack of sites. There are sites in every town that I know that can be proceeded with at once. There is no delay being caused by lack of sites. The difficulties will be solved by taking practical steps. I think it is a great misfortune for the people of this country that the land argument is being used as a purely political argument, and is unworthy of those who make it. If those hon. Members opposite, who are coming back to the new House, will only face up to this problem as a national problem they will be able to be of service to the country and not, as they have shown by their speeches to-day, be totally unworthy of playing their part in the great effort which must be made to provide the required number of houses as soon as possible.
  5.40 p.m.
  Mr. McNeil: I am greatly heartened by the concern which the hon. and learned Member for North Edinburgh (Sir A. Erskine-Hill) has shown about the prices of houses. I was trying to recollect whether, as a railway director, he thinks that all landlords have been just as kind and careless about the value of land as he wished my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) to believe.
  Sir A. Erskine-Hill: If the hon. Member suggests that railway companies have been bad landlords, then I say that they have been excellent landlords.
  Mr. McNeil: Being the competent businessman that he is, I am quite sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman would admit fairly, in his usual open fashion, that the railways have had to pay stinking prices to the landlords that we are up against in this housing problem.
  Mr. Stokes: Will the hon. and learned Member opposite say whether that is true?
  Mr. McNeil: I want to join my hon. Friends on this side who have protested against the apparent intention of the Government, later in the Debate, to tell us about a new subsidy. My interpretation of the Minister of Works' remarks is not precisely that of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman), but no matter who is right it is bad business to withhold that information until the end of the Debate. If the Government are activated by the same horror of making election speeches as was the hon. and learned Member for North Edinburgh then I can see no reason why the statement should not have been made earlier. I want to protest against another discourtesy. The Committee is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) for his vigilance in this matter—
  Mr. Buchanan: And I do not get called.
  Mr. McNeil: I would gladly give way to my hon. Friend on this matter. It is exceedingly disturbing to Scottish Members, not only that we have no longer in this House a Secretary of State for Scotland—as a result of a voluntary decision by the Government, for which we in Scotland will ask them to accept responsibility during the coming Election—but it is exceedingly discourteous and inefficient that when the Minister presents figures relating to housing in the United Kingdom he does not provide separate figures for Scotland. It was exceedingly discourteous that when one of my hon. Friends and I tried to get the figures from him, he refused to give way, although he gave way frequently to hon. Members on the Government side.
  Mr. Sandys: The question that was asked me was whether the figures I had
  1148
  given included Scotland. My answer was that they did. I was not asked to give separate figures for Scotland, and I did not give them.
  Mr. McNeil: The Minister will recollect that I tried several times to interrupt him, and in doing so I wanted to ask two questions, to which I hope he will find replies when he has taken that smirk off his face. [Interruption.] No one in the Committee can expect any Scottish Member to talk with any humour about housing. It is not a subject to which we can bring any smiles. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee what proportion of the 100,000 permanent houses, which are in the programme are allotted to Scotland? I also want to know what proportion of the 800,000 labour force which he expects to build up is being allotted to Scotland.
  Mr. Willink: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the approximate number—one cannot be absolutely definite—in the first year's programme is 20,000 for Scotland and 80,000 for England and Wales. We are making inquiries as to the likely distribution of the 800,000 men.
  Mr. McNeil: That is precisely the point to which we come; the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot tell us with any definiteness what is the allocation. If he cannot tell us what is the allocation of labour, there is no point in talking about the matter. Eighteen months ago, when the original programme was being talked about, we were told that we ware to get one-fifth, which is the proportion to which the Government adhere. That figure is meaningless unless we know that we are to get a satisfactory allocation of labour.
  Mr. Willink: The allocation of the houses and the anticipation of what the building will be were based upon an anticipation of what the relative head of labour would be in the two countries.
  Mr. McNeil: The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot have it both ways. During the last two years, when my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals and I have attacked the Government and the Scottish Office for not fulfilling their pledges with regard to the emergency housing programme, the only reply the Government have given has been that they could not build houses when they had not the labour. Again and again we could not get past that statement. The Minister must not now say to the

  1149
  Committee that the Government would not make an allocation unless they know that that was substantially the division of labour. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must make up his mind one way or the other, just as the Government must make up their mind as to which voice they are going to speak in—the voice of the Minister of Works to-day or the voice of the Prime Minister last Monday.
  I am delighted to see displayed this change of heart on the part of the Government. Apart altogether from electioneering, I think our only hope of having houses in this country is that for a considerable time—for more than the length of the next Government—we should maintain rigid controls in these matters. When the Prime Minister makes an electioneering speech, apparently the kind of planned control which hon. Members on this side have advocated steadily for the last four years, means State slavery; when the Prime Minister's son-in-law speaks to the Committee, it means houses. I want to know from the Minister who is to reply, if the Government are in earnest about this business, how soon they intend to address themselves to the ring prices for cement, bricks and most housing components. The Minister of Works said rather airily—and refused to pursue the matter, although he did allow one of his own friends to intervene—that the Government are to fix ceiling prices and that when necessary they will have an investigation.
  Mr. Silverman: Only after evidence of profiteering or exploitation.
  Mr. McNeil: There is no hon. Member who has any association with the industry, and certainly no Member of the Government whose job takes him remotely into the business of house building, who does not believe that prices for the main housing components are rigged. In Scotland we have had houses authorised by the Government, but when the tenders have come in the Government have not been able to approve them. There have been prices in excess of £1,250 quoted for houses which were being built for less than £600 in 1928. The Government had to throw out those tenders and the houses, some 60 of them, are still not built. It is not enough to plan the labour, it is not enough to promise that the control of scarce commodities is to be maintained; we must see that the houses when built
  1150
  are rented at prices which the people who need houses can afford. It will not be acceptable to hon. Members on this side that when the prices prove to be too high, the Administration will be permitted by some secondary subsidy device to hand out from the Treasury profits which the public would not sanction in rents. We shall be careful to watch that.
  I ask the Government whether they are in earnest about seeing that there is a regular flow of components at the cheapest prices commensurate with good quality. Are they prepared now to place contracts for bulk orders? There cannot be any reason against that device. It is a device which has been employed frequently during war. The Minister of Works said that he is already experiencing different parts of the machine being out of step. He laid down three stages. He told us that the first stage was planning. I thought it not unreasonable to assume that planning had been done during the four years when no building was being done. If it was, and remembering the amazing somersault which the right hon. Gentleman performed in relation, to the initial Portal house, it is very difficult to believe that the planning was very effective. In between his rather scurrilous remarks about my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), the right hon. Gentleman delivered himself of a few phrases about teething troubles and growing pains, and in illustration of them he told us that the preparation of sites was out of step with the erection of the fabric.
  Mr. Sandys indicated dissent.
  Mr. McNeil: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I may not be right in the precise figures, but I have not got to the stage of imagination. I am willing to stand by the report in Hansard. If the Government are concerned to see that these disproportionate processes are ironed out, they should meet the programme for their raw materials now, and should do that by bulk contract and by bulk purchase.
  Mr. A. Bevan: That would involve building houses to rent and not to sell.
  Mr. McNeil: I can see two objections neither of which is technical and both of which are electioneering. The right hon. Gentleman cannot put out of business the

  1151
  people from whom he hopes to get votes. I want to put a comparatively trivial question to the right hon. Gentleman. I have asked for figures about the Phoenix house—how many contracts have been placed and how many more are to be placed? That is not a Government approved house, and I am not prepared to argue that it is a house of high merit—I do not know—but we have been told of these four years of planning, and I presume there was some inspection of that house. If the Government are going to place orders for such small numbers as 2,400 and are not going to place further contracts for houses of that type, or any other type with which they start, they will get very high prices. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that no decision has been taken as to whether or not further contracts are to be placed, but this matter came to my attention because one of the factories in Scotland making components for this type of house is already in process of being dismantled and I am told that is happening in other parts of the country. Apparently the capital charges are to be loaded on to a very small number of houses. I do not know what the figure is, but probably it is in excess of £900.
  The time for experiment has surely been ample. Hon. Members on this side and the people in the country have a right to expect soon to see the proof that the plans have been effective. If the Government live up to their long-term programme, I think they will have done very well. But while, of course, they have excuses for saying that at the beginning of the programme the results will be small, I am inclined to predict that, so far as one can look over the next six or 12 months, there is not the remotest hope that their 12 months' programme will be discharged even in 24 months. The Government cannot have any doubts in their mind that this will be one of the most important questions at the Election. If they are not prepared to give plain and simple replies to the points I have put, and similar points, if they are not prepared to say openly that they will have no respect for rings, no matter how powerful, that they will do the building themselves if outside people do not do it satisfactorily, it is certain they will take a first-class thrashing at the Election.
  5.59 p.m.
  Mr. David Eccles: I was very glad to hear my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works use the language of the munitions programme, because I am sure that unless the methods of the munitions programme are employed to solve the housing programme, we shall not get very far. I felt in his speech today that a big step forward had been made. Of course, if you treat houses as though they were munitions of war, you must start with the requirements, as you go to the General Staff and say "How many aircraft and how many ships do you want?" and from that requirement you must work backwards and see if your labour and materials are sufficient.
  I wanted to say something about a part of the requirement which I think is not sufficiently appreciated, that is the housing shortage in the small towns and country districts. The result of my observations is that housing authorities under-estimate the number of families which require and cannot get a separate home of their own. The main reason for this under-estimate is that many wives of men in the Forces now living doubled up with mother or a friend have not put their names down with any local authority because they do not know where their man is going to work when he comes out of the Forces. These same housing authorities make an equally bad calculation when they over-estimate the number of evacuated or directed families who are likely to return to the cities in the next year or two. The houses are not there for these people to return to. On the basis of these two bad calculations they grossly under-estimate the net demand for new houses, and therefore their plans are inadequate, and in particular the need for temporary housing programmes for small towns and rural areas is nothing like appreciated.
  The situation, however, in regard to the supply of labour is so bad, that there is little prospect that even the inadequate plans in the countryside can be carried out. We shall have to rely on the small builder. He is the man who has the skill to supervise the construction of a house. At present his skill is not allied to a sufficient building force. He is left with only a few old, immobile workers, and his skill and their productive capacity are at least half wasted. He is stripped of mobile

  1153
  workers, first to the Forces and then to the repair of bomb damage. I wish to impress on the Committee how expensive in production this transfer of workers from the Provinces to London must be. We realise in the Provinces the claim of the blitzed cities, but we also want them to realise how expensive it is to give up our building labour because, if you take a dozen men from a provincial town and send them to London, you are not just transferring productive capacity from one place to another. It is very much worse than that. The men who are left behind are reduced to half-speed and the small builder, who is the chief man for training apprentices, is now doing no work on which he can train apprentices, and that is a very bad thing for the industry.
  That leads me to the conclusion that the real decision to be taken is about the method of expanding the total building labour forces in the Provinces. I wonder if the methods now envisaged are sufficiently drastic. I ask myself what the returning soldier will say when he comes to Wiltshire and finds no house for his wife and children, sees hardly any houses going up around him, and is not told why in his area there are hardly any houses going up, and then, round the corner, he comes upon a camp of German prisoners of war doing nothing. He will say to the Government: "There are two choices open and I wish you to take one or the other. Either you must use those German prisoners to build me a home or you must send them away and let me and my wife live in the good hutted camp which they are now occupying." Throughout the country districts the Supply and Service Departments have put up camps, hostels and married quarters sites during the war. When one of these sites becomes vacant I understand that it is put into a pool of released buildings and then allocated between the Government Departments in London.
  I want to ask for an assurance that, whenever one of these camps goes into that pool, the housing authority in the area concerned shall be consulted about its need for temporary housing accommodation, because, judging from my own constituency, where a number of hostels have recently become vacant at Corsham the housing authority has not been consulted. Instead, all the other Departments—it may be the Ministry of Educa-
  1154
  tion wanting a teachers' training college, or, the Admiralty wanting storage, or the Ministry of Labour wanting a rehabilitation centre—start bidding for these released buildings. The returning soldier would say, "A house for myself and my wife is for the moment more important than getting on with these other parts of the reconstruction programme, however admirable they are and however much we all want to see them carried out."
  To go back to the expansion of building labour, there are two ways in which you can approach the production programme. You can either say, "The final target that I am aiming at is the number of operatives that we should like to see there when this emergency has passed," and then proceed to approach that target in an orderly fashion; and, having decided how many building operatives there will be in the next two years, you work back to the number of houses that they are capable of constructing. If that line had been adopted with the aircraft industry we should never have got the bombers and fighters that we needed for the war. If we said, "We are never going to expand the aircraft industry beyond the point at which it ought to be in peace time," production would never have come along. If we are going to treat the expansion of the building industry on the munitions level, we must not start with the number of building operatives likely to come into the industry by traditional methods of recruiting and by observing restrictive practices on the side of the suppliers of material and on the side of the trade union. We must adopt the munitions method, which is to go to the General Staff and, having got a target for production, see in what way the materials and the labour can be found to reach that target. That method involves sacrifices in other directions, just as sacrifices had to be made to get aircraft and ships. Other things would have to be given up—perhaps schools, clothing and all kinds of consumer goods.
  Is it not time to give the public the facts on which to judge between the two methods of getting houses? Is it not time to say "If we increase the building force by traditional methods, if the target at which we are aiming is the number of building operatives we want to see there when the emergency has passed, in that orderly way, we shall get so many

  1155
  houses"? The other method is to say, "By great sacrifices on your part and by diverting the resources necessary to achieve the target, we shall get so many more houses, and in that process we shall have to use German prisoners of war and dilute the building industry by all sorts of war-time measures." Hon. Members have spoken of controls. Let the public judge what those controls mean and how many houses we should get if we adopted 1940–45 methods. I feel that we are beating about the bush, not knowing what is the price that the country has to pay if we are to get the houses under ordinary conditions or if we are to get them under munitions conditions. I hope the Minister will give us some data on which to judge between the two methods.
  6.14 p.m.
  Mr. Buchanan: I agree with most previous speakers, and particularly with the hon. Member who spoke last, that there is no serious dispute on one or two issues. No one will dispute the terrible urgency of the matter nor the gravity of the situation as far as living conditions are concerned. In parts of Scotland, and in parts of my native city, there are awful conditions which beggar description both in terrible over crowding and in shockingly low standards. I am anxious to discover whether we cannot take a greater step forward than we are doing. The housing problem is as serious as the problem of war and peace. It calls for the same emergency measures and for the same ruthlessness in our struggle. These are common-places which are uttered by nearly everybody, but we never do anything. No one would dream of being as easy-going with the war problem as we have been with the housing problem.
  I trust the Committee will forgive me for raising what might appear to be almost a personal matter. The incident I propose to recount, however, tends to show that we do not regard this problem as having anything like the human urgency that prevailed in the war. The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is not responsible for the Noble Lord who is now Secretary of State. May I say, with as little heat as I can, that to appoint the Noble Lord as Secretary of State for Scotland when he has so little knowledge of our housing conditions,
  1156
  was one of the worst affronts to my native country that I have ever known. I say that more in sadness because I want to see decent conditions of housing established, and we cannot get them by such an appointment.
  The Minister to-day mentioned many types of houses, such as the Phoenix, the Tarran and others. There is a firm of contractors in my Division which had been repairing ships. They came along like a sensible group of men, and said, "We see ship-repairing coming to an end, and we will start to build houses." I wish that the Whips would allow the Minister to pay a little attention when one is making a serious contribution. I maybe touchy on this one subject, but it is the only subject on which I am touchy; all my other touchiness has gone. This firm decided to embark on house-building, and the Tarran type was allocated to them, the Government inspector saying to them, "If you have the capacity, your job is to build the Tarran house under instructions from the Tarran Company." They were asked to make about 600 houses by the end of the year, and the contract was fixed. The firm went to the division of the Under-Secretary and bought a factory, an old carpet bowling factory. It is capable of making a magnificent factory, but at the moment it is stored with mattresses and clothes. I wrote to the Secretary of State four days before he left office, and I have not even had a reply yet. I have been four times on the telephone, and I have been assured that the mattresses will be shifted out at once, but the firm are told by an inspector from the Department of Health that, owing to the difficulty of the railway taking the mattresses from Glasgow to England, they will be lucky if they are out within ten weeks. You would not deal with a matter connected with the war like that.
  There are also contractors from Aberdeen, Falkirk and other places. They read in the newspapers that the Tarran Company had a financial crisis, so they met together to see how they could get the money to build these houses. That, again, would never have been necessary in war-time. In the urgency of war they would have said, "No matter what the risk with regard to money, our country is in great danger and we will carry on." These contractors met in Glasgow and they had to say, "We are not going on

  1157
  with building Tarran houses because we are not sure we shall get our money." I have a letter to show that in my possession. If contractors had said such a thing in war-time about guns, the Government would have dealt with the situation within 24 hours. That does not end the story. The firm in my Division to which I have referred said, "We are going on with the houses for, after all, the Government allocated us to do the work, and if the houses are being built by us for the Government, we will be paid." Then enters the bank and says to the firm, "You must stop. If you don't we will not give you credit to carry on." I have the correspondence in my pocket. All this happened over the building of one type of house, and then we talk about the urgency of the problem. In time of war that sort of thing would not have been tolerated. I remember the firm of Shorts being pilloried in this House for inefficiency, but it was nothing to the laxity of method which is being shown now in the housing problem.
  There is a good deal of argument about the land question in connection with housing, and I think that it ought to be made far more readily available at the disposal of the local authorities than landlords often make it. On the question of finance, I want to say to my Tory friends that if small building contractors are to go in for housing on anything like a large scale, one of the first things that they have to get is capital with which to work, and they cannot be left to the mercy of the banking companies. I will mention another issue, even on the eve of the General Election, which may annoy friend and foe alike. The Minister dealt with only two ways of augmenting labour. I never thought that politics could be so ungenerous as the last week or two has shown me that they can be. Who will deny that the right hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Mr. E. Bevin), the former Minister of Labour, had to do perhaps the most disagreable job in the Coalition Government? I quarrelled with him more than once and divided against him, but who will deny that he worked hard and with ability at his job? What does he get to-day? He gets flung at him with contempt the fact that he happens to be absent at a housing Debate, not merely by the Back bench but by the Front bench. That is what he gets for the disagreeable, hard and toiling task that he performed during the war.
  1158
  One would have thought that there was sufficient generosity in politics to forgive a miserable little thing like that.
  With regard to adding to the labour force, I would say that, even given the land and adequate capital to get houses in abundance—and I am for having houses in abundance—there must be a large labour force. I do not want employers and men to use housing as a dripping roast to suit them for years to come. Just as we shall have to use the methods of war on the financial side and in the requisitioning of land, so we shall have to add to the labour force in ways other than the orthodox ways. There must be brought within the pool of the building industry groups of people who are now outside it. We must not merely wait for men to be demobilised or men to come out of factories; we must utilise other methods for adding to the labour force. There are men in engineering trades who, with a short period of training, could become first class workers, and I do not see any reason why the labour force cannot be added to considerably in that way. Our fate as Members of Parliament will be decided in the next four weeks. I do not know what my fate will be any more than others know theirs. I will not prophesy who may be the Government. I know whom I want to be the Government. Never have I wanted more that the Labour movement should form the Government than I do to-day. No matter who wins the victory, the real victory will not be won in the Election. That victory will be won when we have given greater numbers of the people the decent home which is their earnest and fervent need.
  6.27 p.m.
  Viscountess Astor: The House has got back to a pre-war attitude of mind, and to-day's Debate is really more like the old days. I regret that we have had to get back to that attitude before the war is really over. We may as politicians have our little quarrels, but the great bulk of the people in the country do not understand them. I have never seen anybody more mystified than the ordinary man in the street, who cannot understand why we have begun our party wrangles when the war is not over. Most people believe in the Prime Minister and want him, and, bad as some hon. Members opposite may think the Coalition

  1159
  Government, the world thinks it has done a remarkable job. I have not always agreed with the Government, but I doubt whether any other Government in a war has done better than the Coalition Government. I pay my respects to the Prime Minister, and I hate to hear these personal animosities beginning again. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) complained about attacks on the ex-Minister of Labour, but what have Members opposite said about the Prime Minister? It horrifies me to hear these personal attacks on Ministers who were in the Coalition.
  I agree with the last two speeches about housing. I realise that the Coalition Government had a difficult time, for the Tory Party had its Right Wing to deal with, which was not easy, and the Labour Party had its Left Wing, which was even worse. There are two wings the country could do without. [An Hon. Member: "What is the Noble Lady?"] I am what I have always been, and I shall stay where I have always been for 25 years in this House. I am a Social Reformer. I believe in private enterprise, and I will fight to the last ditch for it. The Government have been marvellous in winning the war, but it has been a great disappointment to people who are interested in town planning and who want to get on with the peace that the Coalition Government did not get the Minister to come to the House and present the Reports of the three Committees which were set up, and have a great plan for the rebuilding of Great Britain. A great many people outside the House do not realise the difficulties inside the House. I believe that if the Minister had got someone like me, for instance, who has no respect for red tape and does not give two pence for party politics when it comes to getting something done, and had made this housing problem one of first priority, we would have got further than we have. No matter how good the White Paper and the Coalition Government may be, we have to make a much more vigorous approach. I am not going to make speeches about overcrowding or the lack of privileges of the common man and the hard-hearted Tories. We have heard those things in this House for the past 25 years. People have always talked about building Paradise and running the Government, but, as Maggie Bond field once said
  1160
  at a Labour Conference, "You could not run a tripe shop, let alone a Government."
  This war has been run by "common or garden" men like us following the genius of the uncommon men. When it came to D-Day and the invasion, how did we get our Mulberry Port? How did we do a job at which the whole world marvels? We did not do it on party lines and we did not get politicians to do it. We called in outside people. One of them, I think, was Sir Harold Werner, a very rich, intelligent and able man, and he had a genius for picking other men. Those men produced something which was, I suppose, one of the most difficult things in the world to produce. They got to work and did it. We have to get that types of man—not a Ministry, because I doubt if they could do it. When the Prime Minister comes back I hope, he will do it. He will see that the White Paper, local authorities and difficulties of labour and trade unions are cut right across; I hope he will say, "Houses are a priority," and I hope he will get the same type of men to deal with houses as those who built the Mulberry Port. Only the other day one of the great builders of the Mulberry Port was talking to me, and he said that what we ought to do was to see what different areas can produce in the way of housing materials and so on. We should go to the people in one area and say, "What are your assets?" and then go to another, and so on. But we shall eventually have to divide the country into areas and tackle the job just as we did in preparation for D-Day. I am certain we must do that if we are to get the houses we need so desperately.
  Scotland has had a housing problem for years. During the last war they had a genius, Lord Weir, but they would not listen to him. They had trade union and class-conscious prejudice, and now they regret it. I used to hear them abusing Willie Weir as if he were a pickpocket, but he was a Scotsman with a genius. Class prejudices are all right on the platform, but they do not work in real life. I am not going to talk about the area which I represent, because that is a bombed area, but I do say that the people I represent are not stupid, because town planning came mostly from Plymouth. We were the first to have a plan. Although I say so, if the Government had listened to the peer to whom I happen to be

  1161
  married, and had appointed someone like him, we might have been much further ahead than we are now.
  Mr. Guy (Poplar, South): I know the Noble Lady is putting the case in the best way possible, but will she realise that it is not genius nor fakirs we want, but houses?
  Viscountess Astor: Lord Weir was a genius and we should have got houses if we had listened to him. We need people with some imagination to build houses. I hate that talk about the common man. There are too many common men. I want the uncommon man, and when we have an uncommon man I want to follow him and to praise him. I want the Government to get an uncommon man to tackle this housing question, and then the common men will follow him just as they did in building the Mulberry Harbour. We have a long-term policy and a short-term policy, but we need not spend so much on the short-term policy. People do not mind if they have not things like baths such as they will get in their permanent houses so long as they have homes of some sort to live in. There are in Plymouth people who would live in anything; they would live in a tent. These men coming back from the front would welcome a hut if they could get one. I am not worrying about these short-term houses. They are very temporary. [Interruption.] Although we may have our die-hards who do not want to move, the Labour Party have their left wingers who talk but who do not and could not move and who have never yet done anything. These people who criticise the Government do not do anything. They have not got to the Front Bench yet, and I hope they never do.
  If the Tory Party comes back into power it will have a chance that it will never have again. I believe the country wants the Prime Minister. They know perfectly well that he is an international asset, and I do not believe that even his bitterest enemies feel that he ought to be burdened, attacked and blamed. The country expects the Prime Minister, if and when he gets his majority, to be as drastic about building these houses as he was about winning the war. We need co-operation among all the people of good will, whether they are right, left, high or low, peers or paupers. I rejoice to say we have a Tory reform group of young men who
  1162
  are not in the least concerned with vested interests or even in just strict party politics. They appeal to thousands of people throughout the country. There are Labour men of good will and thousands of people in the country who deeply regret that the Government fell apart. They would rather the Government had continued and finished the job. If it had not been for the pressure from outside the Government could have gone on. Everybody knows that. It was not the members of the Government. It was the pressure—
  The Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): I am sorry to interrupt the Noble Lady, but I think this speech is getting out of Order.
  Viscountess Astor: When we get on to this subject of houses, as the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) said, it is outside all party politics. It is very difficult for people outside and who are not involved in politics to understand what some of us here understand. We know that these party speeches which we make do not matter very much. We know this abuse is only skin deep. There is a real desire among the great masses of the people for the Government in peace-time to appeal to what is best in people, as they did in war-time. There is so much good in the people. Some of it goes into private enterprise, some into co-operation and some goes another way. What the Prime Minister will have behind him are those on the right wing of the Labour Party and those on the left wing of the Tory Party. I hope the Minister of Labour will consider things far more drastically than the Government have done up to now, and will use some of these people of whom he knows—if he does not known any we can tell him of some—who will cut across red tape and deliver the goods in peace-time just as they did in the war.
  6.43 p.m.
  Major Markham: It is always a difficult job to follow the Noble Lady, and particularly to-day when one realises that it may have been her last speech in this House. I am sure the Committee would wish me to take this opportunity, if it is in Order, of expressing regret at her forthcoming departure, to say how sad we are at this parting, and to ask her: "Where can we find such another Nancy?" [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] The Debate to-day has had one

  1163
  or two minor irrelevancies, and I for one do not want to diverge into the realm of party politics but to "cut the cackle and come to the hosses." I think the Committee is agreed that everything possible has been done by the late Coalition Government to prepare for a great housing drive. The only difference of opinion is whether there is going to be sufficient drive in the future to get those houses built. No matter on what side we are or what our politics, we are all wondering whether there will be on this side, or on the opposite side should the Election go wrong, the energy and determination to produce the million or so houses that we shall want in a few years. We have to deal first with the deeply-laid plans of the Coalition Government. I am convinced those plans are good ones and that they are far-reaching and sound. Have we the technicians, and also directors who can produce the requisite drive?
  The point is, have we the best possible men on what might be called the civil engineering side? Would not the team be strengthened by the addition of a personality such as Mr. Gibson, of Mulberry fame? Some of us are not at all happy with the present line-up. We know that Sir Frederick Pile is an excellent man, with excellent qualities as a staff officer, but we need something in addition, what might be called civil engineering vision, to get the great housing drive through.
  My next point concerns not what we can do here at home, but what we can get from abroad. An hon. Member mentioned that we might get houses from Sweden and other countries. Might I ask the Minister whether it is not possible to get something like 300,000 houses from the United States and Canada, temporary houses, within the next 12 or 15 months? I have seen many statements from the American Press that that is possible. We know that some Americans have a great genius for advertising, but if there is anything in those statements, and the houses are obtainable, what are we doing about it? How many can we get from countries which have very great productive capacity?
  We have heard a great deal about the necessity for getting the building done but very little about the design of the proposed houses. During the war this House of Commons gave approval to a permanent housing programme for agricultural workers, and many hundreds of thousands
  1164
  of houses went up. As bricks and mortar they were excellent but in the arrangement of kitchens and pipes and fireplace design they were the last word in Victorian inefficiency. I cannot use words too strong to condemn the out-of-date ineffectiveness of the arrangement of those houses. Every one that was built since the war for agricultural labourers has water pipes put in such positions that they were likely to freeze under a heavy frost and have no bathroom or kitchen equipment arranged for convenience. Not one of them has a fireplace that produces the heat into the room instead of up the chimney.
  Members of the Parliamentary Scientific Committee have been to the heating exhibition in Conduit Street, and agree that it is a most excellent exhibition. They saw there one of the new open fire grates, a masterpiece of design and efficiency. The exact difference in cost between those modern grates and the old kind is the difference between£7 and£3 10s. We all want local authorities to build houses, but we know that some of them, as well as some Government Departments, object to spending£3 10s. We know that they take the line that as long as they get the houses built they can quite well accept the lowest tenders. We have to produce in this matter not just a house with certain essential fittings, but the most efficient and modern house that the country can produce. We should not burke at£5 or£10, if it makes all the difference in having a good kitchen, unfreezable water pipes and a first-class bath. We have to think of the qualities of the houses, from the point of view of the housewives. I sincerely hope that in future months, no matter what Government is returned, we shall get together on the subject of housing with the same national unity as has been such a great boon to the country in the past.
  6.50 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The difficulty in which the Committee is placed just now is that a sort of dual purpose Debate is going on, part of it devoted to housing and part of it devoted to hustings. I suppose that is inevitable in present circumstances. I wish to look rather towards the position in which the Minister, whatever Minister it may be, responsible for housing will find himself when Parliament reassembles, the

  1165
  actual position. The Estimates which are now putting through are Estimates which give the Minister money for some time to come. The gist of the situation is surely that before the war this country was turning out 1,000 houses every working day, complete, slated, with glass in the windows, handles on the doors, paths up to the front door and railings round the garden. Every 24 hours, a new thousand houses were completed and a new thousand families walked into them. That was a terrific figure, of which the country might be rather proud.
  The facts which have been given to us, not only in this Debate but in others, are that the permanent housing programme, which is what we have to go on with, does not go beyond something like 200,000 houses, built or building, in two years.
  Mr. Willink: Three hundred thousand.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Very well, 300,000, built or building—and there is a very good let-out in that expression.
  Mr. Willink: I know that my right hon. and gallant Friend would be glad to be interrupted at this point. It has been made clear that the programme is for 220,000 houses of those 300,000 to be built in the two years and only 80,000 to be in course of building.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Good. That is an encouraging figure; 220,000 houses built in the first two years. Let us remember that it is the year after the conclusion of the German war, the year in which we are now that will count, in which a great flood of returned people will pour back and will wish to get into houses. My experience suggests that the figure will not reach the first 100,000 in the first year, and that it might well be under that figure. That is to say, that for every house that was being completed before the war we are to build, not one, two or three houses, but one-third. That is the programme which is laid down. This position was inescapable, and was in the nature of things.
  I do not believe that such a programme as was sketched out by the junior Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) will appeal to the Committee; that we should say: "Of course, we are not bound by the White Papers. We can go on and outbid them. The White Paper on Demobilisation was a grand and noble thing, but let's tear it up
  1166
  and double or treble the Class B release," and put that forward to the Minister as a way for him to get out of his difficulty. I am certain that of all the ways to create social unrest in this country, to tear up or even seriously to break into the demobilisation paper so carefully worked out by the late Minister of Labour, who has done a great deal of work for which the whole House owes him a debt of gratitude, would be to run the greatest risks of doing so, and of upsetting the labour force in this country and the men in the Armed Forces, and producing social unrest transcending even the social unrest which will be caused by the difficulties of people getting into houses.
  When that is said, let us again examine the position of the Minister of Health, the Minister of Town and Country Planning, the Minister of Works and the Secretary of State for Scotland, in the Government which will be returned in a a few weeks' time. They will have to stand up for a year to a programme which will not in present circumstances produce more than about 100,000 permanent houses and an added number of temporary houses. The hon. and gallant Member who just spoke mentioned a figure of 300,000 temporary houses from the United States. Frankly, that is a pipe dream. It is not possible. The exchange position alone would make such a task impossible. It is not possible for us to draw on the resources of the world, or to continue to do so, at the levels upon which we have been drawing, with the world's full acquiescence, for the purpose of prosecuting the war. We shall have to dig into our own resources and work out our own problems to deal with these matters, and to solve this very important difficulty.
  The position is summed up in two speeches which were made by the hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) and the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), who delivered a speech of great force and great courage, as he always does. He spoke of the difficulty which firms in his Division had in raising capital and getting bank guarantees in order to go on with the job. The reason for all that was shown in the speech of the hon. Member for Greenock, who said, "We will watch whether prices go up. We shall not allow any profits to be made or any risks to be taken." That is the way to

  1167
  stultify new developments and to nip them in the bud. The hon. Member for Gorbals said, "That is not what would happen in war." What would happen in war was the thing that many hon. Members opposite have objected to time and again: "Go ahead, give us the goods, and we will settle up afterwards for it." If the attitude of mind of watching every penny and screwing down any chance of a possible exaggeration of price is adhered to, it may be good accounting but it is not the way in which an emergency will be relieved.
  When I heard the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. A. Greenwood) say: "£125,000,000 is being spent on erecting temporary houses; what a waste," I realised that that was not the way in which the country looked at the position when it was dealing with its war problems. To produce speed you must have a certain amount of waste. You cannot get away from it. If housing is to be treated as a war problem there will need to be experiment, and bold experiment. There will need to be a cutting of red tape, not merely in the attitude towards the building problem but in the attitude toward the accounting problem.
  There is nothing in the story of the shortage of land holding up houses. The right hon. Member for Wakefield said: "How can we go ahead until we have settled what to do with the land?" We have settled what to do with 27,000 acres which is the property of local authorities at the moment, and on which not one stone or brick has been laid. There are 27,000 acres, enough land on which to build at 10 houses to the acre, 270,000 houses, but no house has been put on it, although the land is available.
  Mr. Guy: I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman whose fault was that?
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Member has made several irrelevant interruptions in the course of this Debate but, really, he has crowned his irrelevancies with this last one. "Whose fault was that?" We are now considering the question of what is to happen after the war. The fault up to now has been Hitler's. If the hon. Member likes it better, the Coalition Government, of which the Leader of the Opposition, now on the Front Bench, was a member. The right hon. Member is not anxious to get
  1168
  away from the responsibility. He has signed and countersigned all the decrees which have said that the men and the materials were to be used in the war effort. "Whose fault was it?" We cannot get on with the Debate when questions like that are asked. We are talking of the future.
  I say that there is land enough for a two-years' programme now in the possession of the local authorities. What is more, the local authorities, as we all know, have power to do for land exactly what the hon. Member for Gorbals asked for in general. They have power to enter upon any land and begin operations upon it, and to settle the accountancy affairs afterwards. Neither in the present nor in the future is shortage of land holding up the efforts of the local authorities. It is also perfectly true, as the right hon. John Wheatley pointed out, that the amount of the cost of the land in the rent of a cottage is 1½da week. The idea that land is responsible is one of the fallacies from which it is necessary to get away. Building is a matter of labour and materials; the land is there. On the statements of the Socialist Ministers, of the Socialist Secretary of State for Scotland, land for two years' building or more was in the hands of local authorities, there to be entered upon at any moment.
  Mr. Gallacher: If that is the case, will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say why the people of Glasgow are packed together in such masses, and why, wherever there is a housing scheme, there is no provision in it for wider amenities for the people?
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: If the hon. Member had come in earlier and listened to our Debate, he would have heard what we were discussing. I would say that the Glasgow authority is one of the worst housing authorities in the Kingdom, and that the Socialist majority has brought the progress of housing far below what it was under the Progressives. Glasgow town council has to shoulder as much responsibility as anyone.
  The difficulties before us are those of labour and materials. Certainly we can make use, to the utmost, and I think we should make use of alternative housing methods. Admittedly, however, it is on the tried and trusted means of house building that we shall ultimately have to rely. On that matter the hon. Member for

  1169
  Gorbals made a very bold and far-reaching statement, which he has made before, and it is well worth following up, that the reinforcements of labour proposed by bringing back men from the Forces and the munitions factories will not be enough. The Government have explained that the labour force is now something lower than 400,000, and that they hope to bring it up to 800,000 within a year of the end of the war with Germany. Even that is 25 per cent. below their ultimate target, and is certainly anything from 200,000 to 250,000 less than the force we had pre-war. The hon. Member for Gorbals has said we shall have to produce, by hook or by crook, a greater head of labour to work on this problem. I think that is inescapable. His suggestion that that avenue of expansion of the labour force from outside sources would also need to be tried, is one which we shall need to take seriously into account.
  I heard my right hon. Friend say that there are two great forces whose responsibility housing is—private enterprise and the local authorities. In England, undoubtedly, a great contribution has been made by private enterprise. Before the war, in 1938, about 220,0000 houses were built in a year by private enterprise, and about 70,000 by the local authorities. In Scotland, the proportion was almost reverse. Roughly speaking, the proportion of house building there by private enterprise was very small. It would be out of Order to go into the many reasons for that.
  Sir Leslie Boyce: For what period is my right hon. and gallant Friend speaking? I understood that in the inter-war period 4,000,000 houses were built, 3,000,000 of them by private enterprise.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I was giving the figures for 1938, and those show, roughly speaking, a proportion of three built by private enterprise to one built by the local authority. That corresponds with the figure over the longer period given by my hon. Friend. That was done very largely by enormous expansion in the South of England in the use of building societies. It does not fully deal with the problem of the distressed areas. Nor does it deal with the problem in Scotland.
  There is a third line on which we can go when attacking the problem of housing, the public ultility company, which exists in Scotland and, to a certain extent, in
  1170
  England, such organisations as the Special Areas Housing Company or, in Scotland, the Scottish Special Housing Company or Housing Association.
  Mr. Buchanan: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman really think that that is the right body, in view of the appointments which are made to it? People are appointed who never attend. Some are Members of this House and never come near this House, and the only people who never get on to that body are the people interested in housing.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I think the hon. Member does that company less than justice. A very substantial contribution to housing in Scotland was made through that company. That is not at all to say that if one is planning a great expansion of housing through that company a great expansion of staff, in quality and quantity, to cope with its great responsibilities, would not be necessary.
  I am convinced that the housing programme in Scotland will not be solved by the Scottish local authorities. It will not be solved under present taxation conditions by private enterprise in Scotland and we must look to the further possibility of the public utility company. That might well require the utilisation of personnel and methods such as were suggested by the Noble Lady for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor) in one of her sparkling speeches which made us regret all the more that it might be her swan song in this House. There is a technique by which these new methods of organisation could be tried without doing violence to the existing machinery in this country. Unless some new trace-horse is brought in to shift this heavy load at the outlet, it will not be possible for us to solve the problem.
  I come back to the terrible problem which the new Government—the post-Election Government—will have to face. For a year the post-Election Ministers will be nailed to their seats on the Front Bench with the knowledge that, willy-nilly, they cannot produce more than 100,000 permanent type houses and about 120,000 of a temporary type. Great as the storm is now it is nothing to the storm which will be blowing about them by about the end of that year. It is the storm of the future that I ask them to look to, and to consider, when I am

  1171
  pleading for the use of new and additional forms of housing organisation as well as the forms of housing organisation which have been described here to-day.
  7.9 p.m.
  Mr. G. Strauss: I do not know enough about conditions in Scotland to say whether the suggestion that housing should be largely handed over to public utility societies would be the solution of the Scottish housing problem. All I can say, with conviction, is that that would be no solution at all in London. It would not help us in any measurable degree to overcome the very serious housing situation in London today, where it is quite clear it can only be through the action of the local authorities that we shall be able to rehouse the thousands of families wanting housing accommodation.
  I agree with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman when he expressed sympathy for the Minister of Health, or the Minister of Housing, whoever he may be, to what ever party he may belong, in six or nine months' or a year's time. However anxious and eager the Minister may be to solve this problem quickly, there will yet remain, after a year has gone by, in every part of the country, thousands of families, including many ex-Servicemen, anxiously seeking a home, living in over crowded conditions, living with relatives, who will be impatient with whatever action the Government have so far taken. Let us be quite clear in our minds that this is a problem which cannot quickly be overcome. It would be unwise or wrong for any person or party to promise too much at the coming General Election, and I hope that nobody will do that.
  But if we are all agreed about the urgency and the seriousness of the situation, it does not follow that we agree with the proposal put forward by the Noble Lady and, I think, one or two other hon. Members, that the housing problem can be kept out of politics. Indeed, it would be grotesque that it should be, because the housing of the people, poverty and the social welfare of the people are the very substance of politics. I, for one, refuse to keep housing out of politics. Indeed, during the past 25 years it has been continually in politics, nationally and locally. It has been out of the battles in this House and in town
  1172
  halls throughout the country that progress has been made, and an increasing number of houses built.
  I want to make a comment on the Government's proposals which I shall be making during the Election. As it is critical of the statement made by the Government I wish to say it first in this House, and to be candid in doing so. Quite frankly, I do not believe that under a Conservative Administration, which believes fundamentally in private enterprise and private profit, where the big vested interests are already campaigning against controls, it will be possible to accomplish the minimum programme laid down in the White Paper. My contention is not merely based on political prejudice; it is based on past experience as well. We have had promises time after time about houses, as well as other matters, made prior to an Election by the Conservative Party, and not fulfilled afterwards. If it is re-elected I do not believe that the promises made in the White Paper on this occasion will be fulfilled, whatever the personal sincerity of the Minister of Health or the Minister of Works of to-day may be.
  The Minister of Works came to the House to-day and said, "We have all these various plans, we have proposals to curb prices, we will see that there is no profiteering." He challenged Members on this side of the Committee to propose any better scheme by which more houses can be built. My reply is that whatever the Minister may now be saying, I do not believe that a Conservative majority in this House would adequately control the big monopolies, the builders or the manufacturers of housing materials.
  I do not believe that they would control the cement combines, for example. They might here and there exercise their power in the case of some gross profiteering in some small factory; but that the Conservative Party, representing the vested interests, would be ruthless in their controls over the vested interests of the housing industry, I do not believe. I do not believe that it is in its nature, knowing, as we all do, its background and its backbone.
  Viscountess Astor: Not backbone.
  Mr. Strauss: The Noble Lady is apparently excited, and does not agree with what I say. In the course of her speech she talked about the people of the Left, who did a lot of talking and never accom-

  1173
  plished anything. The people of the Left produced the two principal Housing Acts under which the local authorities have built working-class houses. A man of the extreme Left, Mr. Wheatley, produced the Wheatley Act; the present Deputy-Leader of our Party produced the Greenwood Act. In London it is largely owing to the Greenwood Act that we have got houses for our people. I have not got the exact figures, but I think it is true that when the people of the Left, who talk and do nothing, got into power on the London County Council—and I have the honour to be among them—
  Viscountess Astor: When I said "people of the Left," I did not mean people like some of the hon. Member's leaders; I meant certain other people. [Hon. Members: "Whom?"] People from Wales, for instance—you know.
  Mr. Strauss: I was not aware that all the people of the Left came from Wales. They have some in Glasgow, I thought. I think we have some in London. I have often been accused of being one of them.
  Viscountess Astor: No, the hon. Member is a capitalist.
  Mr. Strauss: May I finish what I was saying? In the London area, after the Labour majority got in, four or five times as many houses were built as there had been under a Conservative administration.
  Sir Robert Tasker: May I remind the hon. Member that he is not the only Member of this House who is a member of the L.C.C.? Does he suggest that under a Labour majority the L.C.C. built more houses than we did in Becontree and Downham? Does he seriously suggest that?
  Mr. Strauss: Yes, infinitely more. Under the Labour Administration, for the first time we got a move on in slum clearance in London. It is therefore my firm belief that there is little chance of the meagre housing programme put before us to-day being satisfactorily carried out by a Conservative Government, should one be returned. Of course, we should get some houses, but they would be far fewer and far more expensive than under a Labour Government. I believe that if we are to get the houses on the scale we all want, it will be necessary to take action as severe and ruthless as was taken
  1174
  during the war by the Government, when factories had to be taken over by the Government and operated by the Government. If we are going to get a large amount of building materials, of good quality, cheaply, it will be desirable for the Government themselves to run some of the basic factories in the national interest, in exactly the same way as they have been running some of the munition factories during the war. I am not suggesting taking over the whole of the building industry—that would be impracticable—but I suggest taking over some of its key points. But I cannot imagine that hon. Gentlemen opposite would contemplate taking such a step, as it is contrary to their whole political philosophy.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Would the hon. Member direct labour?
  Mr. Strauss: There would be no difficulty about getting labour, if adequate wages were paid.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: What about the munition factories?
  Mr. Strauss:We are going to have during the coming months, first a few hundred thousand, and then a few million, people coming back to this country. I do not think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would suggest that it will be difficult, if adequate wages are paid, for the Government to run one or two very large factories making housing materials.
  I do not know what we are going to hear about subsidies to private builders—perhaps we are not going to hear anything about that to-night—but it would be a crying scandal, if subsidies were paid to private enterprise to build houses other than houses to let. It would have to be a condition, among many others, of any subsidy to private builders that the houses should be to let—which would mean that they would be houses for the workers of this country, who are most in need of them. If they were to receive subsidies for houses that they were going to sell, perhaps at a substantial profit, it would be an outrageous abuse. And are private builders to be allowed to build houses for sale without any control of prices? It should be an absolutely firm condition that the houses must be to let.
  A passage has often been quoted in the House from one of the books written by the Prime Minister. I do not want to

  1175
  quote it again, but it will be remembered that he compares the atmosphere after 11 o'clock on Armistice Day, when the last war was over and peace had come, with the atmosphere prevailing before. Previously, if guns or tanks were wanted in large quantities, they were ordered and produced quickly. But afterwards, if houses were wanted there appeared a thousand difficulties and causes for delay. Is the same situation going to arise again?
  We hear much about making houses our first priority. That is agreed among all parties, but is it really going to happen? Are we going to be as energetic and ruthless about getting houses as we were about getting tanks and guns? I am certain that if we want to avoid serious social trouble, to say nothing of immense and widespread suffering every bit of the same vigour and resolution will have to be used to produce houses for the homeless. I do not believe that spirit will be shown by people who believe in private enterprise and profits as the best motive for industry. I believe the demand can. only be met by those who are prepared to exercise the necessary planning and control and direction; and who regard the building of houses for the people as every bit as important as was the production of armaments during the war.
  7.25 p.m.
  Mr. Molson: It is significant that in this housing Debate, just before the General Election, no hon. Gentleman has spoken from the opposite Benches who has recently left the Coalition Government. The programme which the Minister of Works has outlined to-day is exactly the same programme for which the Coalition Government were responsible, and all that we have heard so far from the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss) is that he does not believe that this Government will be able to carry out the programme which was accepted by the previous Government. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) began by attributing to the late Government the blame for not having put into operation any policy dealing with land, and said it was obvious that we could not be successful
  1176
  in our housing policy unless that had been done. I see a certain amount of agreement on the Benches opposite. There is an hon. Member, not there at the moment, the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin), who has been chairman of the Housing Committee and is now chairman of the Town and Country Planning Committee of the London County Council, who takes an entirely contrary view. He said on 15th March, 1944:
  "We should have no excuse for sitting back and doing nothing, merely because the Government have not adopted the Uthwatt Report."
  He went on to show that there were ample sites on which houses could be built if the difficulties of man-power and materials could be overcome.
  Mr. Silverman: Why does the hon. Member say that that is in conflict with what my hon. Friend said? It is possible that two things are true—that you can never deal with the housing problem adequately unless the community have power to control the use of land in the communal interest, and also that there is a great deal to be done short of that, which has not yet been done. There is no conflict between those two things.
  Mr. Molson: I noticed how inordinately long the speeches of other hon. Members have been this afternoon when they allowed themselves to be interrupted by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman). Therefore, I do not propose to give way again. As regards the programme, there has been criticism that the Government's programme for providing traditional houses in the next two years is unduly moderate; but, there again, the same hon. Gentleman, who has a great responsibility for the housing of London, has said about the Minister of Health:
  "I know that many hon. Members are somewhat disappointed with the number of houses which my right hon. and learned Friend has promised in the first two years after the war….I realise how difficult it will be to achieve even the figures which he gave. I do not say at the moment that we cannot do very much better than we did after the last war, but it is right to remember that it took us seven years after the last war to reach an annual output of 200,000 houses. That is not to say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not done well."—[Official Report, 15th March, 1944;vol. 398, c. 345.]
  Why are we to-day confronted with this appalling housing shortage? By 1939, such had been the success of the housing

  1177
  programme in the 20 years between 1919 and 1939 that 4,000,000 new houses, or half the number in existence in 1919, had been built. There was at that time, taking the country as a whole, approximately one house for every family in the country. At that time we were therefore engaged entirely in the abolition of slums and over crowding. The problem to-day is entirely a war problem, except perhaps in the case of Scotland, of which I have no knowledge. The housing problem with which we are confronted to-day is one that has arisen entirely out of the present war. At the beginning of the war, there were over a million men engaged in the building industry, of which about one-third, or 330,000, were engaged upon the ordinary repairs and renewals due to the wear and tear of time and the English climate. We have to-day in the industry only 337,000 men, who are now being called upon to carry out repair of the damage which has been done by enemy bombardment. The problem with which we are confronted is that the whole of the man-power which was required for building new houses has been scattered to the winds, and the whole of the malice of the enemy has now to be dealt with by the same manpower as was required before the war to carry out ordinary renewals and repairs. Where have these men gone to? Any competent war-time Government must apply the same restriction to housing as it has found necessary to apply to food and clothing. If you want to fight a total war, the civilian population has to go short of food and clothing and also has to go short of additional houses, and that is why at the end of six years, with approximately 850,000 more married couples in the country, there is a great shortage of houses. But the Government has no need to apologise to the country that, amongst the many sacrifices which it has had to call for in order to carry the war through to a successful conclusion, one of them has been a complete restriction upon the building of new houses. The 200,000 which had already been begun were completed, but these only made up for those totally demolished by the enemy.
  Where have all these men gone? First, they went to build camps in 1939 and went to build airfields for the Royal Air Force and the Americans when they came over, and large numbers of other men, especially highly skilled men, were diverted into the munitions industries. I
  1178
  remember the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Dobbie), as long ago as last September, saying that he thought the war was sufficiently near to being won that he wished men to be drawn back out of the Army. That was three months before the German offensive. I believe the men in the Armed Forces will say that the Government were right not to withdraw men from the Army and the munition industries until the war in Europe had been won, and, now it has been won, there is still the Japanese war with which we are confronted. When hon. Gentlemen are complaining about the shortage of houses, they might, in fairness, have said that the man in the armed forces, who complains of having had a four years' tour of service overseas, is glad that the Government was not willing to reduce the number of reinforcements available, even in order to begin building houses before they were needed. Now we are confronted with a difficulty, but I believe that the men, when they come back, will have the clearness of vision and frankness to understand that houses cannot be made to spring up like mushrooms before the men come home. It is when the men come home that they will be engaged upon the building of houses which they will then occupy. That the limit of 300,000 houses was all that could be expected in the first few years was admitted by the hon. Member for Peckham in the Debate on 15th March; and I was glad to hear the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks), though no longer at the Ministry of Works, confirming from the opposite benches his view that that was the most that could be done.
  Hon. Members in all parts of the House have asked that the Government should approach this housing problem as if it was a military operation. Well, that is exactly what they have done. It was really against the advice of the experts that they undertook a temporary housing programme. The hon. Member for Peckham was the Chairman of a sub-committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee set up to consider temporary houses. They did not approve any of them, although they were willing to give additional consideration to Duplex houses. It was what I might call the "Mulberry" mind of the Prime Minister and the War Cabinet which said, "We will try to tackle this problem in a new way and

  1179
  do for the housing of this country what was done in the way of building an artificial harbour off the coast of Normandy." In the Debates last August and September, all the difficulties were raised with very great force by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and a good many of the difficulties which were pointed out have, in fact, appeared.
  It has been difficult to find the sites, and that is why we have got a Bill to enable temporary houses to be placed in London parks in a constructive effort to deal with the immediate problem. Another of the criticisms made was that it was going to be extravagant to spend these large sums on houses that were only going to last for 10 years. I think the Minister of Works is to be congratulated that he saw how much better it would be to use some kind of method of prefabrication in order to produce a permanent house that would be a permanent contribution to the housing problem of this country. I should like to congratulate him because, after many months of work, helped by the scientists and the practical builders he had called in, he has been able to tell us today that matters have reached a point where he has been able to give a substantial order for these houses.
  There is a further point which I should like to make, and that concerns the wisdom of limiting the number of houses which are going to be constructed in the first two years after the war to approximately the number that can be completed. At the end of the last war, a large number of houses were begun and only a small number were finished, and building costs went rocketing up. My right hon. Friend is right, as the hon. Member for Peckham has admitted, in restricting the permanent building programme to approximately the number that can be finished, in that time. Therefore, the maximum number of homeless families will be housed, and the effect will also be to check the tendency for a great increase in prices.
  I was not wholly satisfied with what my right hon. Friend said about the control he will exercise over the prices of building materials. I shall look in Hansard tomorrow very carefully at what he said. When I raised this matter on the Adjournment on 15th May, I did so on the authority of a very distinguished man in the building industry—Sir George Burt,
  1180
  head of Mowlem's and Chairman of the Committee set up by the Minister to consider the new designs of houses. When such people take the view that there is either something wrong in the amount of the profit or the number of the profits, I think careful consideration ought to be given to their criticism. I was not wholly pleased to hear that my right hon. Friend was proposing to use all established trade channels for the distribution of building materials.
  I have tried, in reply to hon. Gentlemen opposite, to state quite simply and plainly why I believe that the programme, which was put before us originally by the Coalition Government and is now going to be carried out by the present Government, is as ambitious as can be made effective. There has been criticism in the country that a great deal was heard about the Portal bungalow but that nothing is being heard about it now. Again the explanation is simple. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Production, speaking in September last, said they intended to use pressed steel, and he made a guarded promise that it could be done even in war-time because the war was going very well and he thought the war was coming to an end. Well, there was the Rundstedt offensive in December, and we also ceased importing under Lend-Lease any more iron and steel from 1st January this year. What the Government expected would be a raw material in plentiful supply for housing purposes was, in fact, not in plentiful supply. It is not fair to criticise the Government for not having been able to foresee all the chances of the war, and I believe that one has only to explain that to the country for the country to be entirely satisfied with the explanation given.
  At any rate, I am glad that neither of my right hon. Friends in this Government, any more than the Government before, have tried to make promises beyond what it believed was likely to be carried out I would like to pay a tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend, and I could not do better than finish by quoting the words of the hon. Member for Peckham, because it shows the principle on which I hope the Conservative Party will go into the Election:
  "I think courage is probably the quality that is most needed. May I say to him that I believe he has shown it by coming to this House and not holding out glamorous promises

  1181
  of what he hopes to be able to do. He would have had a much easier passage in the Debate to-day if he had been able to tell the House that he had a proposition to build a million houses in the first two years, but these promises would have come back to him in the end. I think he has shown courage, at any rate, in facing the storm to-day and not promising to the House more than he can carry out."—[Official Report, 15th March, 1944; Vol. 398, c 352.]
  So far as we, on this side, are concerned, I hope we shall face any storms there may be in the country rather than make promises which, in the long run, we shall not be able to redeem.
  7.43 p.m.
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: May I say, with regard to the reference to the Portal bungalow, that whatever the reason for its disappearance from the public scene, I am heartily glad that it has disappeared? I am one of those who, from the very first, consistently criticised that particular proposition, and I am very glad that that view has been accepted by the Government.
  Mr. Mathers: Have we not been told that it was not the view that has changed, but that the change was due to circumstances over which the Government found they had no control?
  Mr. Stewart: I do not know what the reason is; I am only saying I am very glad it has gone. I want to put a question to my right hon. and learned Friend who, I understand, is to reply. I do not share the views of hon. Members opposite, of course, but I confess I had a good deal of sympathy with their general protest about this statement as to the subsidy, which I gather we are to receive. What actually happened was that the Minister, opening the Debate, indicated that there would be some statement at the end about subsidies for privately built houses. That is a matter of very great importance, and I think that the Committee ought to have been told of the proposition at the beginning and not at the end of the Debate. In the White Paper, it was stated that the Government proposed to offer subsidies to local authorities and private builders in England, but, in the Scottish version of the White Paper, the subsidy was to be confined to local authorities.
  I have never yet had the opportunity to ask why that distinction should be made. I wish to ask why the Government's policy which proposes to offer subsidies to private builders in England, should decline
  1182
  to offer subsidies in Scotland. I ask with a good deal of reason because, as my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) has shown to-day and on many other occasions, the builders of private enterprise houses in Scotland were the least successful in their efforts in the days before the war. There must be some good reason for that, and I would like to hear the Government's answer to the question. Is it not likely that, if a subsidy produces the houses by private enterprise builders in England, it is probably likely to do the same in Scotland. If that be true, why is it refused to Scottish builders?
  The hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) admitted that he did not pretend to be able to speak of Scottish conditions and, describing his own country's situation, indicated that the main problem was one which arose within the war years. It is not so in Scotland. Our problem is one which has lasted almost through the generations. We are faced with a housing shortage to which the war has contributed relatively little. Our shortage is the result of years of under-housing and the gradual decline of housing, and unless some very special and drastic measures are taken in Scotland, we shall never get over that. I understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Minister of Health is to reply for the Government and, therefore, for the Scottish Office, too, and I can assure him that Scotland will pay attention to the speeches that have been made to-day as this is the Government's last say on the matter before this Parliament ends.
  I would ask my right hon. and learned Friend a question on another matter. The Minister of Works indicated that there are going to be very large increases in the amount of labour available. I was very glad to hear that. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary told me the other day, in answer to a Question, that of the 60,000 building operatives to be released under Class B, Scotland will get its share. I would like to know what is to be our share of the men released from the industries. Of the great new wave of 400,000 men coming into the trade this year, haw many are we to get in Scotland? We ought to know that, because only when we know it shall we be able to judge whether the programmed indicated of 20,000 permanent houses, built or building, this year, and 20,000 temporary houses as well, is

  1183
  likely to be completed. Therefore, I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman if he can give me an answer to that question.
  May I also draw the attention of the Minister of Works to information which reached me only this morning. I was telephoned by one of the leading housing directors in this country who said that although his need for assistance in his work in the form of chartered accounttants, clerks, typists and people of that kind is very great—and they would be used entirely in connection with housing—he cannot get one person of that kind from the Employment Exchanges because there is no priority for housing. That is a very strange situation. I am not suggesting that there should be direction, if there is no direction in other quarters, but if housing is No. I priority, and any direction is applied to workers, then surely that direction ought to be applied, in the first instance, to housing. I would ask for an explanation of that very strange situation.
  I want to say a word to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot)—it is a pity he has left the Chamber—because, like the Leader of the Opposition, he appeared to attach very great, and I think excessive, importance to the part which land as such plays. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) takes the same view. Let us face this problem. There was a letter in "The Times" yesterday from Sir John Mactaggart. He is a man who has been 50 years in the building trade and he bought land for about 40,000 houses. He tells us in the letter that the price of land as such is a relatively small item. He gives figures which work out at two pence per week per house. It is no use trying to persuade the country that there is a ramp in land values and that land stands in the way of housing. It is not true, nor is it true that local authorities are prevented in any way from acquiring land. Under the Housing Acts they have all the rights to acquire, and equally under the Town and Country Planning Act, parts of which I criticised, they have the right to acquire land at a reasonable price.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health will notice that, so far, there has been only one reference to rural housing in this Debate. As he is to reply for the Scottish Office, may I remind him that in our rural areas in Scotland we have
  1184
  some of the most disgraceful housing conditions to be found in any part of Great Britain. I am literally ashamed to look at some of the houses in which East Fife farm-workers have to dwell. It is one of the most beautiful and richest of the counties of Scotland and has a great many advantages, and yet, for one reason or another, hundreds and thousands of people in that historic corner of Scotland are condemned to live in what are nothing short of slums in the countryside. I make an earnest appeal to the Government, when we are approaching the Election, to give us an indication that something special is being done for the rural areas. The Minister of Agriculture, only the other day, made a fresh appeal for a greater production of foodstuffs. There is to be a scheme for inducing many more people to work on the land. All that is humbug, unless houses by the tens of thousands are provided in rural areas. I therefore invite the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is, I know, sympathetic, to give us the assurances we want, so that those of us who come from rural areas may go into the Election, on whatever side of the House we sit, with assurances to offer to those whom we address, that their housing troubles, as well as those in Glasgow and London, shall receive the full attention of the Government.
  7.53 p.m.
  Mr. Gallacher: I listened to the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) make the most amazing speech I have ever heard in this House. He seems to have come from some far-off planet, and to be unaware of the conditions in this country. I have never heard so much complacency in the presence of such terrible tragedy and suffering, as has been expressed here to-day. I would like to make a reference to the speech of the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot). I asked him a question arising out of a statement he was making about land. I asked, why, if land is not vital, are the people of Glasgow crowded together in such masses, and, why, when there is a housing scheme, are there no amenities provided for the people? His answer was, "I do not think much of the Socialist majority in the Glasgow Corporation." What an answer. No Member opposite is prepared to answer the following question: Why is it, when there is a housing scheme, no matter what authority it is, that it is always necessary

  1185
  to get the maximum of houses on the minimum amount of land? Why is it that a Bill has to be passed in this House permitting temporary houses to be placed in public parks, when there is abundance of land available? As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) has said, you cannot solve this problem unless you deal with the land. "Free the land and house the people," is a very good slogan and a very true one. The hon. Member for The High Peak told us that the housing problem is a war-time problem, and that in 1939 we had solved the housing problem, but he did not know anything about Scotland. If he had added "and England and Wales," I would have been in agreement with him. Is anybody prepared to say that the housing problem was solved in Wales in 1939?
  Mr. Molson: I said that there was, approximately, a house for every family in this country. I did not say that the standard of the housing was satisfactory but that we were in fact demolishing slums and replacing them by good housing.
  Mr. Gallacher: If there was a house for every family in this country, I did not know where the houses were to be found. The Minister of Health did not know where they were, and the masses of people who were huddled together in the sub-lets did not know where they were. Was there a house for every family in London? My hon. Friend here, the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Key), as the representative of one of the London areas, could answer that question. Was there a house for every family in Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds and Newcastle? Before the war I heard the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) make one of the most terrific speeches I have ever heard in this House, with great drive and appeal, about the horrible and ghastly conditions which existed in the countryside in his own area in Wales. Time and time again in this House we have discussed the horrible housing conditions in rural parts of England as well as in Scotland. It is appalling nonsense to say that there was a house for every family in this country in 1939. There was a house in this country for every parasitic family; every parasitic family had a house, with abundance of accommodation, but masses of the people were crowded into sub-lets and living under the most
  1186
  appalling conditions in the countrywide. The hon. Member went on to say that the Government were not prepared to stop reinforcements for the Services in order to provide labour for houses. The Government could not possibly stop reinforcements. Is the hon. Member aware of the fact that hundreds of thousands of wives and children of soldiers at present have no houses in which to live? They are living with relatives, with friends and in sub-lets. Does the hon. Member know what is going on in this country? I am sure he does not or he would not have talked as he did.
  Mr. Molson: Was the hon. Member in favour of calling men back from the Forces to build houses in this country, before Russia had won her part of the war?
  Mr. Gallacher: If the hon. Member had listened, instead of attempting to make that facetious remark, he would know that I said that, of course it was quite right that the Government should not withhold reinforcements. But how can anyone make the remark he made about building houses when the houses were needed? Does he not understand that the houses are needed now? Does he not understand, when we talk about soldiers coming back and no houses being there for them, that their wives and children at the present time are without houses, that they are living under the most appalling conditions? He does not seem to understand that. Everything is going nicely for the hon. Member. He has a nice house, I suppose; everything is very comfortable for him, so he seems to think that everything must be very comfortable for everyone else. That is the sort of attitude we always get on the other side of the Committee, and that is the sort of attitude which would prevent us from getting on with any real building programme. I say, free the land, control the building materials, and supply the local authorities with interest-free loans, and the local authorities will do the job and supply the people.
  8.2 p.m.
  Mr. Key: That the housing problem is the greatest social problem now facing this country is the obvious conclusion from the Debate today. I shall not attempt to assess the

  1187
  magnitude of that problem—whether we want 4,000,000 houses in 10 years, or 6,000,000 in 12 years. What is quite obvious is that the number we require is far in excess of anything we shall be able to produce in the next two or three years. Therefore, it is up to us, by the best organisation we can devise, by granting the fullest powers to the local authorities, by sweeping on one side class privileges and vested interests, by traditional methods and by any new plans of prefabrication to produce the greatest amount of shelter we can in the shortest period for our people.
  No one method will yield the results we require, and we must be prepared to adopt any and every method. I am quite certain that the first thing we have to attend to, is the repair of the exsiting houses, particularly those so badly damaged that they are vacant, and the conversion or adaptation of the large houses with greater vigour than is being shown at the present moment, in order that we may produce, within the next six months, the shelter that will be so sorely needed as this winter comes along. The erection of temporary houses, where that will assist and not hinder our programme, should be speeded up, even to the extent, as the House agreed on Tuesday, of the use of the much-needed open spaces in our country. It is shelter, and ever more shelter, that will be needed as the winter approaches, and the great numbers of men and women are demobilised or returned to their original homes from the places to which they have been directed for war-time production.
  Another problem will arise out of this dearth of shelter which will be one of great seriousness. There are very large numbers of young men and young women, married during the war, who have never yet attempted to set up homes who, when released from the Services, will be looking for accommodation. Even if they can find empty rooms—and I am convinced that they will not be able to do so—the obtaining of the necessary furniture to equip them will be impossible. As a result there will arise—unless we take the steps to prevent it—a very serious problem with regard to the exorbitant rents that will be charged for furnished lettings, over which we have not, at present, the necessary control.
  1188
  Meeting that problem of shelter, however, is no solution of the housing problem. Tin huts and wooden shacks are not houses, and solving the housing problem is an even greater and more difficult task than the immediate shelter problem; it is a task which, in my opinion, is comparable to the organisation of war production, and has to be tackled with no less enthusiasm, no less drive, no less foresight and no less detailed planning. I am convinced that if the housings problem is to be solved it must be upon a basis of full planning. The local authorities have been asked to submit plans for two years and they have had sanctions to buy land limited to those plans. My claim is that no real planning can be done upon that basis. Much longer programmes must be worked out, in order that the supply of services and materials, roads and layouts should proceed in a proper, orderly manner. More than that, I am convinced that we cannot do the planning merely upon the basis of a mosaic of the annual or biennial plans of local authorities. The housing problem of our big industrial centres can only be really solved on a basis of decentralisation, on the planning and building of satellite towns and garden cities, on the redistribution of industry, on great movements of the population, and all that is a programme far beyond the powers of local authorities so far as planning is concerned. Therefore we must have a definite national plan for housing purposes, and in order that that may be carried out, a Department definitely set aside and charged with the duty of co-ordinating all the activities that are contributory to the solution of the problem.
  I want to take up, too, the land problem, because I am convinced that without adequate and proper control over the land, no real planning, whether of agriculture or industry, housing or transport, will be possible at all. The statement was made here to-day that the land problem is not a major one so far as provision of houses is concerned. Statements have been made about the cost of land being 1½d. a week on the rent of the house. My local authority is engaged, at the moment, in negotiations for the purchase of land for housing, and the average price we have had to pay, under compulsory purchase orders, has been anything from£8,000 to£10,000 per acre. If you make provision

  1189
  for houses and flats and open spaces and build, on the average, 30 tenements per acre you are not going to tell me that land at£9,000 per acre, or£300 per tenement, in its interest and capital repayment charges, will mean only 1½d. a week extra on the rent of the house. It is nearer 3s. than 1½d. That is why, without a sound land policy, there is no real hope of getting a sound housing policy. We shall not get that in this type of House because, so far, the landed interests inside the dominant political party here have been sufficiently powerful to prevent any sound land policy from being produced. In fact, so obstructive have those interests been that we have been prevented from discussing the White Paper on Land Policy.
  Mr. Molson: The hon. Gentleman's party never asked for it.
  Mr. Key: That is not true. In the industrial areas difficulty in the acquisition of land, and the price that has to be paid for it when acquired, provide one of the greatest problems for local authorities. The only sane way of dealing with that problem is for the nation to become the owner of whatever land is required for housing purposes, and to let it at nominal rents to the local authorities, whose duty it will be to provide houses for the ordinary folk.
  What is true of land is also true of finance. Only if local authorities are guaranteed money at a stable and reasonable rate of interest can they hope to build houses to let at rents which ordinary people can pay. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech boasted—and, I think, justifiably—that the financial controls that had existed during the war had not only prevented a rise in the rate of interest but had brought about an actual fall. Now it seems that every effort is to be made to remove those controls, and that a war-time reduction is to give place to a peace-time increase. Higher rates of interest mean higher rents for the working class. The average price of a working class house, at any rate in our big towns and their surrounding areas, including the price of the land on which it is built, is likely to be in the neighbourhhood of£1,000. A rise of 1 per cent. in the rate of interest will mean that on the average, over the whole period of the loan which is necessary to meet the cost, there will be an increase of 2s. a week in the rent. That is the situa-
  1190
  tion which the party opposite will bring about for the working class if they have their way, and are able to remove the financial controls.
  There is another matter in connection with housing which has been mentioned in a rather queer sort of way, and that is the provision of a subsidy. My experience has been that the Government have been both anxious and eager to discuss the amount of subsidy that is to be provided for the private builder or private purchaser of houses, but have not made anything like the same headway about the subsidy for local authorities, who will be responsible for building houses to let. There are to be real doles for those who buy, but there are to be higher rents for those who have to rent. It is true that this House passed an Act which led to the application of the slum clearance subsidy, but those pre-war sums were recognised as totally inadequate for the purpose and an assurance was given that in a few years' time, in the light of the increased prices which might have resulted, there would be a revision of those figures. Local authorities have been given no real indication of the amount; there is no assurance that the assistance will be adequate for the job they are trying to do. If they are to go ahead with housing then a firmer assurance of adequate help must be given than has been forthcoming up to now. There must be consideration of the subsidy for houses to let.
  The Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he cannot possibly discuss the question of a future subsidy without discussing future legislation. If I allowed one Member to discuss that I should have to allow others to do the same.
  Mr. Key: I am sorry if I have transgressed, but I was only following in the steps of the Minister of Works, who him self mentioned the question of subsidy and said that the Minister of Health, who would reply to the Debate, would deal with the matter.
  The Chairman: I cannot help what the right hon. Gentleman said. Neither a Minister nor a private Member can be allowed to go outside the Rules of Order, which must apply to all.
  Mr. Key: I can only accept your Ruling, Mr. Williams, but I would add

  1191
  that unless great attention is given to the question of the ability of local authorities to face up to their problems they will not be able to go forward in the way they should in order to provide an adequate number of houses for our people.
  The next problem with which I wish to deal is labour. There is too great a tendency to talk of this merely as a matter affecting what are ordinarily known as building trade operatives. Nobody would wish to minimise their importance, but my experience is that there are other people whose labours are essential as a preliminary to the work of the building trade operatives, and it is the dearth of these people which is holding up so considerably the early stages of the housing programmes of the local authorities. There is, for instance, all the work of survey and purchase of sites. In my own area a site of some 30 acres involves negotiation with from 500 to 600 separate interests. The amount of work in negotiating, issuing notices, surveying, and so on, is such that, although it is being attempted at the present time with very restricted staffs, it is in many cases beyond the capacity, even of those who are willing to work considerable overtime.
  I have had the task and the privilege, on a large number of occasions, of speaking on behalf of the local authorities' associations at the Ministries with regard to this matter. While at all times we have received very sympathetic attention, it has gone very little beyond sympathy, and has resulted in the supply of very little labour. With all these problems there is necessity for a reorganisation at the centre to deal with the correlation of the supply of material and labour, the securing of land and approval of plans, in order that the local authorities may be able to deal with one central organisation and thus be able to work smoothly in their job. Housing is the most important social problem with which we are faced. A night or two ago some of us listened to the palpitating peroration of a broadcast speech which talked about:
  "the cottage home to which the warrior will return, blessed with modest but solid prosperity, well fenced, and guarded against misfortune."
  In the last war it was "homes for heroes"; in this war it is to be "cottages for warriors," nestling, no doubt, under the shadow of the castles of their lords
  1192
  or the factories of their millionaire employers. I want to know where the cottages are. Where is the indication that there is any real drive in the preparations?
  I will give a few actual experiences of the operations of the Administration in attempting to deal with this problem. According to the promises that were made to the House and to the local authorities, as from 1st January of this year there were to be erected in the London region during every week 500, not cottages, but temporary bungalows. The promise was 500 a week, 2,000 a month. What has been done? Not 500 in the first week, because when last I raised the matter in the House I was told it was quite obvious we must begin in a modest way and step up production as the weeks proceeded. Not 500 in the fifth week, or the tenth week, or the fifteenth week. Not in the whole of the five months that have passed since 1st January have the Ministry of Works accomplished the equivalent of the programme for one week. From 18thMay, which was the last date to which I could get reliable returns, there have been erected and completed in the London area 431 temporary bungalows. Such is the measure of the appreciation of the urgency of the housing problem.
  But there is more to it than that. This job, we were told, was to be tackled as a military operation, with soldiers in command, and with a meticulous attention to details, so that the erection could proceed with military precision and accuracy. How does that tale tally with the facts? In my local authority's area at the present moment there are 21 temporary bungalows standing empty, and not handed over to the local authority for letting, while there are hundreds of homeless families in the are wanting accommodation. Why? Because such is the attention to detail, so precise are the military preparations that have been made, that although the bungalows were wired for electrical equipment, no provision has been made for the supply of the necessary D.C. apparatus for the job. In a week's time another 20 bungalows will be added to that same list. The Ministry of Health are not much better than the Ministry of Works. On many occasions we have been to the Ministry to plead for more staff, more key men, in order to allow us to plan the job, prepare for it and get started on it. As

  1193
  a result of the promises made to us, my local authority appealed to the Ministry of Health, because we had been given a promise that they would use their influence to get the necessary staff. Last week we got a reply which began:
  "Under the current arrangements the Minister is unable to make any recommendation to the authorities for the release of the officers concerned";
  and ended by saying:
  "It will be open to the council to make further application for the release of their key men having regard to the current conditions when the conditions governing such release are published."
  There are many local authorities in exactly the same position, desirous of getting the necessary key men and technical men to do the job, but receiving no assistance to get them.
  But there is more to it than that. The local authority to which I belong is very keen to be ready to start on house building as soon as that is possible. In my area we have lost more than 40 per cent. of the housing accommodation. Even those houses were not houses for single families. There were 47,000 families living in 23,000 houses in that area.
  We were eager to start on the job and we made our plans. We wanted compulsory powers for the purchase of 30 acres of blitzed and blighted land, and last year the formal Order was made by the Council. Application was made to the Minister last December for confirmation of the Order. Objections were raised, and it took three months before the Minister could hold an inquiry. After the inquiry it took another month for us to be told that the Minister intended to confirm the Order. That was ten weeks ago, and we have still no confirmation of it. We have still no power to enter upon the land, even to start clearing it for the purpose of using it for housing. When we inquire why there is this delay, we are told that it has been impossible yet to print the Order which has to be sent out. I want to know why there is this dilatory, dawdling procedure. Such a thing as that would never have been allowed to happen in the Services which are directly connected with the conduct of the war against Germany. The war against squalor, overcrowding and slumdom is no less urgent and vital than that. Then why the difference in drive? I think the answer is pretty clear.
  1194
  To many hon. Members opposite, and the people they really represent here;—not their constituents—the war against Germany was a struggle to preserve their privileges in the possession of land and property and their powers of exploitation of the labour and lives of the working people. The war against squalor and misery, the provision of real homes for the people, can only be made by the lessening of those privileges of possession and the abolition of those powers of exploitation, and it is their determination to preserve their privileges and powers which explains not only their failure to give local authorities adequate and expeditious powers to acquire land for housing, but the mutilation of the Location of Industry Bill which has taken place and the shameful delaying tactics adopted against the Requisitioned Land Bill. The solution of this problem involves changes in our land laws, adequate control over investment and finance, the organisation of industry to produce the essential materials and the provision of an adequate labour power, well equipped, well trained, well treated and well paid. From this Government those essentials will never come. I am convinced that it is only along those lines that the problem can be really solved. It is only from a Parliament and a Government prepared to adopt those methods that the people can hope to secure the homes for which they have worked and fought for so long. My earnest hope is that the next month will see the advent of both.
  8.35 p.m.
  Mr. McIntyre: In a minute or two it is not possible to discuss the serious aspects of Scottish housing. I wish there was a time limit on the erection of houses in Scotland, as there is on this Debate. We have heard many Election speeches from both sides of the Committee, but it has not been impressed upon me that the Government are dealing with the matter seriously enough—no doubt they take housing seriously, but not seriously enough—to overcome the obstacles. I shall have to confine myself to one point, and that is that the administrative arrangements for dealing with houses in Scotland are deplorable and chaotic. I should like to know, for example, what the Ministry of Works, is doing in interfering in Scottish affairs, in which, from past experience, they have shown themselves ignorant and incompe-

  1195
  tent. I should like to know if as a first step we cannot have a Ministry of Housing set up for Scotland, for lack of houses is the most serious material difficulty that we are facing to-day. It seems that the people generally are getting too used to the lack of houses. One of the Ministers said that it is an abnormal situation. It may be in England but unfortunately it is only too normal a situation in Scotland. Children are even having to go to the poor house because respectable folk cannot get houses. I hope the Government will show enough seriousness in looking at the Scottish position to change their administrative arrangements.
  8.36 p.m.
  The Minister of Health (Mr. Willink): A very great number of points have been referred, to in this wide ranging Debate, some of which I shall be unable to deal with in the time that is left, but I intend that we shall deal at least by correspondence with every one. If I were to try to identify the two points which stand out in my mind, they are these—first, that every hon. Member who has spoken has stressed the need for the utmost, and indeed the most ruthless, vigour in dealing with the extremely difficult situation in which the war, and in particular war damage, have left us at the moment. There are none more determined to act with vigour in this matter, in every direction, than my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works and myself.
  The other feature of the Debate, which is, I think, of very great interest, is a point made at the beginning of the Debate by my right hon. Friend: I think we are entitled to ask the Opposition how many more houses they think they could build than the Government programme and what measures they would take which we are not already taking? During a large part of the winding-up speech from the opposite benches the Opposition were represented by one right hon. and three hon. Members sitting on the front Bench, and at no time in the course of that speech have there been more than 12 Members of the Opposition present.
  Mr. Foster: Why raise that point? What about your own side?
  Mr. Willink: If any question of that kind is raised, the answer would appear to be that those who sit behind His Majesty's
  1196
  Ministers have confidence in their policy and achievement. If, however, their policy or achievement were under criticism, I should have expected to find the big battalions represented on the Opposition side. Not one single Member of the Opposition has suggested that the Government programme is inadequate or that it is not going to be achieved.
  Mr. G. Strauss: That was the burden of my speech. The right hon. Gentleman may not have heard it.
  Mr. Willink: I apologise if the hon. Member said that—I think his was the only speech that I did not hear—but the suggestion was certainly made in neither of the speeches from the front Bench.
  Mr. Silverman: Every speaker on this side has said it.
  Mr. Willink: I should like first to mention certain general aspects of this problem and refer to the speech made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Edinburgh (Sir A. Erskine-Hill). He put forward the proposition that in every way we must broaden the basis of our effort.
  Mr. Silverman: Where is he?
  Mr. Willink: There are a number of hon. Members who have spoken in the Debate, including the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), who opened the Debate, who, no doubt for good reasons, are, like my hon. Friend the Member for North Edinburgh, no longer in their places.
  Mr. Silverman: Then why complain of us?
  Mr. Willink: Hon. Members are under a misapprehension in their constant interruptions. I was not complaining of their absence; I was commenting on the fact that their small attendance indicated that they did not think they had any very strong or vigorous case to make against the Government's programme.
  Mr. Silverman: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not entitled to do that. He is surely not entitled to suggest that Members on this side are away for insufficient reasons, whereas those behind him are away for sufficient ones. The very Member to whom he is referring, who made a rather critical speech which showed that he had not full confidence in the Government, is not here to hear the answer.
  Mr. Willink: My hon. Friend has intervened on neither a point of Order nor a question of fact. I was not complaining or criticising because hon. Members of the Opposition were absent for a bad reason or not for a good reason; I was saying that the thinness of the Opposition benches, the Opposition having demanded the Debate, appeared to indicate that they had not a very strong case to make.
  The policy of His Majesty's Government is to use all methods of construction to increase the number of houses in the shortest possible time. We shall take direct action wherever that is appropriate and shall use all the normal agencies. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Works referred in his speech to certain aspects of direct action in the matter, for example, of temporary houses and of permanent houses which make full use of methods of pre-fabrication. Both these types of houses, and the permanent houses of traditional type which will be built by the local authorities, will be under the control of the local authorities and built on sites which they have acquired.
  I desire to use most of the time available to me in giving an account of the partnership which exists in England and Wales between my Department and the local authorities. We work closely together, as my hon. Friend who has just sat down knows—I shall comment on some of his observations with regard to the working of the partnership—and I desire to let the Committee know what progress has been made. All those of good sense appreciate that the war has prevented, except in very special circumstances, the building of houses during the last 5½years, but now the ban can be removed. The Committee will want to know in what state we are, in what state the local authorities are, how much of all that tiresome priority work, which has to be done in advance of actual building, has been accomplished, and how we stand with regard to building itself.
  I shall refer to one or two points of a general character which were made by hon. Members before I come to the rest of my speech. The junior Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) regretted that the Restrictive Practices Bill was not on the Statute Book. I can assure the hon.
  1198
  Member and the Committee that we not only have power under Defence Regulation 55AA to make inquiry into all cases of that kind, but we are determined that the housing programme shall not be frustrated or made more expensive from that cause. My hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) and the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) spoke of the labour position, but it is only right to say that the demand that the building industry should be swollen to perhaps twice its normal size for a period of perhaps three or four years, which I understood was something like what the hon. Member for Gorbals was suggesting, is fraught with great risk to those who would be brought into the industry, swollen temporarily on these terms. The better course is to use for this emergency period the production capacity and labour which is not of the normal building type, and that is what my right hon. Friend is so active in doing.
  War damage was not referred to until comparatively late in the Debate. I would claim that in this great London Region the actions of the previous Government, which are being carried on by the present Government, provide an example of what was asked for by several hon. Members, namely, that the Government should not hesitate to bring men of distinction and ability from any field to direct and guide emergency work right through this housing programme. I think that the Committee will be interested to have a short report on the achievements in the field of war damage repair since 31st March, which was the end of the period of the winter target.
  Here I would say with confidence that over the two months of April and May, the figures for which I am about to give, the action on repairing the very heavy loss to the homes of Southern England has been remarkable. The figures I am giving fall under three headings. There were still, at the beginning of April, houses damaged by rockets which had not teen able to have even the "field dressing." But 1,820 of these had that work don; to them in these two months. During the two months 147,576 houses which had been damaged to a serious extent, so that they could not be described as in any sense fit for reasonable habitation, have been brought up to a standard of reasonable comfort. In addition, 60,477 have in these two months been brought to the

  1199
  maximum standard far first-aid repair, which is, in substance, everything short of decorations.
  This is a matter on which we have had to concentrate during this period, and have been right to concentrate, a great head of labour. That will continue for some little time ahead. It is sometimes forgotten that since the date when the target of 300,000 houses built or building was fixed, in March, 1944, we have been set an enormous additional problem to solve. We had certain set-offs in the speeding-up of demobilisation and the more rapid building cup of the industry, but it cannot fairly be suggested by anybody that the advantages we have been able to gain by additional devices and resources can outweigh the enormous strain and burden cast on the building industry by the flying bomb and the rocket.
  While I am saying a word about war damage I think it would be right that I should say something about the repair and rebuilding of houses either totally destroyed or so damaged as to be in substance useless, which are entitled to a cost of works payment under the War Damage Acts. Those who have paid their contributions and whose houses it is in the public interest should be rebuilt have a really high claim to priority for the restoration of their homes. The programme of new housing for the next two years must include some provision for the rebuilding of these houses. I said last March that we feel that such houses, if of moderate size, have a high claim to priority in the building programme. There are about 50,000 such houses. They were all of them good houses, but they were of all sizes and all sorts. We do not feel that it would be justifiable at the present time to devote the necessary labour and materials to the rebuilding of large houses required for the accommodation of one family only. We therefore propose in this first period that priority should be given only to houses the rateable value of which in 1939 did not exceed in London£100 and elsewhere£75, those being the rateable values used for the purposes of the Rent Restrictions Act of 1939. This category will cover probably 90 per cent. of the houses which I have mentioned.
  The War Damage Commission is at present engaged in surveying all these totally destroyed cost-of-works houses,
  1200
  and when that survey is complete we shall know exactly how many there are, how many fall within the limits which I have mentioned and how many are affected by planning considerations which would make their rebuilding unwise; and that will enable us to reach a net figure of houses to be included in the two years' programme. I shall authorise the new building programmes of each local authority in the light of information supplied to me on the quantity of labour and materials likely to be available and I shall arrange my authorisations so as to secure that the re-building of these war-destroyed houses shall proceed proportionately with the new house programme. I shall tell each local authority how many houses can be built in its area, including these houses—and of course these houses include not only privately owned houses but local authority houses—and then it will be for the local authorities, having got their ration, to decide the order in which the eligible houses should be rebuilt and to issue certificates of essentiality. The actual rebuilding will be left in the hands of the owners. They will obtain licences on the strength of the certificates they get and they will be entitled to priority for materials and labour. The local authorities will have to weigh up the various factors in deciding how to apply their ration, but I should like to take this opportunity to urge on the owners of these destroyed properties the wisdom of joining up with their neighbours in the same area and of employing the same builder, so that their properties can be rebuilt together. That would undoubtedly increase both speed and efficiency. In Scotland there will be similar, though not identical, arrangements, because this particular problem of the destroyed houses is far smaller and so detailed a plan will not be necessary.
  Another example of the vigour with which the housing shortage was dealt with by the previous Government, and will continue to be dealt with by this Government, is the use which we have made and are continuing to make of existing accommodation, reduced in quantity as it is. I have delegated to the clerks of all housing authorities power to requisition houses for the inadequately housed as well as for the bombed out. The number of houses held under requisition on 31st December last, the last date for which I have complete figures, was 82,752; the

  1201
  number of houses requisitioned for the bombed out was 57,631; and for the inadequately housed 4,931. This process must continue in these difficult days.
  A good deal was said, particularly from the Opposition Benches, on the subject of land, much of it I venture to think—and I feel confident that I am right—on a most falacious basis. The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) called attention to a letter which appeared in the "The Times" yesterday in which a well-known large-scale builder of privately built houses wrote that the element of land in the rent of certain houses which he built amounted to no more than 2d. a week. It was interesting that his figure for the land element in rent—perhaps by virtue of the fact that he was a gentleman engaged in private enterprise—was lower than that for the houses built by local authorities who may have to acquire their land compulsorily. But the land element in the rent for local authorities' houses is really diminutive compared with all other elements. I know that there are special features about the expensive land in the centre of London, for which, of course, special provision is made by way of special subsidy for flats built on such expensive land. But perhaps I may give the Committee two figures which are of interest, figures for the whole of England and Wales excluding London. The element of the cost of land in the rent of local authority houses, over the five years ended 31st March, 1938, was 17s. 4d per house per annum, or 4d. per week, and the corresponding figure for houses built on recently acquired land is going to be a little lower—just about 3¾d.
  The suggestion that either the cost of land or the difficulty of acquiring land is in any sense an obstacle to our housing programme is fantastic. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Key) cited some period of delay in these very hard-pressed days, when the number of schemes coming into my Department which involve compulsory purchase orders is, of course, legion. What is the force of talking about a period of three months or of one month before the results of a complicated local inquiry are known and the final compulsory purchase Order is confirmed, unless there is some jot or tittle of evidence that that delay will hold up the building of a house? There is no evidence whatever that there is going to be a delay for one
  1202
  single hour in what can be built in London during the period immediately to come, where the bulk of the work will have to be for some months the repair of war damaged houses.
  Mr. Key: Why have the inquiry?
  Mr. Willink: It is most important to inquire where local authorities are going to acquire land compulsorily. For the hon. Member to charge the Government with delay in those circumstances seems to me, with all respect to the hon. Member, to be entirely fallacious.
  I want to go on from that to the question of the provision of land for permanent and temporary houses. The local authorities have at their disposal special powers and an expedited procedure for the acquisition of land. The Committee will want to know what the results of their administration and that of my Department have been. I can, if it is desired, give separated figures, though not in the time that is available, as between England and Wales and Scotland. For permanent houses the local authorities already possess considerable areas of land. At the moment the housing authorities of Great Britain already own enough land for 276,000 houses, considerably more than enough for the programme which, on all our evidence as to labour resources, the local authorities can possibly carry out during the two years. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley says, without rising in his place, "All in the wrong places." What evidence is there for that suggestion? The situation is entirely different from that at the end of the last war. All those sites have been acquired after the question of their acquisition has been referred not only to my Department but to the Minister of Town and Country Planning, who has had to ascertain that there was no agricultural objection and no objection from the Ministry of War Transport. The preparations for the acquisition of appropriate sites, the vast bulk of which were made, of course, during the period of the Coalition Government, have been remarkable in comparison with what was done at the end of the last war. It is important to look forward and I am informed that local authorities already have in contemplation additional purchases for another 300,000 permanent houses. There is not going to be a hold-up of building because of the ownership of land. Nor, indeed,

  1203
  will there be this year or next year any hold-up because land is net developed. Sites for 35,000 permanent local authority houses are already fully developed with roads and services, and many more are in course of development.
  So far as sites for temporary houses are concerned I can give a good account there, too. Acquisition has been carried out under pressure of time, because the Act was passed only on 10th October. So far as England and Wales are concerned, 119,000 temporary houses have been allocated to local authorities, who have already submitted and had approved sites for 85,000 houses. They have already acquired sites for 56,000 houses.
  Mr. Buchanan: Can the Minister give us the figures for Scotland?
  Mr. Willink: I can, indeed. The position in regard to temporary houses in Scotland is as follows: 20,000 sites have been approved and 11,280 have been acquired.
  The progress has been upon these lines: From 10,000 to 12,000 sites for temporary houses are being approved and acquired every month, and under the Bill which the House approved yesterday we have every reason to believe that enough land for the total number of temporary houses will have been approved by July and acquired by September. The development of sites is, of course, a matter of man-power. I sympathised with the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley when he said that one of the great difficulties was availability of technical officers. The trouble about these gentlemen is that they are giving such extremely valuable service where they are. It is difficult to get a competent Royal Engineer officer or someone of that kind out of the Services at the moment. However, the matter is going forward. It was announced last March that 1,000 expert technical officers were to be released at the earliest possible moment. I hope that hundreds of them will be arriving very soon.
  It is not only sites and site development in which we are interested—it is the building of houses, and it is my business and that of local authorities to see that they are ready to start with any number of houses which the available building resources will enable them to put in hand. Two months ago I asked all housing
  1204
  authorities to let me know what number of houses they would have sites ready for building on during the six months, April to September. I am glad to say that they inform me that in England and Wales there will be 102,089 sites fully developed, ready for building on by September. It is clear that the governing factor will be the availability of building labour, but we can see some way ahead. Already I have authorised 273 local authorities in England and Wales to call for tenders for just on 11,000 houses, that is, for houses to be built on the approximate number of sites which were ready at the end of last month. I shall continue to expand that programme as sites and labour become available. As I have said, the number of houses which can be put in hand must be governed by the position as to labour, which we shall see more clearly as the weeks go on.
  Little reference was made, except, I think, in one or two speeches, to a matter which has worried me greatly—that is, the allocation of such houses as become available. I feel, with the hon. Member who has just spoken, a great anxiety for those young couples who have never set up home before. Another point which gives me anxiety is that local authorities naturally feel a primary responsibility to those who lived in their area before the war. But there will be countless people who will be setting up homes, because of their work, in areas with which they had no connection before the war. With all we can do it will be a long time before there are enough houses to go round comfortably. The local authorities have the difficult task of allocation, and I think it is right that they should have that responsibility. The situation is extremely difficult at the present time, and will continue to be so, because so many men and women left their homes and joined the Services or took up employment in the national effort. Many of them are anxious lest their claim for consideration should be prejudiced by absence from home.
  I have therefore been in consultation with the Service Departments and with the associations of local authorities to ensure that effective steps are taken to enable those in need of housing accommodation to submit their applications in such a way as to ensure that they will receive appropriate consideration. An explanatory leaflet and form of application have been drawn up which will be distri-

  1205
  buted by the Service authorities to officers and men in His Majesty's Forces. Within a fortnight from now, at the latest, I intend to issue a circular to local authorities to tell them of the arrangements, and to ask them to accept these forms as sufficient application for houses in their area from those who, either because of long service in the Forces, have no established associations with any particular district, or, because of new employment, must live in a district other than that in which they lived before enlisting.
  I am asking that such applications should be considered by the local authority as though it were from a local resident. In the distribution of houses everyone must agree that the overriding consideration must be that of need. But it is our aim that serving and ex-Service men with families, who have no separate homes, shall have all possible consideration in the provision of housing; that their absence from home shall not prejudice their position in the waiting list; and that special consideration shall be given to the families of those retained for service in distant theatres of war.
  There were some curious anticipations among various Members of the Opposition that I should grossly transgress the rules of Order this evening. I can assure you, Mr. Williams, that I never had any intention of proposing that payment of subsidies should be made without Parliamentary sanction. But this I would say, with regard to private enterprise, in the first place—and I shall say a little more before I sit down: it was the announced intention of the Coalition Government that all house-building agencies should be able to make the fullest contribution to the building of houses, when building should be resumed; and that arrangements have been made to enable local authorities to start, and are in train to enable private builders to start, during the present building season. The local authorities have been authorised to make a start without waiting for legislation dealing with subsidies to them. I was a little surprised at some of the observations of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Key), because it had been agreed with the authorities that the fixing of subsidies should be postponed until experience had been gained of the cost of building, and that the subsidies should be made retrospective, so that local authorities should not be prejudiced by the fact that they
  1206
  started building in advance of legislation. So far as private builders are concerned, the Coalition Government had intended to introduce this Session a Bill providing for subsidy in respect of small private house-building, for sale or for letting.
  Mr. Silverman: On a point of Order. I understand that it has been a Ruling of the Chair, applied very severely to my hon. Friend in front of me, in making a winding-up speech, that reference to the matter that the Minister is dealing with is out of Order.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: In view of the fact that very strong observations were made by the hon. Member who has just intervened, I trust, Mr. Williams, that the Minister will be allowed to proceed.
  The Chairman: I am watching the right hon. and learned Gentleman very closely, and I feel sure that he will not mention future legislation, apart from the one sentence he has used.
  Mr. Willink: It was the intention of the Coalition Government to introduce this Session such a Bill, but the course of events has necessitated the postponement of legislation. It would not be in Order for me to make any statement to-day about legislation. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) was under an utter misapprehension. There has never been any question at all of either making or promising payment to anybody without Parliamentary sanction.
  It is in Order for me, I hope, to state what administrative action, under the powers that Parliament has already conferred, the Government intend to take now to make it possible for private persons to begin the building of small houses during the present building season. The Government propose to authorise a start on housebuilding by private people by means of the machinery of licensing, for which the Ministry of Works is responsible. Licences will be issued only in respect of houses which comply with certain conditions. These I am now permitted to announce, and the Committee may like to know of them in view of the interest which has been shown by hon. Members. Licences will be issued only for the building of houses of between 800 and 1,000feet superficial area, and of which the selling price, if the house is sold, is not more than a maximum of

  1207
  £1,200. The number of houses to be licensed in any area will be settled after consultation with the local authority and will be related to the available labour resources and the house building programmes of local authorities. The great period of house building in this country was five years before the war, in which, four-fifths of the building was by private enterprise.
  Ordered: "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Mr. Cary.]
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  ADJOURNMENT
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Cary.]
  9.15 p.m.
  Mr. Silverman: I want to respond to the invitation made to me by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot). I could not do so before, because I would only have delayed the Minister and he would have lost his opportunity, but I think that, on the Motion for the Adjournment, I ought to make it clear—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but there is a very strict Rule against raising matters on the Adjournment, which have been mentioned in the previous Debate.
  Mr. Silverman: I am not going to do so.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, but the hon. Gentleman started off by referring to some words used in the previous Debate.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Sixteen Minutes past Nine o'clock.

  CENTRAL ECONOMIC AND STATISTICAL STAFF
  CENTRAL ECONOMIC AND STATISTICAL STAFF
  NATIONAL FINANCE
    Companies (United Kingdom and Colonial Taxes)
    Companies (United Kingdom and Colonial Taxes)
    Income Tax (Cripples)
    Income Tax (Cripples)
    E.P.T. (Post-War Credit)
    E.P.T. (Post-War Credit)
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (TRAVEL VOUCHERS)
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (TRAVEL VOUCHERS)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Cattle Grading (Warbles)
  Cattle Grading (Warbles)
  Rations (Rural Building Workers)
  Rations (Rural Building Workers)
  Smoked Sprats and Eels
  Smoked Sprats and Eels
  Fish (Refrigeration)
  Fish (Refrigeration)
  ROYAL INDIAN NAVY (NOTICE LEAVE)
  ROYAL INDIAN NAVY (NOTICE LEAVE)
  RUDOLF HESS
  RUDOLF HESS
  PNEUMOCONIOSIS AND SILICOSIS
  PNEUMOCONIOSIS AND SILICOSIS
  MORATORIUM, COAST AREAS
  MORATORIUM, COAST AREAS
BRITISH ARMY
  Requisitioned Properties
  Requisitioned Properties
  Overseas Service (Home Leave)
  Overseas Service (Home Leave)
GERMANY
  Reichsbank Return
  Reichsbank Return
  Armed German Troops
  Armed German Troops
  NORWAY (SITUATION)
  NORWAY (SITUATION)
  DEFENCE WORKS REMOVAL (GERMAN LABOUR)
  DEFENCE WORKS REMOVAL (GERMAN LABOUR)
  TANKS (INSPECTION BY MEMBERS)
  TANKS (INSPECTION BY MEMBERS)
GENERAL ELECTION
  Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Votes)
  Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Votes)
  Electorate (Statistics)
  Electorate (Statistics)
  Poll Cards
  Poll Cards
  Electoral Register
  Electoral Register
  Repatriated Civilian Prisoners of War
  Repatriated Civilian Prisoners of War
  Motor Vehicles
  Motor Vehicles
  FOREIGN INDUSTRIALISTS (BRITISH NATURALISATION)
  FOREIGN INDUSTRIALISTS (BRITISH NATURALISATION)
  GAS MASKS
  GAS MASKS
  WAR GRATUITIES
  WAR GRATUITIES
  ANDERSON SHELTERS
  ANDERSON SHELTERS
  HERR HANFSTANGEL
  HERR HANFSTANGEL
  PRISON STATISTICS
  PRISON STATISTICS
  BURGLARIES
  BURGLARIES
  LONDON TAXICABS (CONSTRUCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS)
  LONDON TAXICABS (CONSTRUCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS)
  STREET MEETINGS
  STREET MEETINGS
  ENEMY ALIENS (REPATRIATION)
  ENEMY ALIENS (REPATRIATION)
PUBLIC HEALTH
  International Sanitary Conventions
  International Sanitary Conventions
  Vaccination (Deaths)
  Vaccination (Deaths)
  Diphtheria
  Diphtheria
DEMOBILISATION
  Directed Mine-Workers
  Directed Mine-Workers
  Army Pay and R.A.F. Accounts Departments
  Army Pay and R.A.F. Accounts Departments
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Patents (War Restrictions)
  Patents (War Restrictions)
  Government Factories, Wales
  Government Factories, Wales
  Hides and Sheep Skins
  Hides and Sheep Skins
  PRIVATE CHATTELS INSURANCE
  PRIVATE CHATTELS INSURANCE
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
  London Squares
  London Squares
  Housinģ Sites (Acquisition)
  Housinģ Sites (Acquisition)
AGRICULTURE
  Rabbit Traps
  Rabbit Traps
  Reclaimed Land, River Dovey, Wales
  Reclaimed Land, River Dovey, Wales
  Italian Labour
  Italian Labour
  NATIONAL SERVICE (BOYS' CALL-UP)
  NATIONAL SERVICE (BOYS' CALL-UP)
  ARTIFICIAL LIMBS (ADVISORY COMMITTEE)
  ARTIFICIAL LIMBS (ADVISORY COMMITTEE)
  PENSIONS AND GRANTS
  PENSIONS AND GRANTS
  GERMAN SUBMARINE (SUNDERLAND)
  GERMAN SUBMARINE (SUNDERLAND)
  FISHING GROUNDS (MINE CLEARANCE)
  FISHING GROUNDS (MINE CLEARANCE)
  UNNATURAL OFFENCES
  UNNATURAL OFFENCES
  LIVING ANIMALS (EXPERIMENTS)
  LIVING ANIMALS (EXPERIMENTS)
  DOUBLE SUMMER TIME
  DOUBLE SUMMER TIME
  DEPARTMENTAL MINISTERS (PARLIAMENTARY SALARIES)
  DEPARTMENTAL MINISTERS (PARLIAMENTARY SALARIES)
  SCHOOL MEDICAL SERVICES (DEVELOPMENT)
  SCHOOL MEDICAL SERVICES (DEVELOPMENT)
  BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR, 1947.
  BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR, 1947.
HOUSING
  Site Preparations (Prisoners of War Labour)
  Site Preparations (Prisoners of War Labour)
  Sites (Acquisition)
  Sites (Acquisition)
  Rural Housinģ, East Suffolk
  Rural Housinģ, East Suffolk
  Prefabricated Houses
  Prefabricated Houses
  RURAL WATER SUPPLIES, RUGBY
  RURAL WATER SUPPLIES, RUGBY
  HOSTELS (ELDERLY PEOPLE)
  HOSTELS (ELDERLY PEOPLE)
BILL PRESENTED
  Postponement of Polling Day Bill
  Postponement of Polling Day Bill

Preamble
The House met at two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
The Lord Clifford of Chudleigh—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Lord Somers—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.

FINANCE (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; and read Ia.
HOUSING (TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; and read Ia.

PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD STANMORE): My Lords, the Resolutions which stand in my name on the Order Paper carry out the customary practice of the House in connexion with Private Bill legislation when a Dissolution of Parliament occurs in the middle of a Session. They are practically in identical terms with the Resolutions passed by the House when Parliament was dissolved in 1929 and 1931.
The object of the Resolutions is to permit promoters to re-introduce their Bills in the next Session at the same stage as that which they have reached in the present Session, and to exempt them from being charged new fees in regard to such stages, thus securing that the work and expense already expended on such Bills during this Session will not be wasted. I understand that similar Resolutions will be moved in another place. I beg to move.
448
Moved to resolve—
That the promoters of every Private or Provisional Order Confirmation Bill and petitioners for Estate Bills which shall have been introduced into or presented to this House in the present Session of Parliament, and which shall have passed this House and been sent to the House of Commons, or which shall be pending in this House, shall have leave to introduce or present the same in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Private Bill Office not later than noon on the last sitting day of the present Session; and provided that all fees due by them thereon, up to that period, be paid.
That an alphabetical list of all such Bills, with a statement of the stages at which they shall have arrived, shall be prepared in the Private Bill Office, and printed.
That every such Bill which has originated in this House shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than three o'clock on or before the third day on which the House shall sit after the next meeting of Parliament for business other than judicial business, with a declaration annexed thereto, signed in the case of a Private Bill by the agent, and in the case of a Provisional Order Confirmation Bill by an officer of the Department by which the Orders to be confirmed by such Bill are made, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session.
That in case any such Bill brought from the House of Commons in the present Session, upon which the proceedings shall have been suspended in this House, shall be brought from the House of Commons in the next Session of Parliament, the agent for such Bill, or an officer of the Department, as the case may be, shall deposit in the Private Bill Office after the Bill shall have passed the House of Commons and prior to the First Reading thereof in this House, a declaration stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session.
That such Bills shall thereupon be deemed to have been passed through every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session; and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages.

449
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply to any Private or Provisional Order Confirmation Bill which shall have originated in this House or been brought up from the House of Commons in the present Session, in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed.
That every certificate from the Examiners of Standing Orders for Private Bills given in respect of any Private or Provisional Order Confirmation Bill originating in the House of Commons, upon which the proceedings shall have been suspended in that House in the present Session, shall be deemed to have been given in respect of such Bill, if the same shall be brought from the House of Commons in the next Session of Parliament, and any notices published and served, and any deposits made in respect of such Bill, in respect of the present Session shall be held to have been published, served and made respectively for the Bill so brought from the House of Commons in the next Session of Parliament.
That all, petitions presented in this Session relating to any Private Bill shall, if necessary, be referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session.
That no petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on any Bill unless their petition shall have been presented within Lie time limited in the present Session, unless that time shall not have expired before it closes, in which case, in order to be heard, their petition shall be presented not later than the fourth day on which the House shall sit for business other than judicial business in the next Session.—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them with the said Resolutions.

PORT GLASGOW GAS AND BURGH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Common.

GOVERNMENT OF BURMA (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL.
2.9 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE EARL OF SCARBROUGH): My Lords, I rise to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill. It is a short Bill, but it is set in the midst of great events and is a part of a wider policy towards Burma. Your Lordships will probably think it appropriate if I outline briefly the background against which the Bill needs to be considered. The great success of the astonishing campaign of the Fourteenth Army, which has liberated the greater part of Burma earlier perhaps than many people expected, made it a matter of immediate necessity to make provision for the future government of liberated Burma. The policy to be followed was, therefore, set forth by the late Government in a White Paper on Burma which was laid before Parliament on May 17. There can be no doubt, and there need be no misunderstanding, about the objective of the policy of His Majesty's Government. It has frequently been declared, and it has been repeated in the White Paper, that that objective is the attainment by Burma of Dominion status as soon as circumstances permit. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has pointed out, Dominion status is in fact the status which we enjoy in the United Kingdom and carries with it not only the privileges of independence but also the practical advantages of membership of a world-wide Commonwealth. That is the position which we wish Burma to attain.
Nor need there be any doubt that we wish her progress towards that position to be rapid as well as orderly. That progress has certainly not been made easier by the Japanese war. The invasion of Burma, three years of occupation by the Japanese Army, great military operations on land and in the air, have left a trail of destruction across the country. The entire economy of the country has to be rebuilt and the political and administrative structure needs to be reconstituted. Those are the conditions which have to be faced now in Burma. They do not alter our intention to assist Burma to

451
reach her constitutional goal as quickly as possible, but they do require that the stages by which that goal should be reached should be designed to meet the exceptional circumstances created by the war.
As your Lordships will have seen from the White Paper, four stages are contemplated. They can Abe outlined very briefly as follows. First, there is the period of military administration, which is now in being in those areas which have been liberated. It is not possible to fix a definite date by which the military administration will be replaced by the civil administration, as that must depend upon the progress of military operations; but we can hope that the Government of Burma will have resumed its task in Burma before the end of the year. The second stage will come when civil administration is resumed and it will be a transitional stage during which the Government of Burma will prepare for the reintroduction of the constitutional regime of the Act of 1935. This stage will require the temporary extension of the present emergency form of Government under which the government of Burma has been carried on since December, 1942. It is this temporary extension which requires legislative action by means of the Bill now before your Lordships.
When it is possible to hold a General Election in fair conditions, the third stage will be reached. The emergency form of Government will come to an end and there will be a restoration of self-government under the Act of 1935, with a Legislature and an Executive responsible to it. It will then be for the representatives of the Burmese people themselves to bring about, by agreement amongst themselves and with His Majesty's Government, the fourth stage of Dominion status—Dominion status, that is, for Burma proper, the Shan States and other scheduled areas remaining under a special regime, until they desire otherwise.
Those are the stages very briefly outlined by which it is proposed that Burma, in spite of the interruption to her political progress caused by the Japanese invasion, should reach her constitutional goal. It will be seen that this Bill is concerned only with the second stage—
452
the transitional stage—and I now turn to the provisions in the Bill. Your Lordships will recollect that the Act of 1935 contained emergency provisions designed to meet a situation in which the Government of Burma could not be carried on in accordance with the normal provisions of the Act. Section 139 is the relevant section of the Act and it is similar to Section 93 of the Government of India Act under which the Government of certain Provinces in India has been carried on for some time. The maximum period during which the Government can be carried on under this section is limited by the Act to three years and as the section was invoked on December To, 1942, the present emergency form of Government must cease to exist in December of this year unless amending legislation is passed.
With the disruption which has occurred of political life in Burma, it would clearly be impossible to revert at that time to the normal provisions of the Act and it is therefore proposed to extend the period. Subsection (I) of Clause I of the Bill permits this extension for three years more. I would like to make it clear to your Lordships that this extension does not mean that the emergency form of Government must continue until December, 1948. We hope, indeed, that before then it will be possible for the Government of Burma to restore the electoral machinery to working order and that internal conditions will permit fair elections to be held as the first essential step in restoring the full operation of the other provisions of the Act of 1935. This period of three years is, in fact, a precautionary period within which it is hoped it will be possible to hold elections and so establish a normal régime.
The factor which must govern the length of this period is the time which it will take to produce conditions in which elections can be held and there are some practical difficulties which are bound to take some little time to overcome. For instance, the main voting qualification has disappeared as the taxes, the payment of which forms the main qualification under the Act of 1935, were repealed by the Legislature and no substitute qualification had been provided before the invasion. No doubt that is a matter which can soon be remedied. But new electoral rolls will, in any case, have to be made. At the best of times this is a more pro-

453
longed business in Burma than we are accustomed to in this country, but with the destruction of records, the dislocation of communications, the movement of population during the fighting and the depletions of the Government services which have taken place, there can be little doubt it will take a considerable time. Those are examples of the practical difficulties which have made it appear prudent to allow for as long as three years for the preparations which will be necessary before the normal Constitution can be restored.
The first purpose of the Bill, then, is to provide for the extension of he emergency form of Government. The second purpose of the Bill is to take power to liberalize this emergency form of Government. Subsection (2) provides that this may be done by Orders in Council which will be subject to the approval of Parliament. The object of this provision is to enable the Governor to obtain the greatest possible measure of Burmese co-operation during this period by, for example, forming an Executive Council in which not only officials but also non-official Burmese can be included, and by setting up an interim Legislative Council enjoying a wider measure of popular support. The Governor is most anxious to make the fullest possible use of these powers and to do so at the earliest possible moment, as he wisely desires to secure the co-operation of Burmese of all Parties for the tasks of reconstruction from the outset. Those are the two purposes of this Bill and T hope your Lordships will agree that they will help to provide a practical basis on which the Government of Burma can begin the great tasks of reorganization which await them when they return to Burma after an absence of more than three years.
During that time the Government of Burma have remained in being and have been hard at work planning both for immediate rehabilitation and for longterm reconstruction. Your Lordships will wish to hear something of these plans for restoring the economic life of Burma. I will not go into great detail but will endeavour to give an indication of their main features. The restoration of rice and of timber production on which the economy of Burma so largely depends are clearly of special urgency. Plans for these are complete in all their main details and the procurement of the necessary
454
equipment is being rapidly proceeded with. Plans for the restoration of transport and communications both by land and waterways have been worked out and capital equipment for them and for public utilities is being obtained. Consumer goods also are being acquired to meet the essential needs of the population. The first steps in the restoration of normal life are of course being taken by the Civil Affairs officers of the military administration and, since many of these are members of the Burma Civil Services, close co-ordination between their initial steps and the plans of the Government of Burma can be expected.
All these projects involve expenditure by the Government of Burma and, as that Government have at present no resources of their own, His Majesty's Government have agreed to make available the money required. Long-term plans deal with such matters as the supply of credit to the cultivator, the restoration of land to the cultivator, the development of medical and public health services, the extension of education, and the improvement of local administration. On all these matters it will be essential that reconstruction should proceed in accordance with Burmese ideas and it is here that it will be so necessary to associate Burmese of all shades of opinion with these plans before they are finalized and therefore at the earliest possible moment. Side by side therefore with the plan of the White Paper for the political advance of Burma must be placed these plans which the Government of Burma, with the assistance of His Majesty's Government, have prepared for the restoration of the economic life of the country and which they hope to implement with the co-operation of the Burmese people. I feel sure your Lordships will look upon both these projects with the greatest sympathy.
Burma has suffered in this war, not through any action of her own, but at the hands of the aggressor of the East. She has given no assistance to the enemy except for a mere handful of her large population and most of these later turned against Japan. Many more have fought for long on our side and have rendered most valuable service to our troops, particularly the tribesmen of the hills. The welcome which our troops have received as they liberate Burma has been genuine and most friendly. Burma has indeed a

455
very strong claim on our sympathy and on our assistance. We are trying to meet that claim, so far as our resources enable us to do so, by the help which we are giving her for her economic restoration and by assisting her to attain the position of a Dominion as quickly as possible. The policy for her constitutional advance was drawn up by the late Government. All Parties in that Government contributed to it. It will retain, we hope, their full support. It is a flexible policy. It does not depend on a rigid adherence to dates. It depends more than anything else on the co-operation which will be given to it by the Burmese people. We hope that it will be accepted by them as the best method of attaining their desires quickly and in an orderly way.
I feel sure, too, that your Lordships will wish that good luck will go with the Governor of Burma when he returns to Burma and with those, both British and Burmese, who have stood by him during these difficult years. Few Governors of His Majesty's territories have had to meet such catastrophic events as Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith. It would be fitting and just if his service to Burma during her tribulation were followed by the satisfaction of setting her successfully on the road to recovery. I ask your Lordships to give assent to the Second Reading of this Bill and, if your Lordships will agree, perhaps we could secure the remaining stages of the Bill to-day also. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a —( The Earl of Scarbrough.)
2.27 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am glad to be the first speaker this afternoon to be in a position to congratulate the noble Earl opposite on a double event—a rather rare occurrence in our debates here—his maiden speech as a member of your Lordships' House and his maiden speech as a representative of the India and Burma Office in the new Government. After the really admirable speech to which we have just listened I am sure I can say that the House hopes to hear the noble Earl speaking again on many future occasions, and that he will receive an equally attentive hearing whether he speaks in an official or a private capacity. That does not imply any forecast about the future. The
456
people of Burma are fortunate in securing as Under-Secretary one who has already served an apprenticeship in India, and particularly at a time when we are expecting new developments in policy to be laid before Parliament. My noble friend's quick grasp of a new and complex subject is shown by the exposition to which we have listened of Burma policy, and I would like, if I may, to congratulate him both on the policy of the White Paper and the Bill which he has submitted and also on the manner in which he has presented them to your Lordships' House.
These plans for the future of Burma are, as I know from the months I had the honour of spending at the India and Burma Office, the outcome of a long period of incubation. During this period an immense amount of detailed preparatory work has been done by the officials serving at the Burma Office and on the Governor's staff. I feel that a word of praise and thanks is due to those conscientious and industrious civil servants to whom the people of Burma will owe much for the good start they are likely to make as soon as the Civil Government is able to go back. The approval given to this policy by the Cabinet and its generous acceptance last week in another place are due primarily to the really inexhaustible patience and pertinacity of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I believe there is no member of the present Cabinet more sadly misjudged by the general public than the Secretary of State for India and Burma. This really extraordinary misconception is partly due to his own old-fashioned indifference to Press publicity and partly to the Indian habit of personifying in the Secretary of State everything they resent in British rule. But I am certain that when, in days to come, history will be written, it will be found that among the illustrious incumbents of the India and Burma Office none had a keener intelligence or a more genuinely progressive mind than the present Secretary of State. This Bill and the policy that lies behind it will rightly be credited among his solid achievements.
Few of us had dared to hope that the liberation of Burma from north to south, by the fall of Rangoon, would happen before the monsoon season, and I should like to associate my noble friends on these Benches with the tribute paid by the

457
noble Earl opposite, in his opening remarks, to the gallantry and endurance of the ordinary soldiers, British Indian, Ghurka, or African, fighting in difficult country under terrible tropical conditions, and to the skill and daring of the Generals and officers who led them. A short while ago we had a first-hand account of the exploits of the African troops from my noble friend the Duke of Devonshire, and all the reports indicate that the campaign in Burma has been one of the most arduous and brilliantly executed campaigns of the whole war. Its early and successful conclusion has made it possible for your Lordships to discuss the future of Burma this afternoon.
Everyone recognizes, I think, that no scheme for the attainment of self-government and Dominion status in any part of the Empire can hope to succeed without the close and continuous cooperation of the local inhabitants. I was very glad that the noble Lord opposite emphasized that point. I think he said —it my memory is accurate—that the effectiveness of this policy would depend upon the co-operation of the Burmese people. This whole programme for the rapid advance of Burma to independence within the Commonwealth does rest upon the basic assumption that this co-operation will be forthcoming. The Government's proposals have not had an entirely favourable reception, either at home or overseas and the scheme could be wrecked if irresponsible criticism were to persuade the Burmese population to be either actively obstructive or to indulge in passive non-co-operation with the British authorities. But I believe that many of the misgivings which have been expressed have been due either to a genuine misunderstanding of the Government proposals or to hopes that have been raised beyond what is immediately practicable by the re-establishment of national government in liberated countries more politically mature than Burma.
We must do our utmost to convince the Burmans that we are utterly sincere when we talk about early self-government. We all want them to Le as free from outside interference as Canada or Australia or any other Dominion just as soon as this can be done without causing anarchy or economic chaos. We are willing for the Burmans to start discussing their final Constitution end, presumably, the terms of the treaty they
458
would conclude with His Majesty's Government before the pre-war Parliamentary regime has been restored, and directly a National Legislative Council has been selected to assist the Governor with his plans for reconstruction. Sir Stafford Cripps, in the course of his speech in another place last week, said that these discussions and negotiations might eventuate within three or four years in full self-government, and this forecast was not contradicted by the Secretary of State when he wound up the debate. We are surely justified in asking the Burmans to exercise patience and self-restraint during the short time we believe to be necessary for orderly progress to unfettered home rule.
I hope that one of the problems that the body that drafts the new long-term Constitution will consider will be how to secure an Executive responsible to the Legislature but nevertheless sufficiently stable to be efficient in the discharge of its administrative duties. No one who has followed the working of Parliamentary institutions in Burma between 1937 and 1942 can be satisfied by the then relationship between Ministers and their colleagues in the Legislature. But the Westminster model is by no means the only example of successful democratic institutions, and I believe that the American and Swiss systems might be studied with advantage in adapting the machinery of democracy to conditions prevailing in oriental countries.
There is one other point I should like to emphasize in this scheme for rapid advance to self-government in Burma. The autocratic rule of the Governor will lapse immediately a General Election has been held, and he is under a statutory obligation to arrange a General Election as soon as conditions in Burma make it possible. My noble friend opposite explained with great lucidity, I thought, the precise obstacles that lie in the way of a General Election at the moment and that will have to be removed before a General Election can be held. I should like to emphasize that this is a statutory obligation and that the Governor will not be in a position to exercise his free choice. According to Section 139 of the Burma Act, he can only govern by Proclamation so long as he is convinced that the Government of Burma cannot be carried on according to the provisions of the Act, which, of course, prescribes among the

459
essentials of the Constitution a Burmese Legislature and a responsible Ministry.
But I can see nothing high-handed or derogatory to Burma about a short period of direct rule, during which the Burmese leaders will be brought into partnership with the Governor, to tide over the interval that must elapse before a General Election can be held. After all, this is exactly what has happened in France. Until the autumn elections General de Gaulle will continue to govern France through a Ministry appointed by and responsible to himself, and with the assistance of a Consultative Assembly which acts in a purely advisory capacity. But Burma has no national leader like General de Gaulle who can command the support of the people as a whole, and we cannot allow any political faction to seize power before all the inhabitants of the country have had a fair chance of choosing their own Government. I cannot, for my part, see anything unreasonable in asking Burma to accept a transitional period of direct rule which will safeguard the future of the Burmese people from aspirants to political power—just such a period as the liberty-loving French have found indispensable in their own well-established democracy.
I do not think it can be repeated too often that the success of this scheme ultimately must depend on our capacity for winning the good will of Burma from the outset. It will, in this connexion, be highly desirable for us to obtain the support, not only of the old-timers who helped us before and during the war, and to whom we owe more than we can ever acknowledge, but of many of the young men who have risen to positions of political or military leadership in the Anti-Fascist Organization or the Burmese national Army. They represent new and important elements in the national life of Burma. I therefore hope that there will be as wide an amnesty as possible for those who helped the Japanese in any way during their occupation of the country. Let us not forget that the responsible Burmans who helped the Japanese did so because they thought that it was the best way of serving their own people, and not because they were in the least well-disposed towards Japan.
I should only like to say this in conclusion. This Bill, and the White Paper policy for economic reconstruction and
460
political advance in Burma, mark a turning point in the history of a British Dependency with a much larger population than any of the Dominions. They promise the biggest step forward since the 1935 Act. The speed with which this policy can be carried through will depend on whether we can secure the confidence and co-operation of the Burmese people. We have one great asset in the personality of the Governor, Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith. He comes from County Cavan, and this is, perhaps, why he has more understanding of national feeling than the ordinary phlegmatic Englishman. He is devoted to the Burmans as well as entirely sympathetic to their political aspirations, and I greatly hope that whatever Government may be in power after the General Election they will appoint Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith to preserve the continuity of his fine work for Burma. I am sure that our more responsible critics will realize that there is no practical alternative to a policy which has the support of the House of Commons and of all three Parties in the State. If they really have the welfare of the population of Burma at heart, they will surely encourage the Burmans to give their whole-hearted cooperation to this scheme for the economic reconstruction of their devastated country and for the swiftest possible advance to full nationhood. I hope your Lordships will give your support to the Second Reading of the Bill.
2.43 p.m.
LORD RENNELL: My Lords, may I add to the words of the noble Lord who has spoken, my very sincere congratulations and appreciation of the speech which the noble Earl opposite made? It is no doubt the very able and sincere tone of that speech which prompted the noble Earl who has just spoken, also to speak in such generous terms of the colleagues with whom he has been recently associated. The approval which the policy of His Majesty's Government, outlined in the White Paper, has had in another place and in the country generally, is, I suppose, universal. If, therefore, I have to make certain comments I should like the noble Earl to believe that they are not made in any way as criticisms of the policy but rather to point to one or two dangers which may arise in its application.
With the policy I think we must all be in agreement. The difficulty is that

461
what we believe to be the right and probably the only course will not necessarily be believed elsewhere to be as sincere as we know it to be in this country, if only for the reason that the pi ogress of the Burmese Constitution towards the goal of self-government for Burma as an independent Dominion in this Commonwealth is in the four stages to which the noble Earl referred. There must inevitably be a danger that when this progress is marked by no less than four stages, the delays at each stage in moving from one to another may seem intolerable and possibly deliberate. It is therefore my object to urge the Government—or whatever Government may be in power- -to be as speedy as possible in moving from stage to stage. That seems at least to be an elementary precaution. That has been emphasized in another place and referred to by the noble Earl in hip opening remarks, but it is a point which cannot be too often stressed.
The four stages concerned are the military administration now set up, the administration by Proclamation under Section 139 of the Burma Act, the restoration of the 1935 Constitution and, Emily, self-government and independence as a Dominion. The first two stages are entirely within our power to determine. They will depend obviously, to some extent, on the degree of co-operation between the Governor and the Government of Burma and the Burmese people, but the first of these two stages—namely, the military administration—lies even more in our power in determining whether or not the organization of the Burmese people has reached a sufficient point of development to enable us to get on to the discussion of a future Constitution. If I urge that the period of military administration should be brought to a standstill and should give place to the second stage as soon as possible, I do so because I wish to take an action which will convince the Burmese and others that we intend these four stages to follow one after the other as rapidly as possible.
I do not think anyone in your Lordships' House will wish to accuse me of any hostility to military administration and Military Government. I am aware of their necessity and of their competence to deal with a situation left behind after a conquering Army has entered a territory. Indeed, I can think of instances where a
462
Military Government could, with advantage to the people of the country, have been carried on rather than to give place to civil administration. The position in Burma is somewhat different in that we have in India—if it is not an impertinent way of referring to it as in partibus in fidelium—a Governor and a Government. The noble Earl has referred to the fact that the military administration contains a very large number of former Burmese civil servants, but is it not inevitable that the very existence in the military administration of these civil servants should have the effect of making them look over their shoulder to the Government of Burma in India, and is it not human for the Government of Burma in India to be somewhat irked by someone else conducting an administration which they must inevitably feel they could do better themselves?
Military administrations are transient things and ill-equipped to consider long-range constitutional developments and political opinions. There is, moreover, inevitably in any military administration a tendency on the part of those who conduct it, not always to put military considerations first and civil considerations afterwards, but sometimes to put military considerations first and the rest nowhere! I have some experience of that myself, and it is in the light of that experience, and in these circumstances, that I would urge that the military administration be terminated, if not forthwith at any rate within a term to be measured by weeks and not by months. If it cannot be terminated everywhere in the whole of the Burmese territory which has been reoccupied, it should at any rate be terminated in as much of that area as is possible, leaving certain areas where military operations are still in progress possibly under military administration, but with the closest contact with the Burmese Government in Rangoon.
In point of fact Burma has been liberated, either by the ejection of the Japanese or by their elimination; and, although ports and airfields must inevitably be used for the prosecution of the campaign, and certain Burmese resources in labour and natural resources will be required by the Commander-in-Chief, there is nothing in the way of sedition and unrest—or at least, so it would appear from the White Paper—which would justify the continuation of a military administration. Indeed, the White Paper and the noble

463
Earl's remarks suggest that so far from there being any widespread unrest, sedition or difficulty in the conduct of military operations from Burma as a base, the reverse is the case. If we have been disappointed—or rather, I should say if we had been disappointed —by the behaviour of certain elements in Burma in the early days, these disappointments have evidently to a large extent been not only mitigated but removed by the conduct of many of those Burmans themselves who, after closer contact with Axis doctrines and Japanese practices, have perhaps thought that association with ourselves was preferable in the interests of their people and their country.
I believe not only that this is the case but, judging from information from other sources, which is available no doubt also to your Lordships, that in point of fact there is a very considerable enthusiasm for nationalism in the very best sense abroad in Burma at the present time, a movement among people who hitherto have taken little part in their own affairs and shown little interest, but who have now devoted not only themselves but their lives to the liberation of their country within the measure of what they could do. It is to capture that spirit that I urge that the speediest possible action should be taken to go from the first stage to the second stage, and from the second stage to the third stage, and to remember that the third stage is not the final goal but merely a stage on the way to that goal—a goal which has been stated in the White Paper and reiterated by those who have spoken for His Majesty's Government.
I believe that the method which has been adopted to state the policy of His Majesty's Government, however much we may be in agreement with that policy, savours a little of what I and other noble Lords have had occasion to observe in statements of policy dealing with over-sea matters in the Empire—in other words, of doing good by stealth. Sir Stanley Reed in another place made a point to which I should like to refer, namely, that this outstanding event, the capture of Rangoon months before it was expected, in circumstances which do the utmost credit to the Fourteenth Army, and which liberated almost the whole of Burma and gave it back to the Commonwealth, was heralded not by any statement
464
by His Majesty's Government, not by any Minister, not by any event with any dramatic quality about it or by any publicity, but by the publication of a White Paper. If that is not doing good by stealth, I do not know what that expression means. It is the stealth by which this good is done which inevitably must lead to suspicion such as has already been engendered, and which must be encountered abroad So long as these ways are pursued. It is not too late to take some action and make some statement which will rectify the feeling, which many people must have, that if our policy is to be outlined in a White Paper and put forward in a somewhat hole-and-corner way, there must be something suspicious about what we say we are going to do.
I come back, therefore, to what I said before. The first and most important thing to be done is to produce by some action an event, even if it be only the termination of military administration, which will convince the Burmese and others that the policy which the noble Earl and others have outlined is in fact a real, sincere and vital policy on the part of all of us in this country. That is vital if we are to avoid the misunderstandings in Burma which have arisen in India, and if we are to avoid not only trouble but possibly active hostility on the part of those very people who helped to eject the Japanese from their country themselves.
There is one last point which I should like to make. The noble Earl has referred, perhaps inevitably, in somewhat general terms, to the financial assistance to be given to Burma. It is not quite clear to me from what he said whether the financial assistance which (to use his own words) is to be made available will be in the form of a gift or a loan, or upon what scale it is to be. No doubt that will appear in the Papers and Bills which will be laid hereafter. Whatever form that assistance may take, it must be adequate. We must do what we can. What we can do, however, must be limited. I hope that neither in this country nor elsewhere has the Treasury been held out to the Burmese as a kind of widow's cruse, upon which they can draw not only for the necessary rehabilitation of their country but for that development which must in fact come out of Burma's resources at long last, and be found by the Burmese, with the assistance

465
which men of other races can supply of things which the Burmese themselves lack. It is by that co-operation between the Burmese and others that development will take place, and that the resources necessary must for the most part be found.
Here it is very necessary to dispel from the minds of those who have it in Burma and elsewhere the idea that the Burmese, or indeed the people of any other country in that stage of development, are sufficient unto themselves, and do not require assistance from elsewhere. That me ins on the part of the Burmese and of all others equally the acceptance of the necessity of give and take in the right sense of that expression, and not in the sense so frequently given to it not only in Burma but elsewhere, that "give and take" means "you give and I take." I trust that this Bill and the policy of which it is the outcome will be accepted by your Lordships' House, and that whatever can be done to expedite development and lead to a happy ending of Burma's problem will be done.
2.59 p.m.
LORD HAILEY: My Lords: I hope I may be forgiven if I approach this subject not so much in the light of what has been said in this House as in the light of criticism of this measure which has been voiced in the outside world. I think that that is very important because, like the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, I regard this as a very signal occasion. It is the first occasion on which we have had to deal with one of our possessions which has been liberated from the grip of Japan, and it will be taken in the outside world as an earnest of our own future policy in regard to our Dependencies. I should like to join with Lord Rennell in regretting that an occasion in our history as signal as this has not been given greater publicity or surrounded with all that manifestation of its importance that we should like to have seen. I venture to repeat here a remark that was once made in the American House of Representatives, that it is a pity to put your head in the sand, because by doing so you inevitably exhibit to the world what is after all the seat neither of your intelligence nor your conscience.
From that I pass to some of those outside criticisms, for I do not find, from what I have been able to read or to learn,
466
that the support given to this measure is quite so universal as has been assumed here. I see that in part of the outside world at all events the question is asked: Why, when you have liberated this country, do not you give full effect to what, after all, is the intention of the Atlantic Charter, that liberated areas should be at once free to choose their own form of government? I think that that criticism is due partly to an over-simplification of the facts, and partly to a real misunderstanding of the situation. I think it is not generally appreciated by those who voice that criticism that there must be some difference between the situation of liberated countries that were formerly independent of outside control, and of those countries which were subject to political control because in the latter case there is an intimate connexion between the Power which formerly controlled them and a responsibility on its part for seeing that the stages by which they can approach the full expression of self-determination are orderly and well arranged and follow a course that will give the most satisfactory results.
Further, I think that criticism is also due to one of these outstanding difficulties that we have in terminology. In American circles at all events there is only one word that is fully understood in this connexion, and that is "independence," whereas we speak of "self-government." It is a problem, I understand, that has caused a good deal of trouble lately at San Francisco. It is difficult perhaps for others to appreciate our own standing in this matter. Independence, after all, is a clear-cut constitutional term; self-government within the Commonwealth expresses relations that are not entirely constitutional, are certainly not well defined, and perhaps are rather psychological than formal or technical; and it is always difficult for us to convey to others any conviction of our determination to give to our former Dependencies the substance of self-government, unless we use the word "independence."
That is the kind of criticism that has been levelled against this measure in part of the outside world. But may I take also what evidence we have of local reactions to this measure? It is difficult to speak of them with any certainty, for I understand that the full terms of the White Paper have hardily yet been published in Burma itself, but I am referring

467
in particular to what was said on the subject in two articles recently published in The Times. I have no doubt that your Lordships will have read them; they were interesting and full of information. The general tenor of them is that on all sides in Burma there is a demand for immediate independence, and that is particularly strongly felt by the organization of which we hear so much, the Anti-Fascist Organization. But I felt myself when I read those articles, and I think some of your Lordships must also have felt, that they were not perhaps quite realistic. It must be very difficult indeed in the circumstances of Burma to form any opinion of what is the mass feeling on a subject like this. There must be a tendency to attach importance to certain sections of opinion with which you come more closely in contact, and I feel myself that undue importance has been attached to the feelings of the Anti-Fascist Organization and the various bodies for which it is said to stand. After all, when we are told that the Anti-Fascist Organization was fighting for the Japanese, not from any dislike of us, but because of its desire for immediate independence, it appears to me that it has been guilty of some confusion of thought at the least. To believe that fighting for the Japanese is a way of securing independence sounds to me somewhat paradoxical, and one might be justified in the feeling that it might be difficult to acquit this section either of mental or of moral obliquity in this matter.
I feel therefore that we must not attach too much importance to the expression of that particular section in favour of immediate independence. I particularly noticed that in their programme they have two somewhat outstanding items, which again leads me to have some hesitation in accepting them as good guides to general opinion. One of them is the confiscation of landlords' estates, and the other is the abolition of indebtedness; both of which measures of course are, to those who understand the circumstances of Burma, directed almost entirely against Indian investors and Indian landlords. But though one may have some hesitation in believing that in Burma itself, generally speaking and throughout the mass of the population, there is this strong determination to secure immediate
468
independence in its fullest sense, yet I fully realize, with the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, that there is a very strong feeling of nationalism in Burma. It has probably gained strength during the war, as feelings of this kind gain force in war. I think we can have only one answer to this feeling, and that is a steady determination not only to pursue our own programme of granting Dominion status but —even more important—to lay the firm foundations for that status in social and economic progress.
I think that the fact that this is so essential adds force to the arguments for a transitional form of Government. Quite apart from the very lucid argument that the noble Earl, Lord Scarbrough, used in introducing this Bill, I feel myself that some interim form of Government is necessary for two further reasons I think it is necessary because it is clear that there must be a very considerable amount of expenditure from the British Exchequer on rehabilitation and the like, and also a considerable amount of expenditure in compensation for what are known as "denial orders." But also it will be necessary for the Burma Government to utilize its own credit for raising loans. A great deal will depend, therefore, on the immediate stability of the Government and the promise it gives of a firm and effective form of administration.
Let me remind your Lordships that Burma starts with a debt of something like £ 40,000,000 to India, and, speaking on behalf of India, one would be very unwilling indeed to see any steps taken that might imperil that investment. It represents the cost of the railways, irrigation schemes and the like, which were formerly undertaken when Burma was under the management of India and which have now passed into the hands of the Burmese Government. But the post-war reconstruction will also require a very considerable expenditure of private capital from external sources, and there again a great deal will depend on the form of administration and its efficiency during a period of interim Government.
I join with the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, in saying that whatever doubts we may have had about the attitude of some of the sections in Burma, there certainly ought to be no weakening on our part of our determination to introduce, as

469
soon as possible, a status equivalent to that of the Dominions, not only in pursuance of our own promises, not only on the merits of the case itself, but also in the interests of our reputation in the outside world. I should be glad, with Lord Rennell, to see as early a determination as possible of the period of Military Government, though I realize that that may not be so easy as at first sight seems. For two reasons: there are still in Burma, I understand, strong pockets of Japanese, and further, those who can recall the history of the original settlement of Burma after the Burmese wars, will realize how many lawless elements, large elements of what we call dacoits, there exist in Burma itself.
I hope also that during that period of interim Government some serious steps may be taken to try out or prepare Burma for those alternative forms of Government of which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, spoke. It may very well be that ultimately our Parliamentary form of Government, or something on the same model, is the only form of Government which will give satisfaction to the people with whom we are dealing. That may very well be so in the future, but no one, I think, could deny that the experience of Burma, in particular, under a form of Government which followed our Parliamentary model was not a very fortunate one. I have no wish to rake up old and somewhat unpleasant history, but it certainly has been a picture not only of great political instability but, I regret to say, also of much moral irresponsibility. If, therefore we can find an alternative or induce the Burmans to devise themselves any alternative which will give them a more stable executive, less liable to the kaledioscopic changes that have overtaken previous Ministries, a form of Government which may provide a more effective and responsible form of administration, that would be all to the good.
Then, again, I hope that when it comes to the final stages it may be possible to arrange some form of treaty or understanding that will preserve Indian interests in Burma. The history of Burma has always been linked up with that of India. There is, as I think I have pointed out, a very large Indian investment in Burma. Indeed, from such calculations as one is able to make in a subject that is always somewhat obscure and in which it is difficult
470
to obtain precision, it is possible that Indians have invested something like £ 55,000,000 in Burma against a little over £ 40,000,000 invested from British and other foreign sources. Not only are trade relations between Burma and India of importance to both, but Indians may, I think, be very well justified in feeling some apprehension about the course which relations between political Burma and India have taken of recent years. Remember the movement against Indian immigration; remember the rioting that took place directed against Indian labour; nor can one fail to be aware, from such contacts as one has had with Burmese politicians, that there has been a very strong movement for the confiscation of the large holding which Indians have acquired in the lands in lower Burma. I think that the figures show that in lower Burma in particular something like two-thirds of the land was brought under cultivation by Indian capital, and a considerable part of the land, perhaps one-third, is still in Indian hands. Therefore it is a matter of the very greatest importance that some arrangement should be made, whether by treaty or otherwise, that will secure Indian rights in Burma.
There is just one more point. We may all hope that very particular care will be taken over the arrangements forecast by the noble Lord regarding the fate of the Shan States and the Karims. They are people who have never been ready to accept any form of political subjection to the Burmese, and they are some of the people who, from the first, have supplied the backbone of the Burmese Forces. Their ways of life are entirely different from those of most Burmans. It will be necessary to make some kind of arrangement under which they can retain their independence. That will not very willingly be accepted by the Burmese. Nevertheless, it is the point on which I think we ourselves must lay the greatest importance. I would only add this: that I think we shall all watch with the very greatest attention and with, indeed, some anxiety, the course taken by the interim or transitional Government in Burma. It will express itself in Orders in Council. Orders in Council in that particular form must be seen by Parliament, and I hope Parliament will be able to satisfy itself that the objectives to which I have alluded are actually being attained.
3.19 p.m.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, I would like to add my word of respectful congratulation to the noble Earl who introduced this Bill this afternoon. At the same time, the fact that he has introduced this Bill does call attention to the curious situation which sometimes arises by the movement of the political machine, for only a matter of a few days ago my noble friend who sits just below me (the Earl of Listowel) might have introduced this Bill. Therefore we have had the curious position this afternoon of hearing two speeches, both intended to introduce the Bill to the House. In that matter I want to offer an expression of sympathy to my noble friend the Earl of Listowel. He slipped into saying one or two things which I do not think he would have said had he spoken before the hurried political transition caused him to be in the place where he sits on this particular occasion. I imagine, for instance, that his former chief will have heard with great gratitude the tribute he paid to him, but he forgot that others might hold a different opinion. I also think there must have been a slip when it was suggested that the Burmese who assisted the Japanese were actuated by motives of assisting their own country.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I hate to interrupt my noble friend. I only want to say that I did qualify my remark by saying that some—I was not speaking in general terms—of the Burmese were actuated by patriotism.
LORD AMMON: I certainly accept at once my noble friend's correction and go on to remark that I imagine that Quisling and other people who will be on trial shortly will seize on this remark as a means of defence when they have to appear before their judges. I find myself almost wholly in sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, in his criticism of this Bill. I imagine that if it had been brought forward in any other period in Parliament, it would have met with a good deal more opposition than it is likely to meet with at the present time. I very much regret that we have not had the courage, when restoring Section 139, to restore also the grant of full independence and so allow the Burmese to realize their ambitions. After all, as some of us are aware, long before the war broke out there was a strong agitation for independence on the part of the Burmese.
472
Some of us were then sitting in another place and experienced a good deal of that agitation. The Burmese have fought for their freedom and I think we might have shown a greater measure of confidence than we have done in them. This Bill seems to be framed as an invitation to delay, because the prospect of real freedom seems to be put off to the Greek Kalends.
Whatever measure of good there may be in it has been voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell On other occasions I have supported him in pointing out how often the Government fail to give proper publicity to their intentions and how very often they do the right thing in the wrong way. The result has been that there has been criticism from other nations and a good deal of dissatisfaction among the peoples who were themselves particularly concerned. This doing good by stealth may be all right as a copybook maxim, but it does not help very much in the promotion of good understanding, or in the rightful appreciation of the efforts of this nation. I hope that some attempt will be made to hasten as much as possible the status preceding full independent government. I am concerned about this because it is in line with a matter that I ventured to raise in your Lordships' House some time ago in regard to a totally different part of the world—namely, Newfoundland. That country had asked for independence and a series of excuses was put forward to delay that independence and the return of the country to full self-government. If that sort of thing can be done with a wholly white population, how much more difficult is it going to be to give full freedom to a native population such as the one we are now discussing.
There is one point that I do not quite understand. It seemed to me that the noble Earl was suggesting when he introduced the Bill that at a certain stage there was to be another Government within the Government. As I understood him there is going to be a sort of interim Council at the same time as the military ate in control. My conviction is that that sort of thing is not going to lead to harmony or good government because it will tend considerably to delay the granting of full independence. There is only one other point I wish to raise. I want to ask the noble Earl what is meant by the reconstruction of Burma's ideals and the granting of financial help from this country.

473
Does that mean we are going to add to the burden of their indebtedness, or does it mean that they are going to look upon the British Government as a milch cow to which they can always come to get relief from their financial difficulties? If so that will constitute a further and even more dangerous obstruction to full independence for them. For what measure of good there is in the Bill we shall agree to its passing this afternoon. At the same time, I mist enter a caveat and say that I should not have taken that view a short time ago. But now that this Parliament is on it; death-bed it may be essential to get some of these Bills passed into law at a pace much faster than that to which otherwise we should be inclined to agree.
3.28 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies to this most interesting debate, which we nearly missed owing to the unfortunate mistake of the Lord Chancellor, may I make an observation on a matter which has not been touched upon but which I believe is very important. Before doing that, may I also, if lie will allow me, give my personal congratulations to the noble Earl on attaining that position on the Government Front Bench and on his speech this afternoon. I have a special reason for doing that. For some years he and I were colleagues in the House of Commons representing adjoining divisions in the City of Hull. We both have had our ups and downs politically and we are now facing each other across the table and I desire to wish him well in his future political career.
I speak with great diffidence on the subject we are discussing this afternoon because this House is plentifully decorated with ex-Secretaries of State, ex-Viceroys and ex-Indian Governors, and I would not venture to speak on this Bill about any of the details of administration in any of our Eastern Dependencies. I think, however, there is something that requires to be said on this most important occasion when we are marking a tremendous milestone in the constitutional development of His Majesty's Commonwealth. Let me first of all put the peg so to speak into the wall on which I wish to base these brief observation I wish to speak upon the political effect of the White Paper on the Bill and also the noble Earl's speech and the speeches of
474
other noble Lords to-day on the other areas of combat in the Pacific. This is the point to which I wish briefly to refer.
Your Lordships are aware that the Japanese as a parallel to their military campaign have waged an intensive campaign of political warfare along lines which they considered would be effective in Eastern Asia and Asia generally. They have, fortunately for us, accompanied it by a very tactless, brutal and corrupt rule wherever their soldiery has obtained a foothold. As was pointed out by my noble friend the Earl of Listowel and by the noble Earl opposite those Burmese who were inclined to welcome Japanese conquest as a path to liberation were very soon disillusioned; but the political warfare has had certain results in certain parts of the East and the campaign is by no means over. We have just won in Burma a truly remarkable victory. It must not be forgotten that we have defeated the largest field force the Japanese had in the whole theatre of war. The two Japanese Armies in Burma were the most numerous, and I believe the most heavily equipped and the most highly trained of all their field forces. The exploit of defeating them and of winning the race to Rangoon against the monsoon will always live in the annals of our military history as a tremendous exploit. But we still have a long way to go in Malaya; and in Borneo where we are fighting with the aid of the Australian Armies, and also in the territories of our Dutch Allies.
A great deal must depend on the future action of the local population. The Japanese line, as your Lordships know, has been first of all to try to humiliate in every way and to hold up to derision and contempt all Europeans in order to destroy the prestige which European races, and ourselves in particular, have enjoyed in the East; and, secondly, to make all kinds of promises of complete independence and of full co-partnership in their precious East Asia co-prosperity area. As the noble Earl reminded your Lordships, this had a little success in Burma. How is it to be counteracted? It has partly been counteracted already by military defeat for the Japanese. Military defeat loses more "face" for the Japanese than the beastly humiliation of white men and women before the native population, which has been one of

475
their methods of destroying our prestige, has cost us in "face." Another answer has been the splendid bearing and fortitude of the unfortunate Europeans who have been exposed to this horrible treatment.
Then there has still to be counteracted the spurious offers of complete independence to all the peoples of Asia, including those in the British Crown Colonies. It is in that light that I ask your Lordships to consider the White Paper, the Bill itself and the very eloquent speeches of the noble Earl opposite and my noble friend the Earl of Listowel. As to the White Paper and the Bill itself, I would like to support the plea already made by my noble friend Lord Ammon and other noble Lords for some occasion being found to put a little more warmth into our attitude, something that will be understood by the millions of our fellow citizens in Burma who will not read the White Paper even if it is translated into the vernacular languages but will be told by their own leaders what are its contents.
This is the sort of thing I complain about. If your Lordships will look at paragraph 23 in Part I of the White Paper you will see that on April 18, 1943, the Secretary of State stated that it was the aim of His Majesty's Government to assist Burma to attain complete self-government within the British Commonwealth as soon as circumstances permit. If you turn to paragraph 6 of Part II you will find this sort of thing:
"The ultimate objective of His Majesty's Government will be that representatives of the Burmese people, after reaching a sufficient measure of agreement between the various parties and sections, should draw up a Constitution of a type which they themselves consider most suitable for Burma, taking into account not only the British but the other various types of Constitution in democratically governed countries. What the machinery for this should be will be a matter for discussion and agreement with representative Burmans."
That sort of note has been written in India for the last twenty years and more. Its language is perfectly correct and orthodox, but it does not convey the same sort of meaning as, for example, the fine statement of the American President when the American troops landed in the Philippines that the people of the Philippines would be granted their immediate independence. There is a tremendous difference here
476
between our own and the American approach to similar subjects. The aim may be sound and, as I say, the language of the White Paper is perfectly correct, but why could not the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State have made a great proclamation by radio in eloquent language, which both of them are capable of using, explaining what we are going to do for Burma?
In the White Paper we have left many apparently inevitable safeguards and checks and delays which only arouse suspicion about our good faith and give an opportunity to agitators who want to discredit our policy. I agree with my noble friend the Earl of Listowel, that it is most important that the Burmese people should do their best to collaborate and to use the time to the best advantage between the various stages of putting this policy into operation; but cannot we give a little more encouragement, show a little more warmth and give a little wider welcome to a future Dominion? This is the sort of thing we could have done: we could have stated that we would transfer the administration of Burma at once to the Dominions Office. That would show at any rate that we mean business. We could at once have given them the titular position of a Dominion, the ceremonial position of a Dominion to Burma. In the East tremendous store is set on what we call symbols of sovereignty and self-government and on words and titles. Then we could go on to deal with the safeguards to which I dare say all reasonable Burmese would agree. From the point of view of propaganda I hope the language of the Burma Office will be different in future. We have to counteract Japanese reflections on our good faith in all Asiatic countries for the sake of the men who still have military tasks ahead of them in Malaya and South China and the other parts of this vast area yet to be liberated from the horrible tyranny of Japanese militarism.
3.39 p.m.
THE EARL OF SCARBROUGH: My Lords, before making a brief reply to some of the points raised in this debate I should like to thank your Lordships for the consideration shown to me and the reception given to this Bill. I would particularly like to thank the noble Earl opposite, Lord Listowel, for his

477
very kind remarks and the strong support he has given to the Bill. The fact that he assisted in the preparation of policy lent weight to his words. The noble Earl made a suggestion that consideration of the future Constitution of Burma should begin before the normal Legislature is brought into being. As was pointed out, I think in another place, there is no reason whatever why discussion should not begin during the period of the emergency form of Government. He also suggested that not only should those elder Burmese who have stool by us so nobly during past years be taken into consultation but also the younger element which is now coming to the front. I think I can assure him that it is the desire of the Governor of Burma to bring in all shades of opinion including that of the newer element.
The noble Lord, Lord Rennell, pressed us to push on as quickly as possible from stage to stage, and he asked in particular that the period of military administration should be brought to an end as soon as possible. I think I can assure him that both the military authorities and the civil authorities wish the military period to come to an end as quickly as possible, and also that it is not necessary that the whole of the territory of Burma should be liberated before that can be clone. He also asked for further information about the nature of the financial assistance to be given to Burma by His Majesty's Government. A good deal of money made available will, no doubt, be self-liquidating. Consumer goods, for instance, will be sold to the public and the cost recouped. No doubt, also, some of the equipment will be sold to firms and the cost, at a later stage, recovered. Otherwise the advances made to the Government of Burma, as the Secretary of State pointed out in another place, are loans without interest and with no fixed date or term of repayment.
The noble Lord, Lord Ammon, I was sorry to note, thought that this Bill invited delay. I would respectfully point out to him that there is, in any case, bound to be legislation to prolong the emergency form of Government, and we are in fact qualifying it by providing, even during the emergency stage, for some advance, and the association of the Burmese with the Government. I can assure him and other noble Lords who pressed that this
478
stage should be brought to an end at the earliest possible time, that there is no desire in any quarter that it should be prolonged any longer than is necessary for preparing to hold elections. I feel that I must repeat—lest the Government's policy may be misunderstood—that there are, in fact, very real practical difficulties in the way of hurrying up the preparations for elections. We can be confident that the Government of Burma, when they return, will do their best, though with rather small Government services, to push on with those preparations. Again I thank your Lordships for the reception given to this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (in pursuance of the Resolution of May 29), Bill read 3a, and passed.

REQUISITIONED LAND AND WAR WORKS BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The Lord STANMORE in the Chair]
Clauses I to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Works.
5.—(i) Where there are Government war works on the land, the power of acquisition shall be exercisable if those works were constructed wholly or partly at the expense of the Crown or some other person having no interest or a limited interest in the land and, in the opinion of the Minister, either—

(a) the value of the works ought, by the acquisition of the land, to be preserved either for the Crown or the said other person, his legal personal representatives or his successor in the carrying on of a trade or business in connexion with the carrying on of which he incurred the expense in question; or

(b) the right to use the works (whether then or thereafter) ought, by the acquisition of the land, to be preserved or secured either for the Crown or for some other person having no interest or a limited interest in the land, and the case is not one where the land can be acquired under the Defence Acts apart from this Part of this Act; or

(c) the right to determine the use to which the works are put (whether then or

479
thereafter) ought, by the acquisition of the land, to be secured for the Crown, and the case is not one where the land can be acquired under the Defence Acts apart from this Part of this Act.

(2) In any such case as aforesaid the power of acquisition shall extend not merely to the site of the works but also to any contiguous or adjacent land which, in the opinion of the Minister, must be held with the site of the works if the works are to be properly utilized and maintained.
3.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH moved to insert at the end of subsection 1:
"Provided that any use to be determined in pursuance of the right thus secured is a use designed to keep the works available or adaptable for war purposes or for the purpose of preparation for war."
The noble Earl said: I think that perhaps I owe His Majesty's Government an apology because, on the Second Reading of this Bill, I did not have the opportunity of indicating the lines upon which my noble friend Lord O'Hagan and I proposed to move certain Amendments. But, if the Government's legislative time is short, the pressure is equally ha rd on the private individual. I should like to say that this Bill, which is the child of the Caretaker Government, has suffered some most excellent surgery—plastic and otherwise—in another place, which has greatly improved it. But it is still, I think, capable of improvement. It brings to one's mind the old catch:
"If the caretaker is busy taking care, who is taking care of the caretaker's daughter?"
With regard to this particular Amendment, I do not think that any words are necessary to commend it to your Lordships. In general it is designed to clarify what is obviously the intention of the Government so that there will be much less chance of mistakes in litigation being made.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 31, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Portsmouth.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): I do not think that any apology is needed from the noble Earl for not having told us in the debate on the Second Reading that he was going to move these Amendments. There has been plenty of time to consider them, and there is one of them which has favourably affected the Government, as I will say in due course. But it is not this
480
Amendment, and the reason is this. The Amendment seeks to limit the words contained in paragraph(c) of subsection(I) to cases in which the "use" is "a use designed to keep the works available or adaptable for war purposes" and the like. No doubt in many cases that will be so—in the case of aerodromes and so on. But it is not the only case which has to be covered. As I explained on the Second Reading, and as I think your Lordships then generally agreed—at least I heard no dissent of any kind—there will be instances where we would wish, or might want, to use their powers of purchase for a different purpose. It is not only a matter of the war potential. For example, when you are considering what is the appropriate disposal of war factories—and this is a very important part of the Bill—war factories built up by public money, and it may be erected on an area which is not actually owned by the State, you will have to think not only of possible war potential but also of the needs of the export trade. It may be made to ensure that a factory shall really be devoted to this purpose and therefore it is quite deliberate that this provision takes the wider form. I quite understand the noble Lord's point, but I am sorry that I cannot accept the Amendment.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for his reply, but I am rather deeply disturbed that a wider interpretation was intended. I had not, from my previous conversation with those who were present in another place, understood that at all, but if that is the case I am personally rather deeply disturbed. Owing to the congestion of business, however, I will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Reference to Commission of proposals to acquire land or rights
8.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, before proceeding to acquire compulsorily by virtue of this Part of this Act any land or any easement over or right restrictive of the user of any land or to discharge or modify under this Part of this Act any restriction as to the user of any land or as to building thereon, the Minister shall publish, in the manner hereinafter specified, a notice of his proposals, specifying the grounds

481
thereof and a time, not being less than three months from the date of the publication, within which written notice of objection to the carrying out of the proposals may be sent to the Minister.
The said notice shall be published as follows, that is to say, the Minister shall—
(c) cause to be published a copy thereof in such newspapers, if any, and in such other manner, if any, as appear to him to be appropriate,
and the Minister shall also cause to be deposited with the said local planning authority a map identifying the land, and the authority shall permit that map to be inspected at all reasonable hours without payment.
3.52 p.m.
LORD O'HAGAN LORD O'HAGAN moved, in subsection (1) (c), to leave out "if any" in both places where those words occur. The noble Lord said: I have been asked to move this Amendment. It is not merely a question of drafting; some of us feel that it is important that there should be no question of the Minister being able to get out of the necessity for putting the advertisement in the papers and so on, as is indicated in paragraph (c). It is with that object that I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 28, leave out ("if any") in both places where those words occur.—(Lord O'Hagan.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think, if I follow it correctly, that the Amendment of my noble friend would really make it mandatory to have a newspaper insertion and to provide no qualification to that general practice, but if he will consider it he will see that in regard to the subject matter that is not quite appropriate. There are many cases, of course, in which Parliament requires information to be published in newspapers as a condition of something going on, but while publication in newspapers may in many cases be appropriate, let us imagine the case where the Government are buying from a single owner, where no other interests are involved at all, and where no question of amenity arises. What would be the object of making an announcement in the newspaper even supposing that the newspaper would provide the space to print it? It would have no object at all. The only reason for giving an announcement in the paper is that third parties are affected.
482
As for the second part of the Amendment, which I think we might, with your permission, take at the same time because it is a very similar point, if it is examined closely it will be seen that it does not mean quite what it says. The second Amendment would seem to produce the result that even if publication in a newspaper had taken place the Minister would unfortunately be compelled to think out some other method of publication as well. I do not think that that can be intended. The broad consideration is really that in this question of legislation there are instances where it would be quite unreasonable to put upon the Minister concerned the obligation of making a published advertisement. Very many cases, of course, would arise in which it was absolutely essential to do it. I think the Minister might well be trusted to make a proper use of these powers, and if he does not he would soon hear about it either in this House or in another place.
LORD O'HAGAN: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:
Powers of Minister on receipt of report of Commission.
(5) Where the Commission report either—

(a) that land consists of a dwelling-house; or

(b) that land consists of the whole or part of a building occupied with or a garden or park of a dwelling-house and that it could not be severed from the dwelling-house without seriously affecting the amenity or convenience of the dwelling-house; or

3.58 p.m.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH had given Notice of an Amendment, in paragraph (b) of subsection (5), to leave out "the whole or part of a building occupied with or a garden or park of a dwelling-house" and insert "a building occupied with a dwelling-house or a garden or park of a dwelling-house or part of such a building garden or park." The noble Earl said: In view of the conversation I have already had with my noble and learned friend opposite I shall not move this Amendment on the understanding that he has something else to say on the matter.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Will my noble friend move the Amendment so as to put it in order?
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 17, leave out from the first ("of") to ("and") in line 19, and insert ("a building occupied with a dwelling-house or a garden or park of a dwelling-house or part of such a building garden or park").—(The Earl of Portsmouth.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This was the Amendment of the noble Earl to which I referred when I first spoke and he has said that I gave him the information in advance that we might do something here, which may save the labour of long explanation. To put it briefly, the two noble Lords have bowled the Government out on this point. The language of the clause is not quite what it ought to be and bears an interpretation against which there might be protest. If the judges ever had to interpret it they would have a strong leaning in favour of making it sensible but if it is strictly read it is not quite right. If the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment I will move an Amendment so that the subsection will read:
"Where the Commission report either—

(a) that land consists of a dwelling-house; or

(b) that land consists of the whole or part of a building occupied with or garden or park of a dwelling-house and that it could not be severed from the dwelling-house without seriously affecting the amenity or convenience of the dwelling-house; or

(c) that land which would be adversely affected by the acquisition of an easement or other right or by the discharge or modification of a restriction is a dwelling-house or the whole or part of a building occupied with or garden or park of a dwelling-house, and that the acquisition of the easement or right, or, as the case may be, the discharge or modification of the restriction, would seriously affect the amenity or convenience of the dwelling-house."

That puts right this subsection. It is not very clear as it is. If my noble friend will withdraw his words I will thank him for calling attention to the matter and ask that the Amendment may be made in the form I have suggested.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move the first two Amendments which are necessary in this case. These minute omissions will have the effect of making the clause satisfactory to everybody.
Amendments moved—
Page 9, line 18, leave out the first ("a").
Page 9, line 26, leave out ("the").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
4.1 p.m.
Clause 11 [Principles on which Commission are to act]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There is a consequential Amendment to Clause 11, subsection (4).
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 46, leave out ("the").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 12 to 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Temporary continuance of stopping up, etc.]:
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: In view of the conversations which I have had with some of the more learned of my noble friends, I do not wish to move the two Amendments to Clause 21 standing in my name.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clauses 22 to 5o agreed to.
4.3 p.m.
LORD HEMINGFORD LORD HEMINGFORD moved, at the beginning of Part X, to insert the following new clause:
Registration in local land charges registry.
".—(1) As soon as may be after a decision to which this section applies has been made, it shall be registered in the prescribed manner in the register of local land charges by the proper officer of the council of each county borough or county district in which the land affected by the decision or any part thereof is situated, or, if that land, or any part thereof, is situated in the City of London or any other part of the administrative County of London, by the proper officer of the Common Council of the City of London or of the London County Council, as the case may be.
(2) It shall be the duty of the appropriate authority for the purposes of this section as soon as may be after the decision has been made to notify that fact to the proper officer of any other authority by whom it is required to be registered as aforesaid, and to furnish to him all information relating to the order requisite in that behalf.
(3) The decisions to which this section applies are the following:

(a) where the Minister has formed an opinion under Section 5 or Section 6 which renders the power of acquisition exercisable,

(b) where the Minister has made an order under Section 7 discharging or modifying any restriction,

(c) where the Minister has decided under Section 8 (2) not to proceed with any proposals,

(d) where the Board of Trade have given a certificate under Section 8 (5),

(e) where the Commission have made a report upon any matter arising under Part II or Part III of the Act,

(f) where the Minister decides to proceed with the exercise of any compulsory powers otherwise than in accordance with the report of the Commission,

(g) where any order is made by the Minister of War Transport under Part III of this Act, or

(h) where a compulsory purchase order is made under Part V of this Act.

(4) The appropriate authority for the purposes of this section shall as the case may require be the Minister exercising the particular power, the Board of Trade, the Commission or, in the case of an acquisition by a local authority, that local authority.
(5) The power conferred by subsection (6) of Section fifteen of the Land Charges Act, 1925, to make rules for giving effect to the provisions of that section shall be exercisable for giving effect to the provisions of this section, and in this section the expression "prescribed" means prescribed by rules made in exercise of that power."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment, which I move in the form of a new clause, is one which I trust will be understood to be for the general benefit and satisfactory working of the Bill. It is to enable notice to be given of these various transactions which can be effected under the Bill, so that, when the land or real estate comes to be dealt with, the purchaser or the solicitor acting for him will not be put to very great difficulty or have it made impossible for him to find out what clogs under this Bill there are on the property in question. The clause has been carefully drafted, and I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will be able to tell me that it will be accepted. Short of that, I would venture to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that there are now quite a number of Acts already on the Statute Book, and I fear that perhaps we may be threatened with more, under which various Government Departments will have rights in the interests of the public of acquiring certain powers in regard to different portions of the land of the country. The acquisition by the
486
Government of those powers must of course make a considerable difference to the use which can be made of the land, if not to the value of it, and unless those peculiar attributes of the land can be discovered and made known without much trouble, it will put a great deal of difficulty in the way of transactions in real estate.
I do not want to exaggerate the importance of it from a political point of view, but I think it will be generally agreed that in the matter of housing, which is one of the most important matters before the country, difficulties of this kind in the way of the disposal of real property are likely to interfere with the free activity of those who are doing their best to deal with the land in this way for the public good. If the noble and learned Viscount cannot see his way to accept this Amendment, I should be grateful to him if he would assure the Committee that this matter is receiving very careful attention; because, as I have said, this question arises under other Acts as well. I would go so far as to suggest that if he cannot deal with the difficulty or the evil by accepting this Amendment, the whole matter should be looked into with a view to the possible introduction in future of some short Bill which would make it necessary for all these clogs upon land to be registered in such a way that the purchaser or his solicitor can find out the position without difficulty or waste of time. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 9, at end insert the said new clause.—(Lord Hemingford.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble friend Lord Hemingford has put this matter, which is a very important one, before the Committee with remarkable brevity and with his usual moderation I recognize entirely that there is a serious point involved. I cannot accept the Amendment, and indeed I think that the way in which the noble Lord spoke showed that he hardly expected that I should; but it is worth while looking at the proposal for a few minutes, because I do agree that it raises a question of some general importance. What he seeks to do by this Amendment is to require registration in the local land charges register of all Departmental decisions to acquire land, or any right over land, under Part II of this Bill, as soon as those decisions are made, and to register every subse-

487
quent stage in the machinery set up under that Part of the Bill; and in some cases there are no fewer than three stages.
The noble Lord said—and he speaks with great knowledge—that it would be a convenience to those who professionally advise owners of land if there were a more complete record of what is contemplated or done. I really do not think, however, that this particular instance of that difficulty—the instance suggested by this Bill—is a very strong one. Under the Land Clauses Act, if I remember rightly, there is no obligation to put on the local land register the notice to treat. That is a stronger case, because, of course, there the land may appear to the observer to be land which, for all he knows, has nothing unusual about it; but here we are dealing with land and buildings which anybody who looks at them can see have been the subject of Government interference during the war. Somebody's field has had an enormous factory put on it, which did not grow up in the night like a mushroom; somebody else's ground, which may have been good agricultural land, has been torn to ribbons by making it a tank training ground. The cases with which we are dealing here, therefore, are cases where the party concerned, and certainly his very prudent and well-advised solicitor, may very easily suppose that there is something which might prevent a complete title being given.
There are one or two cases in the law where we do stipulate that there shall be put on the register of land charges what amounts to a sort of warning. I think that there is one in the Town and Country Planning Act. That, however, is in very special circumstances, in connexion with a particular form of speedy acquisition. I notice that my noble friend referred to housing. There we have a very strong case the other way, because, if I understand the matter rightly, the general rule is that compulsory purchase orders are not registered at any stage, and, in the case of the Housing and other Acts where compulsory purchase takes place on a large scale, nothing at all is registrable at any stage.
LORD HEMINGFORD: I hope that the noble and learned Viscount has not misunderstood me. I was looking rather to the position after the houses had been built, and thinking of the acquisition of
488
small pieces of land by private enterprise for the purpose of building houses upon that land.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not want to exaggerate the matter, particularly as my noble friend has been so entirely reasonable. All that I would say is that as things stand we have a great bundle of Statutes which in different ways authorize compulsory acquisition, and certain steps in that process might influence a prospective sale or purchase, but in most cases there has not been found any means by which you could put a notice of all these things on the local land charges register. How many additional entries would have to be made if my noble friend's Amendment were accepted it is difficult to calculate, but the Committee will see that the first thing that it is suggested should be put upon the land register—this is a carefully drafted Amendment —is indicated in the words "the decisions to which this section applies." The decisions include a decision
"where the Minister has formed an opinion under Section 5 or Section 6 which renders the power of acquisition exercisable."
It would be a very odd state of affairs, I think, in which you would put upon a register open to inspection, "Please note that the Minister of such-and-such a Department has formed this opinion." You can hardly do that. And there are other instances I could take.
But I do myself very sincerely agree with the noble Lord in what I think was the real substance of his remarks. I think it would be very likely to the public advantage if time were found to have a more general consideration of this subject, because it does not apply only to this Bill; and while, of course, I cannot give any undertaking which binds the Government, either this or any other, for what it may be worth I venture to assure my noble friend that I myself would be in favour of trying to get some general inquiry set on foot which would deal not only with this but with other cases which are quite outside this Bill altogether. I rather suspect that my noble friend, with his usual acuteness, put down this very long and elaborate Amendment really with the purpose simply and solely of getting that consolatory declaration. Having made that statement I will not say any more except that I cannot accept his Amendment.
LORD HEMINGFORD: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for what he said, but I am afraid I was rather more guileless than he gives me credit because I certainly had not perhaps realized how strongly he would oppose this particular Amendment. But at least I am very grateful to him for what he has said about the subject generally, because, admittedly, the question which arises in this particular Bill does arise in a great many Acts of Parliament, and in the end I trust something may be done which would be even more satisfactory than the acceptance of this Amendment now. I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clause 52:
Power of Ministers to defray cost of rehabilitation of land in certain circumstances.
52.—(1) Where land has been damaged by Government war work done thereon or by Government war use thereof and either—

(a) a person has, in connexion with proposals for the acquisition of the land by virtue of Part II of this Act, given an undertaking in pursuance of a report of the Commission to deal with the land in a particular manner with a view to the total or partial rehabilitation thereof; or

(b) in the opinion of a Minister it is expedient in the public interest that the land should be dealt with in a particular manner with a view to the total or partial rehabilitation thereof,

the Minister may undertake, either absolutely or subject to such conditions as he may specify, to make good to any person interested in the land the whole or any part of any expenses incurred by that person in dealing with the land in that manner, in so far, in a case to which Section two of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, applies, as those expenses exceed any sum paid or payable under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of that section in respect of the damage.
4.14 p.m.
LORD MESTON LORD MESTON had given Notice of three Amendments in subsection (1)—namely, to leave out "may," where that word fist occurs after paragraph (b) and insert "shall"; to leave out "or any part" ["whole or any part"]; and to add to the subsection the words "and shall have power to pay those expenses by instalments."
The noble Lord said: I rise to move the three Amendments which stand in my name. Clause 52 (1) provides in effect among other matters that the
490
Minister has a discretion in the public interest to make a payment over and above the maximum amount of compensation that can be awarded under the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939. In this connexion I may remind your Lordships that on the 14th December, 1943, there was a very interesting debate in your Lordships' House on the amount of compensation that could be awarded for damage done to requisitioned agricultural land, and on that occasion it was pointed out that in the case of agricultural land, in fact in the case of all land, the compensation under the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, is limited to the value of the land. The matter is actually governed by Section 2 (1) (b) and the second proviso to Section 2 (1) of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939. Further, in the course of the debate on the 14th December, 1943, it was emphasized that the limitation of compensation might operate peculiarly in certain cases. For example, an acre of agricultural land worth £20 might be requisitioned but at the end of the period of requisition it might cost £200 to rehabilitate that land. Under the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, the landowner will only recover £20.
If I read Clause 52 (1) correctly, and if I apply that subsection to the example which I have just given, the position is as follows. The Minister may say to the landowner, "I need not help you at all unless I wish to do so, but in this case the necessary circumstances exist and I have a discretion to help you. I exercise that discretion and I grant you x-pounds." x-pounds may be £5 or £10, or it may be substantial amount, such as £50, or it may be the whole balance, £180. In my view that is not quite fair to the landowner. In those cases where it is the opinion of the Minister in the public interest that land should be rehabilitated, I think that the State ought to pay the whole cost of rehabilitating the land.
There are numerous cases, of course, where rehabilitation will not be necessary. There will be numerous cases where rehabilitation will be prohibited by the cost. Some of your Lordships may know the County of Yorkshire. I have been informed that there is an area of moorland in Yorkshire twenty-five miles long and twelve miles wide which has been entirely ripped up by tanks. The Govern-

491
ment in the national emergency, have taken the soil and the heather off that moorland entirely. It will clearly be impossible to rehabilitate that land. The answer is, "Let nature do its work and in the course of ten years or so the heather will grow and the land will be restored for the grazing of sheep." That is a classic example of where rehabilitation is not necessary. But in the ordinary case of agricultural land I think that if the Minister is of the opinion that it is expedient in the national interest that the land should be rehabilitated, then the State should pay the whole of the cost of rehabilitation, and not leave the unfortunate landowner in peril of having to pay some money, possibly a lot of money, out of his own pocket.
So far I have been dealing with Clause 52 (1) (b), but let me invite your Lordships' attention to paragraph (a) of that subsection which speaks about "an undertaking" and at this point we must refer back to Clause 10 (2) which reads as follows:
"Where land is proposed to be acquired on the ground that it is desirable in the public interest that the whole or some part thereof should be dealt with in a particular manner with a view to the total or partial rehabilitation thereof, the Commission may, if they think fit, report that the land ought not to be acquired if such person as may be specified in the report undertakes in writing to the Minister within a time so specified that he will take steps so specified within times so specified for the total or partial rehabilitation of the land or that part of the land, as the case may be:
Provided that the Commission shall not specify a person under this subsection as a person to give an undertaking unless they are satisfied that he has sufficient rights in the land and in any other relevant land to enable him to carry out his undertaking."
Then the proviso to Clause 10 (3) is even more important because it implies a penalty. It reads as follows:
"Provided that where such an undertaking as is mentioned in the last preceding subsection is given but is not carried out, the Minister may then proceed with the acquisition of the land."
The position is this. We are not dealing with the rehabilitation of half an acre of kitchen garden, but we are dealing with cases which may involve the rehabilitation of a thousand acres of land. The landowner may be actuated by a sincere desire to rehabilitate the land, but as far as I know landowners in modern
492
times are not individuals with inexhaustible bank balances or inexhaustible credit. It may well happen that after a few years the landowner and his bank balance become worn out, whereupon he cannot carry out his undertaking, and the Minister will then be entitled, under the proviso of subsection (3) of Clause 10, to enter upon the land and to acquire it. That, in my respectful submission, is another argument why the State should pay the full costs of rehabilitation in those cases where the Minister is of the opinion that it is expedient in the public interest that the land should be rehabilitated.
If my Amendments are accepted—and I do not think they will be—the power of the Minister will not be weakened at all. It will still be open to the Minister in every case to say whether or not, in his opinion, it is expedient that the land should be rehabilitated at all, or that it should be rehabilitated in a particular manner. There is no question or suggestion of any individual landowner dictating to the Minister in any way whatsoever. Those are the substantial points in the Amendment.
The part of the Amendment which deals with the power to pay by instalment is subsidiary but, I hope, not without merit. Let me take a concrete example. Suppose I have 100 acres of land—in point of fact I have not; I have about a third of an acre in Scotland, and I had some railings but the Secretary of State took a fancy to the railings some years ago and I have never seen them since. But suppose, for the purpose of argument, that I have 100 acres of land worth £ 2,000, and at the end of the period of requisition it costs me £ 5,000 to rehabilitate that land. So far as the £ 2,000 are concerned I can go to the Claims Tribunal under the Compensation (Defence) Act and get that money. So far as the £ 3,000 are concerned, however, I am entirely in the hands of the Minister under this Bill. Let us assume, for the purposes of argument, that the Minister is very kind to me and agrees to grant me the whole balance of £ 3,000. As I read the Bill, I shall not be reimbursed a penny of that £ 3,000 until I have spent the whole of the £ 3,000 out of my own pocket. Now I am very l0th to say anything about the War Damage Act, 1943, having been animadverted upon very severely for having mentioned it, but I do ask the Gov-

493
ernment to allow the landowner to be paid by instalments in the same way as a person is entitled to a payment of cost of works by instalments under the War Damage Act, 1943. I must apologize for having spoken for so long, but it is rather difficult to deal with this intricate matter in a few minutes. I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 37, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").—(Lord Meston.)
4.24 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble friend has no reason at all for suggesting that he has occupied time needlessly or at too great length. On the contrary, he has explained a very difficult subject, if I may say so, very clearly, and I sincerely envy him the nimbleness with which he can pass straight from one clause, to another in this decidedly complicated bundle of clauses. At any rate in one thing he is right: he said he anticipated that his Amendments would not be accepted, and I am afraid that that is so.
This is rather an interesting variant really or the sort of question which not infrequently arises when details, of Acts of Parliament are discussed. In the old days, when I was a Law Officer I had many times to explain, as other lawyers have had to do, where you should say "must" instead of "may." On the other hand, this issue is raised in quite a different connexion from the way in which it is ordinarily debated. What my noble friend seeks to do, as I think he has made very clear, is this—I will just put it in a sentence. He wishes to alter the provision that is now in Clause 52 by which the power given to the Minister is a discretionary power. The Minister may make this full payment but, as it stands, the Minister need not give any undertaking at all and, if he does, it may be limited in amount and may be hedged around with conditions. To that my noble friend seeks to put the simple and superficially attractive alternative to cut out all that cackle and just say the Minister "must."
But some consequences would follow if you made this provision obligatory, which I think should be mentioned. It would, in the judgment of the Government and those responsible for this Bill, be quite wrong to provide that the Minister should
494
have no discretion in the matter. It is true that, as my noble friend proposes it, the clause would be restricted to cases where the Minister is satisfied that it is expedient in the public interest that the work which the landowner is doing ought to be done. That is quite true. But it does not at all follow that the landowner himself ought to do it. In place of that, it may be that you would get, for instance, the situation dealt with by the Minister purchasing the land under Clause 6. That may, in some cases, be the most convenient course. Suppose that the particular piece of land is not like my noble friend's tenure in the Kingdom of Scotland but is part of a larger tract belonging to a great number of small owners. It would be a most inconvenient arrangement that each small owner must, out of his own resources, make the necessary restoration and rehabilitation and then ask for the cost from public funds. The proper course there is provided for in the Bill. Whoever owned the area and however many people owned it, if a great area has been damaged on an extensive scale and remedial works are required, it may very well be that Clause 6 is the right clause to use. Take another case. The Minister, under Clause 29, is given power to do the remedial work himself. That: may be the more convenient course. There is a further objection, if I might just mention it—not in the least in any spirit of severe rebuke; we must discuss these things in the most friendly way across the table.
As to the second Amendment put down by my noble friend stands, it has this effect: that the Government have to make good the whole of the costs incurred by the landowner—so far as it is not covered, I mean, by the compensation. That would mean that the landowner could spend as much money as he liked. He has merely to send in his bill and say, "This is what I have spent and now you must pay it." No doubt my noble friend would adjust his Amendment to meet that difficulty, but that is how it stands.
I really think, on reflection, we had better leave the Bill as it is. I remember this point being raised before by another member of this House in reference to a particular piece of land in, I think it was, Midlothian. The sort of way in which I apprehend Clause 5 will work is as follows. In cases where it is right, proper and fair that the public funds should be

495
used to indemnify the owner completely, I think the Minister may be trusted !o use his discretionary power, as of course he ought to do. Parliament will certainly bring him to book if he does not do so. But if you were to give the Minister, not the right and the duty to exercise discretion in the matter but some absolute Parliamentary order that he must do it, I think my noble friend's nimble mind will see that there are cases where that really would not be right. Therefore I offer the assurance, as far as I may about another Minister, that I am sure he will use his power, as in fairness we must recognize it must be exercised, with discretion. I hope with that explanation my noble friend will feel he has done a useful service in bringing forward this Amendment and that he will withdraw it. As to the other small point raised in the last two Amendments in his name on the Paper the Minister is perfectly free to give his assistance as he thinks right in the payment of expenses by instalments.
LORD MESTON: I thank the noble and learned Viscount for the explanation he has given of the position. I must confess that it is a very complicated matter. There may be one or there may be many private individuals who take in hand any rehabilitation of land, and in view of all the difficulties I think it is best to leave the clause as it stands. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clauses 53 to 58 agreed to.
Clause 59:
Interpretation.
"war period" means the period during which the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, is in force;
4.32 p.m.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH moved, in the definition of "war period," to omit all words after "period," where that word occurs for the second time and insert "from the commencement of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, until the date on which that Act expires or the date of the expiration of six months after the termination of hostilities with Japan, whichever of those dates is the earlier." The noble Earl said: I regard this Amendment
496
as one of some considerable importance. I am not unduly optimistic of the reception it will get from my noble and learned friend opposite, but I think it is of great importance that the threat in Clause 14 of the Bill should be of the shortest possible duration and that is covered by the definition of the war period in the Amendment that I beg to move.
There is at present an uncertainty which is extremely bad for all those concerned and it can lead to great injustice for two reasons. Unfortunately, we have no guarantee that there will not be a state of minor war going on for many years. If that is so a war period may drag on almost indefinitely. Yet there would be no reason for carrying on the operations of this clause during that period when otherwise things could be cleared up. On the other side, there is also the possibility that in legislation by good intention, which this is, there will arise a Mini3ter who knew not Joseph and who will be delighted to have the war period carried on for some time because that would give him extra powers. Therefore to confine the war period either to six months after the cessation of hostilities with Japan or to any earlier date seems to me a reasonable Amendment and one that is of great importance to all the people affected by the land which may be requisitioned under the purposes of this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 41, leave out from the second ("period") to end of line 42, and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Portsmouth.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble friend's Amendment does not really make very much difference except that it provides against the possibility that the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act of 1939 shall continue in operation for more than six months after the termination of hostilities against Japan. I agree that it is no good prophesying. I think it is perhaps true that the German war, or at any rate the German fighting, did end rather more suddenly than was the expectation of some people, on a clear cut date. We cannot be certain that the same will be true of the Japanese war. Still, I think the better argument really is that we should leave the clause as it is. The words that are proposed in the Amendment are really objectionable on the ground of uncertainty. The period of two years beyond the war period is a very

497
reasonable proposal. I do not think it has really been challenged. We have got now to go through a process, as it were, of unwinding what has been wound up.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I was not referring to the two years period.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, I agree, but when you put the whole thing together I think the clause as it stands is best, and I do not think I should care to alter it in this respect. After all, the noble Earl has had the very unusual success this afternoon of compelling the Government to confess it had written something down very badly. One has to be very careful on these occasions of triumph not to overdo it. I would therefore, in all good temper, ask my noble friend to rest on his laurel.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: In the circumstances I would accept my noble friend's invitation to rest on a small and rather prickly laurel, and I would wish to say that I am doing so mainly because an improved, but still not perfect Bill is better than no Bill at all.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 59 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.

INCOME TAX BILL.
4.38 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a bulky looking Bill. It consists of eight Parts, seventy clauses and three schedules. None the leas I think I can commend it to your Lordships quite briefly and without referring much, at any rate to the text. It really is a very important Bill and represents a measure of Income Tax reform which for a very long time has been asked for from many quarters. It has often been urged that in computing profits for the purpose of Income Tax allowance ought to be made for capital expenditure on assets which are used up in earning the profit. In times past in another House when I was a Law Officer I dealt with similar proposals in various forms with such arguments as occurred to me, but to-day at this distance of time I am free to say that I think
498
there is a great deal to be said for the taxpayer in this connexion.
The principle as yet has received a very limited application in our Income Tax system through the allowances made. When I was Chancellor of the Exchequer we increased the allowances for wear and tear of plant and machinery. This Bill extends that principle to other substantial assets both in town and country—buildings, structures and the like used in productive industry, including agriculture and including mining. I think there will be no difficulty in obtaining agreement in your Lordships' House that that is a very just and proper development. Another thing in it, which I have more than once heard commented on in your Lordships' House as desirable, is that the Bill provides that a trader can write off, in computing his taxable profits, the cost of patent rights which he has acquired for the purpose of his trade. A patent only lasts seventeen years and it seems only proper that he should be able to write off that expenditure during that period.
This taxation reform is specially appropriate now and I imagine my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have had this very much in mind because, although it is to the prejudice of the revenue, it is designed to help industry in undertaking modernization and re-equipment which is so essential for post-war reconstruction and for a revival of the export trade. Therefore, in spite of our very heavy burdens and the natural desire of the Treasury to gather in all they can, it has been thought right, and I imagine your Lordships would think it is right, to make this important change. In the matter of allowances in respect of buildings, the Bill draws a broad distinction between what is non-productive and what is productive and creative. Nobody should be misled into thinking that if the proprietor of a dog-racing track puts up an additional stand he will get any further writing off under this Bill. It applies to creative industry. In respect of allowances for machinery and plant, which includes as I have said mining and agriculture, new allowances will accrue to the benefit of all forms of industry, whether productive or not.
That is the broad scheme of the Bill. Perhaps I should shortly state what the different Parts of the Bill do. There are

499
seven Parts. Part I provides in the case of capital expended on the construction of new industrial buildings and structures, including for example, such things as canteens set up for the welfare of industrial workers, for an initial allowance equal to 10 per cent. of the cost. That will be given as and when the expenditure is incurred. As for the rest of the expenditure there is to be an annual allowance of another 2 per cent. which will write off the whole of the balance of the expenditure in 45 years. It will apply to capital expended on reconstruction of existing buildings as well as expenditure on brand new buildings, and that should be of material assistance in enabling those engaged in productive industry to equip themselves with new factories. As regards existing buildings the initial allowance will be made only on expenditure incurred after April 5, 1944, but the allowance equal to 2 per cent. per annum will, in general, be given after an appointed day to be fixed under the Bill. To give a simple illustration of a factory which is twenty-five years old now, the taxpayer will get henceforward in respect of this from the appointed day a 2 per cent. allowance for each of the next twenty-five years.
LORD REA: On his original cost?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think that is right. My noble friend would be the last to trap me by an interruption, but I believe that is right. Part II provides for an initial allowance equal to 20 per cent. of the cost of machinery and plant. This allowance will be given also in respect of machinery or plant which a person acquires after April, 1944, if he still owns it at the appointed day, but in such cases the allowance will be 20 per cent. of the residual value as at the appointed day, that is, the cost less any Income Tax allowances already granted. This should be of substantial advantage in permitting the replacement of the old equipment by the most up-to-date equipment and will stimulate the process of discarding old machinery and installing new machinery.
Part III provides for the grant of initial allowances and for the writing off by way of annual allowances of new capital expenditure in connexion with the discovery and working of mineral deposits. It has long been a matter of complaint that this
500
form of enterprise, which is necessarily rather chancy, does not get sufficient protection and assistance under our Income Tax law to-day. If I understand it rightly, and I think I do, it will apply to a British company registered here even though it is mining abroad. It is not merely a question of looking in these islands for minerals which may not be there, though I hope they are. In the case of existing mines the annual allowances will enable the writing off of a proportion of the capital expenditure corresponding to the deposits which remain to be extracted. It is manifest, I think, and we are all entitled to rejoice over it, that this provision will be a great help not only to those engaged in the mining industry at home, but also to those British companies which undertake mining activities abroad in the face of world competition and so contribute materially to the welfare of the people of this country.
Now we come to agriculture and forestry, which are dealt with in Part IV. Where the owner or tenant of land, which is used either for agriculture or for commercial policy, incurs any capital expenditure on the construction of new buildings or other works for the purpose of husbandry or forestry, and that expenditure cannot be taken into account in the existing maintenance claim, he will be able to claim an allowance spread over a period of ten years. The benefits of this proposal will be felt not only by landowners and farmers but also by the workers, because it will relate also to expenditure on the building or reconstruction of farm cottages. There can be little doubt, I think, that these proposals must be welcomed as a substantial contribution to the well-being of the agricultural industry, and of the importance of that industry I need say nothing in your Lordships' House.
Part V deals with the writing off of expenditure on the acquisition of patent rights and will, it is hoped, make traders more ready to take up new inventions with a view to their development. Part VI of the Bill extends the provisions of Part IV of the Finance Act, 1944, which provided special allowances in respect of expenditure on scientific research so as to grant a corresponding relief in respect of certain payments made for this important object before the appointed day. Part VII of the Bill extends the exceptional depreciation allowance to cover

501
cases where the assets are retained in the business jut their value on the date determined by Parliament is less than the net cost. Substantially the effect of this change is that in all cases of assets provided for war purposes the loss in value resulting from war-time use will be wholly allowed for Income Tax purposes.
Speaking from what is now a fairly long experience I may say that I have seldom found that when one expounds a measure relating to Income Tax before any assembly it is greeted with enthusiasm by the prospective taxpayers. But I think this Bill really is the exception. It is true that the House of Commons has the primary responsibility in connexion with the imposing and regulating of taxation. The assent of this House is necessary unless indeed we would bring upon ourselves the extreme penalty of the Parliament Act. But generally speaking your Lordships' privilege is not so much (to frame and carry tax legislation but merely to pay the taxes which it imposes, along with the rest of the population. In the present case I hope that your Lordships will receive this Bill with enthusiasm and give it a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor,)
4.52 p.m.
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount's suggestion that this Bill should be received with enthusiasm shall certainly have a response from me of at least modified enthusiasm. This is a useful Bill. It contains most valuable provisions designed to bring about substantial amelioration of conditions, sometimes harsh, under which industry in this country has for many years been labouring. I welcome in particular the provision for agriculture and that in respect of scientific research. Both of these provisions should be most helpful in promoting the objects which are in mind. I notice that the noble and learned Viscount pointed out—as is, of course, true—that the provisions of this Bill are prejudicial to the revenue.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Not in the end. I think.
LORD NATHAN: I think he would have wished to have qualified that by saying that they were prejudicial to the immediate revenue, but that, I hope
502
and believe, they will be beneficial if a long view—which is the view we ought to take—is taken.
Broadly speaking, this Bill, into the details of which I do not propose to enter, deals with industry of one class and another, but it by no means exhausts the possibilities of reform in the tax law. It leaves unaffected, for instance, provision for the relief from taxation of certain reserves of companies and others, a matter which I, when a member of the House of Commons, and others, have raised on a number of occasions in another place. We then used to receive rather unsympathetic replies from the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day, but in the freedom in which he finds himself to-day, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is able to show that he has changed his views in one respect. Perhaps he has changed them in another also. I believe it to be of importance both to industry and to the commercial community in general that there should be further consideration of the provision with regard to reserves. There is one further matter which is giving rise to a good deal of difficulty and apprehension in the present days of high taxation. That is the position of privately-controlled companies and of private partnerships in regard to taxation when their position is considered relatively to that of companies. That also is a matter to which, I feel, attention should be given in the not-too-distant future.
On behalf of my noble friends, I welcome this Bill, and I wish to make one further comment upon it. Here we have, as the Lord Chancellor has said, a very long Bill consisting of, I think, some seventy clauses and three schedules. It covers altogether some sixty-seven pages. In a way it is a difficult. Bill to follow. Its provisions are complex, but I must say frankly that I think that in this Bill the draftsman has been far more successful then he often is in Tax Bills in putting before us the provisions of the Bill with a very fair degree of clarity. I would congratulate the draftsman of this Bill in that respect.
The rules of your Lordships' House are so flexible that perhaps, although it is not strictly germane to this Bill, I may be allowed to refer to another matter relating to tax. Whilst this Bill may, as

503
I have said, be held to be a Bill the provisions of which are described with a fair degree of clarity, it is a Bill which has to be read into the whole of our existing tax legislation. It is when the practitioner or the taxpayer is under the compulsion of reading these provisions into the general frame of the tax legislation that real difficulties arise. Our tax legislation fills many Statutes—some of them of the utmost complexity—which have given rise over a long period of years to an infinite amount of litigation. As long ago as I think 1927—that is nearly twenty years back—the Government of the day was so oppressed and impressed by the fact that it set up a Committee, a very distinguished Committee, on the codification of the tax law. That Committee sat over a considerable period of years.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Nine years.
LORD NATHAN: Yes; for no fewer than nine years. It was not until 1936 that it was able to report. The Committee consisted of busy men, of very distinguished men experienced in the matters under review, and in the end they produced a most valuable and voluminous Report, accompanied by a number of volumes of illuminating evidence. They also produced, if my recollection is right, a draft Bill codifying the law as to tax. Time and again, when I was a member of the House of Commons, I raised the question of what the Government of the day was going to do with the outcome of these long, strenuous and public-spirited labours. For one reason or another—perhaps the complexity of the subject, perhaps the strain placed upon members of the Government—it was not found possible to do anything. At least nothing has been done, but it is really a matter of very great public importance. If is of the first importance that the taxpayer, or, at all events, the practitioner who advises the taxpayer, whether in the legal or accountancy profession, should be able to understand without much doubt what is the law relating to tax which affects every citizen, and that tax legislation should be found in a compendious volume, in one document.
At this hour I will not delay your Lordships by expanding upon this matter, but I will say that it is of great public
504
importance that something should be done. This Committee was set up nearly twenty years ago and reported after nine years' labours. Since then many Acts of Parliament have been passed involving additions to an already complex system of tax law. I wish to make a suggestion to the Lord Chancellor, if I may respectfully do so. On looking back I am not at all sure that a committee for the codification of the tax law was one best suited to meet the problem. I would venture to suggest to the Lord Chancellor that he might consider setting up a Committee or asking the Law Reform Committee to undertake, as a first step, but only as a first step, the consolidation of the tax law. Consolidation is, of course, very different from codification. When we have before us, under one cover, the consolidated tax law it will be opportune to set up a committee for the codification of the tax law. Consolidation would impose a great strain on the draftsmen but would not involve taking up any important Parliamentary time. Codification will take a very considerable time—it cannot be done by draftsmen alone—and for that purpose it would be necessary to set up a committee. That would be a very important first step and would ease the position of the practitioner. In the first instance we might have a Consolidation Act and I put forward that suggestion to the Lord Chancellor in the belief that action in that direction would be very much in the public interest.
5.4 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, I think it is appropriate that someone from these Benches should express their very unusual satisfaction with the Income Tax Bill. This is a matter on which I fought in my early days in the House of Commons some forty years ago, and in my later years I had a similar experience in regard to derelict farm buildings and cottages. I think it is only fair that we should recognize that the Government has at last made a start in the right direction.
5.5 p.m.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I wish to say a very brief word with reference to that portion of the remarks of the noble and learned Viscount which dealt with the part this Bill will play in assisting industry to re-equip itself. I certainly welcome anything in the Bill in that direction because there is no more important task

505
than the re-equipping of plant and machinery. Under the system of free enterprise, by which many of our industries have been carried on, they have fallen into a shacking state of inefficiency owing very largely to the obsolescence of their plant and machinery. In the cotton industry not nearly enough of the looms are automatic, the mining industry is under-mechanized and our once great ship-building industry had, before the war re-established the building yards, fallen into a shocking state of repair. During the war the State has had to spend £ 6,500,000 on introducing up-to-date and efficient plant and machinery to the yards. In this matter of machinery for our great industries we are shockingly behind the United States of America and that must, of course, be disastrous for our chances of recovering our export trade and)f regaining our competitive capacity in world trade.
I cannot respond to the noble and learned Viscount's invitation to receive the Bill with enthusiasm because the words "Income Tax" always plunge me into the deepest gloom, and in any ease I do not understand enough of the I cannot feel enthusiastic about a Bill with which I am imperfectly acquainted, but in regard, to that matter of industry I most certainly welcome a Bill which does anything to help in that direction.
5.8 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I will reply very briefly as there is important business to follow this which I know some of your Lordships ore a waiting. I thank those who have spoken and those who have been silent for receiving this Bill with what I might call modified rapture. I do not think I need make any other comment except to refer to the important suggestion of Lord Nathan in reference to the question of progressing with Income Tax codification. This is a very remarkable story. The Commission took nine years and produced a series of Blue-hocks, and they did, as he correctly said, append to their Report a suggested Bill. It is important to realize that the Bill which they appended was not putting into a single document the Income Tax law as it now stands, or then stood. On the contrary, it was a new scheme of Income Tax doubtless intended to produce equally good results, equally good from the revenue point of view, and for all I
506
know very much better expressed. It did not contain a great deal of new matter, and I do not think that your Lordships will want any description of it, beyond that it abolished that always entertaining but somewhat difficult distinction between Schedules A, B, C, D, and E, or however many there are. To undertake that as a piece of legislation would really be a herculean task; but it is far from the case that nothing has been done about it; the Report has been carefully studied in the Treasury and the Inland Revenue, and no doubt elsewhere.
My most recent occupation, apart from presiding in this House, has been to preside at the hearing of appeals at your Lordships' Bar; and that strongly confirms me in the view that our present Income Tax law is in some respects complicated. I should naturally like it very much if all the creases were ironed out; but that is a tremendous task, and one which could not be undertaken by any Government, however energetic and determined, in the present conditions of pressure. The noble Lord referred to the fact that when he was in another place he asked questions on this subject. I happen to have a copy of one before me, which was answered on August 3, 1939, by Sir John Simon, who said:
"I fully appreciate the importance of a complete codification of the Income Tax law as soon as is practicable. So long, however, as the present pressure of affairs continues, I can see no possibility of finding sufficient Parlamentary time to deal with legislation on this complicated subject."
That was at any rate frank.
While it is most regrettable that so many highly-skilled and devoted men should not see the fruit of their labours—and I as much as anybody regret that—it is the case that sometimes quite a considerable time elapses before you can do what you wish to do. After all, the Commission was appointed only in 1927, but I seem to recollect an Act of Parliament which received the assent of this House in the year 1911, and which said that the reform of your Lordships' House did not brook delay, or words to that effect. This is one of the cases where we have to proceed as well as we can, but without much hope of achieving a great result very quickly. I will, of course, convey the suggestion which my noble friend has made to the proper quarter. It would not be for the Lord Chancellor to appoint

507
such a committee, but I will see that the Treasury are informed of the suggestion. I hope that your Lordships will pass this Bill through the rest of its stages, so that we can get on with the Scottish Bills.
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (in pursuance of the Resolution of May 29), Bill read 3a, and passed.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
5.12 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

HYDRO-ELECTRIC UNDERTAKINGS (VALUATION FOR RATING) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

FORESTRY BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Rosebery.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee acccordingly.
[The LORD STANMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Reconstruction of Forestry Commission.
(2) At least three of the said Commissioners (hereafter in this Act referred to as "the Commissioners") shall be persons who have special knowledge and experience of forestry and at least one of the Commissioners shall be a person who has scientific attainments and a technical knowledge of forestry.
5.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF CARLISLE,THE EARL OF CARLISLE, on behalf of Viscount Bledisloe, moved, in subsection (2), to substitute "five" for "three." The noble Earl said: I have been asked by my noble friend Lord Bledisloe, who is unable to be here to-day, to move the
508
Amendment which stands in his name on the Paper. Before referring to it, I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating my noble friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on his appointment, and of wishing him every success, which I am sure he will achieve. I do not propose to detain the Committee, because my noble friend Lord Bledisloe spoke at some length and with great clarity on Tuesday on this subject. I shall only add, therefore, that it seems to me a matter of common sense that on a Commission of this importance at least half the members, which means five, should be persons with special knowledge and experience of forestry. I should have liked to see the number seven. I hope that my noble friend, if unable to accept the Amendment, will at least assure the Committee that when the Commission comes to be chosen a knowledge of forestry will be regarded as of paramount importance in deciding who the members of the Corn-mission shall be.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 12, leave out ("three") and insert ("five").—(The Earl of Carlisle.)
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: On this important subject there are a few more words which ought perhaps to be said. The Government are very modest in asking that only three out of the ten Commissioners should have a knowledge of forestry, and that only one of those three should have "scientific attainments and a technical knowledge of forestry." I therefore support the Amendment. The forestry industry will be growing very rapidly in the days to come, and the work of the Commission will increase considerably. This is a time when their status ought to be raised, and the Commission and the Government ought to welcome an increase in the number of Commissioners who have a knowledge of the subject. It is very important that the Commissioners should go round the country from time to time and see what is going on, and keep in touch with State and private forestry. I am sure it is widely hoped that a number of them will be able to do this with knowledge and experience. There will be wide disappointment among those concerned with forestry if the number of members of the Commission with knowledge and experience is limited to three. I hope that the Government do not intend to

509
make that limitation, and that, in spite of the limitation laid down in We Bill, they will always see that at least five, and preferably seven, of the Commissioners have a knowledge of the subject.
To save time, I should like to say now that we hope and expect in Scotland that our representation will be considerably increased. As the Committee are aware, there are at present only two Commissioners for Scotland, whereas the acreage of our plantations will in future be very nearly 50 per cent. It is very important, when the Commission is reconstituted, that the Commissioners Should understand the requirements of State ant private forestry, and should pay adequate attention to the 3,000,000 acres in private ownership. In the past the relationship between woodland owners and foresters in private service on the one hand, and the officers and foresters of the Forestry Commission on the other, has been very good; but it has been acknowledged that the Forestry Commissioners, with the best will in the world, have not been in a position to give that full attention to private woodlands that is required, nor have they been able to supply the information which is often needed. I hope, therefore, that, even if the Government are not able to accept this Amendment, they will give an assurance that it is their intention to do all that is necessary for State aril private woodlands.
LORD GLENTANAR: I will not detain the Committee for more than a minute longer in supporting this Amendment, especially after what has been said by the two noble Lords who have spoken. I endorse all that they have said. It is impossible to have too much expert and experienced knowledge in the task which the Commissioners will have to undertake, especially in achieving a greater measure of success than has bee-, possible in the work of the Forestry Commissioners during the period between this war and the last war in seeing that the interests of forestry, considered purely as a timber-producing industry, are properly married with the interests of agriculture, amenity, preservation of the soil, and all else that has to be taken into consideration. Therefore I have great pleasure in supporting this Amendment, and I hope that it will be accepted and that the number of these specially trained and experienced Commissioner; may be increased from three to five.
5.20 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (THE EARL OF ROSEBERY): should like to thank my noble friend who moved the Amendment in place of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. I am grateful to him for his good wishes, which I shall endeavour to deserve, but I am afraid, in spite of that, that I shall have to resist the Amendment. I think there has been a certain amount of misunderstanding by the noble Lords who supported the Amendment, because it is not in the least intended that there should not be learned and efficient men on this Commission. The Commission is intended to be an efficient instrument for the execution of the Government's forestry policy, but if it is to be efficient it is important that the Ministers concerned should have freedom to choose the best men for the job. I am sure the noble Duke remembers that in the Act of 1919 there was no general provision for the inclusion of forestry experts in the Commission, except that it required, as the present Bill does, that one member should have "scientific attainments and a technical knowledge of forestry." Beyond that the only requirement in the Act was that there should be two members with knowledge of Scottish forestry. This was primarily designed for the protection of Scotland, and that protective measure is not now considered necessary. But I can assure the noble Duke that he has a not unsympathetic person in the present Secretary of State for Scotland when he asks that there should be a stronger representation of Scotland on the new Commission.
Other points that the noble Duke raised will be dealt with, I think, more faithfully in the Bill which we all hope will be passed in the next Parliament—a Bill for which, after all, this Bill is only intended to provide the machinery. I should like to say, in conclusion, how pleased I was to read in the newspapers to-day that His Majesty had conferred Peerages on Sir George Courthope and Mr. Quibell. I am not quite sure whether because they leave another place they necessarily retire from the Commission, but I am perfectly certain that they will be of the greatest assistance here in forestry matters.
THE EARL OF CARLISLE: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause I agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

THE "PALESTINE POST."
5.24 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Faringdon, I beg to put the first question which stands in his name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether it is a fact that the distribution of the newspaper the Palestine Post has been prohibited in camps in the Middle East despite an agreement reached with the military authorities; and if so, why.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD CROFT): My Lords, I have made inquiry, and I am informed that it is not a fact that this newspaper has been prohibited in camps in the Middle East.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Faringdon, I beg to ask the second question which stands in his name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether the police in Tel Aviv have prevented the sale on the streets there of the Palestine Post until such time as the Middle East Mail is also available.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, no it is not the case that the police have prevented the sale of the Palestine Post in Tel Aviv or in any place in Palestine.

DEATH SENTENCES IN GREECE.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Faringdon, I beg to ask the third question which stands in his name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they will represent to the Greek Government the inadvisability of carrying out the sentences of death passed on three men in connexion with killings
512
during the recent civil war in view of the present state of feeling in the country and the possibility of violent repercussions.]
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD WOOLTON): No, my Lords.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
5.27 p.m.
LORD WOOLTON: My Lords, perhaps you will allow me to make, for the convenience of the House, a statement on business next week. I think I ought to apologize to your Lordships for not having made it at the beginning of the sitting, when there were more Peers present. We propose on Monday, June II, to meet at the usual hour of two o'clock, when the principal business will be the Second Reading of the Housing (Temporary Provisions) and the Finance Bills; and the further stages of Bills at present before your Lordships. On Tuesday we propose to meet at three o'clock instead of the ordinary hour, in order to facilitate the attendance of those of your Lordships who will be present at the ceremonies in connexion with the presentation of the Sword of Honour to General Eisenhower. On that day we shall take the remaining stages of the Finance and Local Government (Boundary Commission) Bills, and the Second Reading of any Bill or Bills which may have come up to us from another place on Monday.
On Wednesday we shall meet at two o'clock, when we hope to be able to take the Second Reading of the Family Allowances Bill from another place. There is business on the Paper for that day in the names of Lord Winster and the noble Earl, Lord Cork, and I understand that the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, is proposing to initiate a debate on India that day, so we may look forward to a very full Parliamentary day. On Thursday we shall deal with a Bill which is expected to come here from another place to deal with the difficulties caused by the holiday season in certain parts of Lancashire and Scotland in connexion with the forthcoming General Election, and with the remaining stages of other Bills. There is also a question on the Paper in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rennell. On Friday we shall meet probably at some time in the forenoon for the purpose of

513
passing the Appropriation Bill through all its stages. This will be followed by a Royal Commission to deal with the various Bills which have been passed through Parliament and which are awaiting Royal Assent. The Prorogation of Parliament will then follow. May I remind your Lordships before we adjourn that we meet to-morrow at half past eleven?

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the Bill have been complied with.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

REIGATE CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, that the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the Committee having found that some of the Petitioners had no locus standi before them, and the opposition of the other Petitioners having been withdrawn.
Read and ordered to lie on the Table. The orders made on the 6th of -February and Thursday last discharged, and the Bill committed.

WARRINGTON CORPORATION BILL.
The King's consent in respect of his land revenues and in right of his Duchy of Lancaster signified, and the Bill reported with Amendments.
MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Reported without amendment and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
COLNE VALLEY WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
  PART-WORN TYRES.
  PART-WORN TYRES.
  WOOL POLICY.
  WOOL POLICY.